June 2, 2024
ANDREW CLENNELL: All right. Joining me live now is the Shadow Home Affairs Minister, James Paterson. James Paterson, thanks for your time. I might start with my revelations at the top of the show that the Prime Minister's Department asked the Home Affairs Department to attempt to find a way to stop deporting so many criminal New Zealanders had been here the majority of their lives, and that Home Affairs looked at restricting this change to New Zealanders but felt they couldn't. What do you make of all that?
JAMES PATERSON: Well just shows that the Prime Minister misled the Parliament in the House of Representatives this week when he disavowed all responsibility for this direction and in fact said “it's not my direction”, which is really reminiscent of “I don't hold a hose”. And tried to sheet all the blame onto Andrew Giles and make it his responsibility. I think that's a very ominous sign for Andrew Giles, but it's clear that the Prime Minister was the prime mover here because he announced it at a press conference with Jacinda Ardern, who then went on to say that this was exactly what New Zealand had been asking for. So it's very clear the Prime Minister was asked by Jacinda Ardern, just as the prior government was as well, he was weak and gave in. And the horror that has followed is the Prime Minister's responsibility.
CLENNELL: He could argue, I suppose, he told his department to get Home Affairs to fix it. He wasn't involved in the actual drafting of the direction. What would you say to that?
PATERSON: Well, of course not. The Prime Minister and his department are very rarely involved in drafting the detail of a direction issued by a minister. But it was the Prime Minister which instigated this new direction. It was completely unnecessary because the previous directions were adequate, and were managing these issues. But as a result of issuing this new direction, we know a whole lot of dangerous, serious criminals, including child sex offenders, were allowed to stay in our country who never normally would have been allowed to stay in our country. They always would have been deported. And so the Prime Minister has to take personal responsibility for that and not just fit up Andrew Giles as the fall guy here.
CLENNELL: Okay. What do you see Andrew Giles culpability? And what's the extent of Anthony Albanese's in your view?
PATERSON: We'll look, both. They are both culpable, it was Andrew Giles who signed the direction, it was Andrew Giles who ignored a warning from his department that this would lead to an increase in the number of visas decisions being overturned and allowing people to stay. So he's got very serious responsibility here. It was him and his office who apparently failed to notice that the department was stopping referring a whole lot of cases for him to look into. But the Prime Minister's the head of the government. He's the one who agreed this with Jacinda Ardern, and he's the one who instructed the Department of Home Affairs, and his Minister for Immigration to change it. So the Prime Minister should take responsibility and the least he can do is sack his Immigration Minister. But he should also take personal responsibility here.
CLENNELL: What should he do then?
PATERSON: Well, they've done at least one good thing, which is acknowledge that the Direction 99 never should have been issued, and they're now going to have to reissue it. But that only came after days of defending Direction 99, blaming the AAT, blaming the Home Affairs Department, trying to shift responsibility. I mean, before the election, the Prime Minister said he would show up, he would take responsibility and would fix the problems. Well, he hasn't shown up. He's not taking responsibility and he caused the problems. So really, I mean, the Prime Minister needs to toughen up when it comes to national security and community safety. He actually has to put Australians and our safety first before trying to appease any bilateral partner, even a close one like New Zealand.
CLENNELL: I mean, Andrew Giles actually cancelled the visas in the case of these criminals that you raised, didn't he? It's a tribunal, which over turned those decisions and he's looking to cancel them again.
PATERSON: No, he didn’t, no, that's wrong Andrew.
CLENNELL: Okay. We'll take me through what happened?
PATERSON: What happened here is the department or the minister's delegate cancelled the decisions, and then the AAT overturned them. Now, your confusion is understandable because the Prime Minister doesn't understand this either. Yesterday at his press conference, he said that the AAT overturn decisions of the minister. The AAT can't overturn decisions of the minister. They have no power to do so. They can overturn decisions of the department. And after they do so, typically, the minister then intervenes to protect the community by re-cancelling the visas. But that didn't happen in this instance. I mean, this is a government that's got no idea what it's talking about when it comes to community safety.
CLENNELL: Alright, well the government spent last week pulling out many examples of times when you were in government that vile offenders were allowed to stay in Australia because of their ties to the community. There are AAT decisions there that did happen, didn't it, as well?
PATERSON: Well, you're right, the government spent time last week instructing the Department of Home Affairs and impartial public servants to engage in a dirt digging exercise on their predecessors because they were under pressure, it was totally and completely inappropriate. They should never have done so.
CLENNELL: But to the point, it happened didn't it?
PATERSON: The AAT is capable of making dumb decisions. But Peter Dutton intervened more often personally than any other Minister for Immigration or Home Affairs since federation, and cancelled 6,300 visas. And what is the allegation here, Andrew? That Peter Dutton is soft on foreign criminals? Does anybody seriously believe that? Do you believe that? I mean, this is a guy who cancelled visa’s over breakfast in the morning. I don't think it's going to be a very successful line of argument to run to say that Peter Dutton, of all people, is soft on foreign criminals.
CLENNELL: Well, let me quote the PM to you and you can react to this. He said the previous directions all had the in as well. A high level of tolerance for offenders with long ties to Australia and under the leader of the opposition who was the Minister for Home Affairs. Some 1300 offenders of serious issues were released, including 102 sex offenders, 60 for child sex offenders, four people who are either murderers or involved and connected with murders. So what's your response to that?
PATERSON: My response is that Peter Dutton has a very strong record. He cancelled more visas than any other Immigration or Home Affairs minister in history, and that the directions issued under the previous government did not put ties to the Australian community as the primary consideration. But the direction under this government did. They elevated this to become a primary consideration, and they inserted new language in that primary consideration, which said that regardless of the level of offending, if someone has been here since their formative years then considerable weight should be given to that. That's exactly why you've seen very serious violent sex offenders, including a man who offended against 26 women and children being allowed to stay in our community by the AAT. Now we didn't do that, Anthony Albanese and Andrew Giles do that.
CLENNELL: The government also says they're abolishing the AAT, and it was someone appointed by the former Liberal George Brandis, who made some of these decisions, including one involving the multiple sex offender Charles William Davidson. What's your reaction to that?
PATERSON: Abolishing the AAT will have absolutely no bearing on this at all, because the ART which will replace it is exactly the same body with a different name, which will be also obliged to follow the directions of the government. So unless they get their act together and repeal Direction 99 and issue a new one, nothing will change. But the further point to make here Andrew, is we know that two former Labor MPs on the AAT, including Anna Burke, a former speaker of the House of Representatives for the Labor party, was involved in making these decisions. Is he seriously saying it's the Liberal Party's fault that Labor MPs on the AAT let hardened criminals stay in our community?
CLENNELL: I wanted to ask you about this revelation around the use of drones to monitor migration detainees. The opposition has some scepticism about this. It's my understanding it is occurring. Does that surprise you?
PATERSON: Well, there's a couple of issues here. One, either Andrew Giles accidentally and casually disclosed a previously secret drone surveillance program operating domestically in Australia in a Sky news interview with your colleague Kieran Gilbert. Or he made it up and it's not actually happening at all. And in a fresh statement provided by the Department of Home Affairs to SBS, I understand yesterday afternoon, they refer to using aerial surveillance to look at people's, locations and other buildings in the area. You don't need a drone to do that. That sounds like satellite imagery. It sounds like, frankly, something a 12 year old would get on Google Earth. So no questions have been answered here. The AFP denies that they're using it, and they say they're not aware of it, despite being at the heart of Operation Aegis. Several state police forces have denied using it. So really, what on earth is going on here? And why won't Andrew Giles be upfront about whether or not he just made this up or he accidentally revealed a secret drone program?
CLENNELL: Alright, I'm just changing tac here. On Friday night, the Home Affairs Minister, Clare O'Neill, posted that Ticketek had advised that data belonging to their customers has been stolen. There wouldn't be many of us who haven't used Ticketek. This is becoming more and more common this isn't it?
PATERSON: It certainly is. And this does appear to be, at least in scale, a very serious attack. The level of information being provided at this stage looks like it is minimal, thankfully, but it is a very large number of people who are likely to be affected by this. It's very important that companies are up front about this and that the government gets its act together in responding to this to protect Australians. They need to make sure that Australians have all the avenues available to them if they need to, to replace any identity documents, that they are able to protect their identity and they understand the spear phishing and other attacks that are now likely to be targeted towards them.
CLENNELL: All right. I wanted to ask you about what Richard Marles said about the relationship with China. He says the government's not weak. Premier Li is visiting. He says he's called out the Defence Minister for the Chinese military's actions. Do you still think he's weak? He says you guys couldn't even pick up the phone to China.
PATERSON: Well, Richard Miles has finally done a weeks later the absolute bare minimum, which is raise an issue of very serious, unprofessional, unsafe conduct by the People's Liberation Army against Australian personnel which put their lives in danger. That's the bare minimum that any Australian government should do. I thought it was very interesting in his interview with you, Andrew, that he said that the previous government didn't offer “respect” to the Chinese government. Now, that is straight out of the Chinese Communist Party talking points. That's exactly the arguments that they ran. But it should never be endorsed by an Australian government. And if Richard Marles believes that the previous government didn't show sufficient respect to the Chinese government, he should specify exactly what he means by that. Was it calling out Chinese foreign interference in our democracy? Was it calling out Chinese malign conduct in the South China Sea? Was it calling out horrific human rights abuses in China? He should say which one of those things didn't show sufficient respect to the Chinese government, and why we should show respect by silencing and censoring ourselves, because that is an act of weakness.
CLENNELL: Do you think Premier Li should come here then, or we should disinvite him?
PATERSON: No. I think dialogue actually is important, but we have to use the opportunity provided by dialogue to stand up for Australia.
CLENNELL: He says he is, but James Paterson, he says he is.
PATERSON: Well, he finally has done so with his counterpart. But why didn't the Prime Minister do so with his counterpart in San Francisco last year, when we learnt about the incident involving HMAS Toowoomba and the sonar hit on Australian Navy divers?
CLENNELL: Well, he's never, he's never, the PM has never admitted he didn't raise that. He's never said he didn't raise that.
PATERSON: He's invented a convention of international relations which he himself doesn't adhere to, which is he said he can never talk about discussions with foreign leaders except Benjamin Netanyahu, who he's very happy to talk about the context of his private conversations with him. He can't have it both ways. The Prime Minister invents these conventions for political convenience, either you never talk about your discussions with foreign leaders or you do, not when it suits you.
CLENNELL: Just finally, James Paterson, can I get a reaction from you to the Trump verdict and what it means for the United States?
PATERSON: Well, look, there's very little I can add, Andrew, to the extensive commentary already out there. These are domestic legal matters for the United States. It is obviously a very hard fought issue. And it will continue to be, until the election. But my very strong view is, that Australia's equities in the United States Australia alliance are so deep that whoever is in the White House after the election in November, we will continue to have a very strong relationship with the United States, which is in our national interest.
CLENNELL: James Paterson, thanks so much for your time this morning.
PATERSON: Thanks, Andrew.
ENDS
