May 30, 2024
TOM CONNELL: Joining the panel now live Shadow Home Affairs Minister James Paterson, thanks for your time. I'm not sure if you caught that interview, but Abul Rivzi, you know, made a point of saying that the protection of the community could be a priority. But you can still retain a factor of having ties to Australia. Is that something that would be fair enough to contemplate in the next direction, the next iteration.
JAMES PATERSON: Well under the previous government community protection was the primary factor and ties to Australia were a secondary factor. And this government elevated ties to Australia as a primary factor. And they added a new section under that primary factor, which said that significant weight should be given to someone's ties to Australia, if they'd been here since their formative years, quote "regardless of the level of their offending." That is opening the door to the AAT for these serious criminals to stay. It doesn't matter how bad your offending is, if you are here since your formative years, you get to stay. And that's why the horror that we have seen has been unleashed.
CONNELL: I guess the question is, can you go too far the other way? So the Jovicic case, I know it's an old one, but I want to talk in the reality, not the hypothetical. He came to Australia at the age of two. He was he for 36 years. He was deported to Serbia. So he went back. He couldn't speak the language. Didn't have anyone in the country really to support him. There's no welfare. He was destitute and sleeping rough. And actually, under the Howard government, he was able to come back. Does that example show that you can go too far? You need to be wary of cases like that and have some element of ties to Australia in their.
PATERSON: Tom, I think it was in high school when that happened, so I'm not super across the details of that specific case. But I think the principle here is important, which is if you are a non citizen of Australia and you come here on a visa, you are here as a guest and we attach conditions to your visit to Australia. One of those conditions is please don't
murder anyone, please don't rape anyone, please don't molest any children. And if you break that, I've got to say, I think the presumption should be pretty heavily weighted towards cancelling your visa regardless.
CONNELL: He was involved in robbery, so none of those things.
PATERSON: Yeah, you're right. So not every crime is as serious as a rape and a murder. But serious crimes, absolutely I think we should.
CONNELL: Serious crime is a black line. But you would have a understanding that there are cases where you go, In an ideal world they wouldn't be here, but what life are we sentencing them to otherwise? I think that plays a factor?
PATERSON: Tom, we managed to find a balance of this under the previous government, right. We dealt with these issues in a careful way. And yes, it did caused some annoyance for Jacinda Ardern, but I'm sorry, that's the price you have to pay for being Prime Minister sometimes, which is not all your bilateral relationships are going to be completely smooth if you stand up for Australia and if you put community safety here first.
TRUDY MCINTOSH: You've sat through a lot of the Senate estimates this week. You've heard directly from Stephanie Foster, the Secretary of Home Affairs. She said at estimates, it was our error not to provide these AAT cases to the minister's office. In your assessment, should she be sacked as the secretary?
PATERSON: I think this is a misdirection by the government to try and get a public servant to jump on the political grenade for them. They've got to take responsibility here. Stephanie Foster wasn't the one who was negotiating with Jacinda Ardern about changing this. Stephanie Foster wasn't the one who signed this paper. That was Andrew Giles. It's political leadership who have to take responsibility here. Now, there may well be other issues in the department that have to be looked at. But actually, in a Westminster system, ministers are supposed to take responsibilities for their departments, too. And neither Clare O'Neil nor Andrew Giles have done that.
MCINTOSH: But is that a fundamental issue? If you've asked your department, give me these cases. He says he had some process in place and they were not doing that. She's admitted now publicly that that didn't happen under her. Why should her position be tenable? How if you were elected, could you possibly keep Stephanie Foster?
PATERSON: Well, the question I asked that still hasn't been answered is why didn't the Minister and his office notice that they weren't getting these cases anymore? If he's asked the serious cases to be referred and they are not being referred, then that would be obvious. I mean, this is a regular meeting. These are regular referrals. They happen every day, if not every week. So he should have started asking questions about what's happening to these cases. And he didn't do that. He's responsible for that.
MCINTOSH: Can I ask you one other question when it comes to this other cohort, the NZYQ cohort we're being told they've being constantly monitored Andrew Giles tells Kieran just today, that also includes drones. Have you heard any evidence publicly that that is something that is being used today?
PATERSON: I was startled by that because only yesterday I was asking the Border Force Commissioner, Michael Outram, what is the process for monitoring these people if they have been removed from having an ankle bracelet, we know of at least two murderers and 26 sex offenders have. He didn't talk about drones. He didn't talk about any other method. So this is news to I think everybody watching this. I think the minister should clarify what's happening here. Do we have drones above people's houses? Are they following them down the street? What is going on here?
KIERAN GILBERT: Don't you welcome that though, if that is an extra added layer of monitoring?
PATERSON: I want to understand actually what's happening here, how these are being used. And we don't have any clarity on that. And until that, I can't say whether or not it's a good thing or not, I want to know the details.
GILBERT: Mr. Giles also says that he has cancelled eight visas, there are 30 in front of him. Emergency reviews happening that could be done within the next day or two. That that's a good thing, isn't it? That he's overturning some of the lack of common sense.
PATERSON: Finally yes, but I mean The Australian is now up to a count I think of 60 suspect visas that were granted by the AAT. What has happened to those cases? Is he reviewing those too and when is he going to cancel them?
MCINTOSH: Can I ask you, Andrew Giles also said today it's not possible to have ankle bracelets on everyone, but that can't be done under the law. You can see that that's the case?
PATERSON: I find that very difficult to understand when it comes to a murderer or a sex offender, maybe for some less serious crimes. But these are the most heinous crimes you could commit.
MCINTOSH: Did they explain at estimate why these two people aren't wearing them?
PATERSON: Not adequately. I asked the Border Force commissioner repeatedly, what are the countervailing factors? And he didn't go into any specifics at all. So we've got no idea, but I can't understand it.
ANDREW CLENNELL: Do you think immigration should be in cabinet? Are you surprised that such a junior minister, an inexperienced minister, has it?
PATERSON: Yes. The Shadow Minister for Immigration, Dan Tehan, is in Shadow Cabinet. And so following that, if we win, he'll be in cabinet. And I think it is a big portfolio and an important portfolio. And we've seen what happens when it's trusted with a junior minister. But I don't want to lose focus on the Prime Minister here. I mean, he said in question time today, “it's not my direction.” Frankly, that is his “I don't hold a hose” moment. It is his direction. He is the one who agreed with Jacinda Ardern. He's the one who instructed Andrew Giles to do this. Andrew Giles might have signed the paper, but the Prime Minister was holding the pen. So he should take responsibility.
CLENNELL: You think Giles is the patsy in this?
PATERSON: Of course he is. Do you think Andrew Giles came up with this idea himself? He wasn't sitting in the meetings with Jacinda Ardern. She was the one badgering the Prime Minister. And he's the one who gave in because he's a weak Prime Minister, particularly on national security.
MCINTOSH: Prime Minister said explicitly in Question Time, that she didn't raise a direction. She's not sitting in these bilateral meetings dreaming up direction 99. You don't get into the detail in those meetings.
PATERSON: She might not specifically reference the number of the direction, but she was raising the issue of New Zealanders being deported to Australia. We know that because they talked about it at a joint press conference afterwards. I mean, it's untenable for the Prime Minister not to agree that he's responsible here. The brief released by the Department of Home Affairs says, as agreed by the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of New Zealand. I mean, how clear can it get?
CLENNELL: And there's this timing with Ardern leaving as well. Do you see any connection there? She leaves office two days after the order signed. Albanese spoken to her in the week prior.
PATERSON: Look, I don't know. We don't have any visibility of that. What we do know is that they repeatedly raised this issue with us. We said, sorry, community safety comes first. And Albanese caved in, and he's got to explain about his relationship with Jacinda Ardern.
CONNELL: You spoke before around Dan Tehan would be the Immigration Minister in a new Coalition government. You'd be the Home Affairs Minister. Stephanie Foster would be your secretary. Would you have faith in her competence?
PATERSON: As you would know, Tom, secretaries of departments of matters for Prime Ministers, and I'm sure Peter Dutton will have some strong views about that.
CONNELL: Have you had your own thoughts about her competence?
PATERSON: Look, I'm concerned about what's going on in Home Affairs, there's no way of downplaying that. And the evidence given in estimates this week did not fill me with confidence.
MCINTOSH: You said at length around what you think about Andrew Giles and the Prime Minister. Fair enough. But you have genuine concerns about how the department separate to that, has handled all of this?
PATERSON: Well, how could you not viewing this? But the key point here is Ministers are responsible for their department. Political leadership is essential here.
CONNELL: Sometimes leadership is saying the Secretary isn't doing a good job though.
PATERSON: Yeah. And that's up to the Prime Minister. He chooses, and he hires and fires secretaries.
GILBERT: Would you bring back Pezzullo?
PATERSON: That's above my pay grade. I wonder, though, whether some in the government have been missing him this week.
CONNELL: Okay. Interesting line to finish on, James Paterson appreciate your time today. Thank you.
ENDS
