July 28, 2024
.png)
ANDREW CLENNELL: All right. Well, joining me live is the Shadow Home Affairs Minister, James Paterson. James Paterson, thanks for your time. And will you need a different title after today? Given that interview with Richard Marles where he didn't rule out disbanding, that they are going to disband the Department of Home Affairs.
JAMES PATERSON: The Anthony Albanese government and the Labor party have done enough damage to the Home Affairs portfolio and our national security already. I hope they don't do any further damage. They dismantled the portfolio when they came to office by taking key agencies like the Federal Police and the Intelligence Commission out of the portfolio and sent it to the Attorney General's portfolio. And it's caused chaos and confusion in national security policy ever since, as Clare O'Neil and Mark Dreyfus engage in serious fights. No matter what the government does, we will continue to have a Home Affairs portfolio as it was when we were in government, and it's my intention to seek the restoration of that portfolio to its former glory, so that, again, we can have all our operational and policy agencies on national security working together in a seamless way.
CLENNELL: Well, you heard what he said though. I mean, it does seem to me, he certainly didn't deny they're looking at disbanding Home Affairs. They've already sacked the former head, Michael Pezzullo. It looks like it's heading that way, doesn't it?
PATERSON: Well, it certainly didn't fill me with any confidence, Andrew, I think you're right to observe that. But nor has the performance of either of the ministers in that portfolio, Clare O'Neil or Andrew Giles, in the last two years. I think a starting point would be to sack both of them and get new people in those portfolios. But unless the portfolio is restored, unless those agencies come together again, we're going to continue to see things falling through the cracks. We're going to continue to see fights between the Attorney-General and the Home Affairs Minister whoever they may be over things like terrorism listings, which has led to a massive blow-out in the time taken to list terrorist organisations, and it puts the Australian community in jeopardy.
CLENNELL: I'll get to that story by my colleague Olivia Caisley in a moment, but let's stick to the reshuffle for now. What will it say if Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles are moved on today. Won't it say the Prime Minister is doing the right thing.
PATERSON: Well it will say he got it wrong when, after the election, he appointed Clare O'Neil, someone who had demonstrated no interest or expertise in national security to her first portfolio in cabinet as the Home Affairs Minister without any experience. And Andrew Giles, someone who has spent his public life fighting against strong border protection policies to protect the community as the Immigration Minister. When you think about it, they were two crazy decisions and it would be an admission of failure, an admission of fault by the Prime Minister if they are moved today. But I think a lot of Australians would be hoping for that, given the chaos that we've seen over the last two years. We learnt yesterday that these two ministers have released 500 people from immigration detention in their first year in office before the High Court's decision on NZYQ. No wonder there's been such an increase in crime by former detainees against Australians on their watch.
CLENNELL: Who do you think should be getting these portfolios, the Home Affairs portfolio or whatever it's called? Should it be an experienced Minister or, as has been speculated, a less experienced Minister like Murray Watt?
PATERSON: Well, as bad as Clare O'Neil has been in the portfolio, I fear that Murray Watt would be even worse. This is a person who for many years railed against not just boat turn backs, but offshore processing. He's someone who, in 2015 at the Labor party's national conference, moved a motion with Andrew Giles to say that the Labor party should oppose those policies. Now, those policies were two of the three key pillars of the successful Operation Sovereign borders policies to stop the boats. The other was temporary protection visas, and the government has already abolished that. So if you put Murray Watt in the portfolio, it's a vote of no confidence in Operation Sovereign Borders. It's a signal to the people smugglers that they should again test the resolve of the Australian government, as they have been doing over the last two years. We are now up to 19 boats that have attempted to make the journey to Australia in the last two years, at least three of which have made it all the way to the Australian territory or mainland, dropped people off and returned again and that is unheard of over the last few decades of Australian border protection policy.
CLENNELL: Yes. So 393 unauthorised arrivals on 19 boats since Labor came to power. Well, at least I guess, they're either being turned around or sent to Nauru. Isn't the government achieving some sort of deterrent there?
PATERSON: Well, I don't think it's mission success when boats make it to the Australian mainland. I think that's a failure of Operation Sovereign Borders. And no wonder when this government has consistently failed to deliver either aerial surveillance or maritime patrol days. Aerial surveillance is down 20% on their watch, and maritime patrol days are down 12%. No wonder boats are getting through when they are not adequately supporting the Australian Border Force to deliver that surveillance and deterrence to people smugglers. And that is something that Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles and frankly, the Prime Minister have to have to own. It's not going to get any better if Murray Watt is in the portfolio. There was another report today that said that Tony Burke might be getting the portfolio.
CLENNELL: Indeed.
PATERSON: I really hope that is not true. He was a failed Immigration minister from the Rudd-Gillard era.
CLENNELL: Didn't he reintroduce the Pacific solution? Tony Burke? When Kevin Rudd came back in?
PATERSON: He along with his colleagues, including Chris Bowen and others, presided over, tens of thousands of people on 800 boats making the journey to Australia and 1200 people dying at sea.
CLENNELL: Mr. Paterson, he reintroduced, Chris Bowen maybe he could make that case, but didn't once Tony Burke arrived, didn't he, reintroduce the Pacific solution, which would be in line with Coalition policy?
PATERSON: Andrew, if you want to make the case, or if the Labor party wants to make the case that these guys were a great success in border protection policy in the Rudd-Gillard era, knock yourselves out. I'm very happy to have this debate every day between now and the election. Australians know what an absolute wreckage it was under that government and they're heading down that pathway again. This is how it started last time. They undid the successful policies of the previous government. The boats started coming again and lo and behold, detention centres had to be reopened. Children were put into detention. It was an utter disaster. And putting Tony Burke back anywhere near that portfolio would be a shocking signal to people smugglers.
CLENNELL: What do you make of this report of a drug running operation, then being run by a detainee at Villawood Immigration Detention Centre?
PATERSON: Well Andrew I would call for Clare O'Neil to resign, but I think she's not going to have much time to do that if the Prime Minister sacks her this afternoon. I mean, it is extraordinary that we allegedly have an immigration detainee in a detention centre running an enormous drug smuggling operation, dealing with hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of hard drugs and apparently doing so with not one, not two, but three mobile phones in detention. This is a shocking failure of immigration detention on this Minister's watch yet again, just like the release of dangerous detainees into the community, just like direction 99, just like on border protection. The least the Prime Minister can do is put some new ministers in. And frankly, both Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles should be going to the backbench. They shouldn't be dumped on any other portfolio, whether it's Housing or Veterans Affairs or Defence Material, as speculated for both of them in the media over the last few days. Both portfolios deserve better than failed ministers.
CLENNELL: What do you make of the fact that it is pretty minimalist this reshuffle? Then? Do you think any other senior ministers should be moved on? I mentioned to the deputy PM, Chris Bowen, for example.
PATERSON: What's a strange boast of the Prime Minister, the stability he's had in the ministerial portfolios. Frankly, I don't think most Australians care about some politician that they have never heard of having a job for a bit longer. What they care about is results. And when you look at the cost of living and particularly energy prices, I don't think the Australian people are lining up to thank the Prime Minister for keeping Chris Bowen in the portfolio. I was in Bennelong this week with our candidate, Scott Yung, and we visited a cafe. That cafe owner told us that the quarterly bill in the last 18 months has doubled, from about $3,000 a quarter to almost $7,000 a quarter. Now, that is Chris Bowen's responsibility. That has happened on his watch. And I don't think that cafe owner or any other Australians struggling to pay their rising electricity bill is going to be thanking the Prime Minister for his political stability.
CLENNELL: I wanted to ask about this story from my colleague Olivia Caisley now, where she reports a delay in declaring the Houthi organisation a terrorism organisation. Can you take us through your concerns on this?
PATERSON: Well, this would have to be one of the world's slowest terrorist listings ever. The Houthis are a terrorist organisation. I wrote to the government in January asking them to list them. The Biden administration listed them in January, but they took nearly six months to make a decision to list the Houthis. And in the statement of reasons tabled by the department to the Intelligence Committee, they set out the process. And there were extraordinary and inexplicable delays throughout that process. Clare O'Neil at one point took six weeks to consider the advice whether the Houthis should be listed. By contrast, when Karen Andrews listed Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. She did so after receiving the department's advice in one day. Throughout that process, between Clare O'Neil and Mark Dreyfus, there are further delays. The Prime Minister took a month before he decided to write to state and territory leaders. There were further delays before they announced this decision. I mean, it is a bizarre, you know, process that does not give Australians any confidence that this government is on top of the counterterrorism challenges that we face. And it is either due to more ongoing fighting between Mark Dreyfus and Clare O'Neil, or due to the domestic politics that the government was afraid that listing the Houthis would have some kind of political backlash.
CLENNELL: We've seen this Hezbollah attack on the Golan Heights overnight. The government says it's worried about this war expanding to Hezbollah and Israel, which is why they say they put out this statement, the PM with Canada and New Zealand leaders on Friday calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Right before this NSW ALP conference debate on the issue where they call for a Palestinian state. What's your reaction to the attack last night? The statement and the resolution at ALP NSW conference?
PATERSON: Andrew, I think you got it right when you pointed out that this statement was put out on the eve of the conference, that's no coincidence. And frankly, the Prime Minister should not be co-opting foreign leaders into his domestic and internal political management on Israel-Palestine. It should be decided in our national interest. I'm very concerned by the attack, reported overnight, allegedly by Hezbollah into Israel, which apparently struck a soccer field and killed ten people, including children. Israel will respond, and they are well within their rights to respond, because Hezbollah is a listed terrorist organisation that is operating in southern Lebanon in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which was adopted in 2006, which says that all the territory south of the Litani River should be demilitarised. Well it is not demilitarised. It has tens of thousands of Hezbollah rockets, and fighters. They have been firing missiles into northern Israel for months. I thought it was absolutely extraordinary when you asked him before, that the Deputy Prime Minister, instead of choosing to target his criticism at the listed terrorist organisation Hezbollah or their proxy sponsor Iran, instead gave Israel yet another public moral lecture about how it's their job not to escalate just after Israeli children have been killed in Hezbollah rocket fire. Frankly, this government's priorities are all wrong when it comes to these issues. It's a totally unbalanced approach, and they should stop their focus on domestic politics and instead stand up for our national interest.
CLENNELL: Benjamin Netanyahu's address to Congress was controversial this week in the U.S. Do you think he hit the right note?
PATERSON: I think he gave a very strong speech, and I think he very clearly outlined the rationale for why Israel continues to seek the removal of Hamas from Gaza, because they will not be peace for the people of Gaza or the border Palestinian population, or the people of Israel, while Hamas remains in charge. And we should never forget that there are still Israeli hostages held in Gaza to this day. And that's why I thought it was a disappointing for the Prime Minister to be giving a public lecture to them on Friday night, releasing a statement on Shabbat by no coincidence, I'm sure. To tell them that they should have a ceasefire while also saying that Hamas should be removed from power. How does the Prime Minister think Hamas is going to be removed from power, if not by the Israeli Defence Forces?
CLENNELL: Shadow Home Affairs Minister James Paterson, thanks so much for your time.
PATERSON: Thank you.
ENDS
