Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash
Shadow Attorney-General
Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations
Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate
Senator James Paterson
Shadow Minister for Home Affairs and Cyber Security
TRANSCRIPT
Joint Press Conference
30 November 2023
Topics: High Court decision, detainee legislation
E&OE.
Senator Cash
I’m joined here today by Shadow Minister Senator James Paterson to talk about the government’s citizenship amendment bill. But before we do that, I would just like to address the comments that have been made in relation to the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton. These comments have clearly been endorsed by the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, because he has allowed senior ministers in his government to continue to repeat them. They are despicable, they are disgraceful, they are beneath contempt, and quite frankly, they are a reflection on Mr. Albanese and the type of leader he is. He will allow his ministers to say anything in order to protect his political interests. Let’s have a look at the record of the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton. Peter Dutton was sworn in as a police officer in Queensland in 1990, at approximately 20 years of age. Since then, Peter Dutton has spent each and every day of his life working to keep Australia and Australians safe. Peter Dutton understands and has a proven track record, that you work each and every day in his roles to protect Australia, and Australians. But not only that, when he was a detective, he was actually a member of the sex offenders’ squad. What did Peter Dutton do? He basically tracked sex offenders down and arrested them so that they could be prosecuted. They are the actions of a man who works every single day to keep Australia and Australians safe. He hunted them down and he arrested them to ensure that they could be prosecuted. Quite frankly, the claims that have been made in relation to the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, well and truly do not stand up to scrutiny. More than that, if Mr. Albanese does not front the Australian people today and personally apologise to Peter Dutton for endorsing these comments, then quite frankly, that’s all the Australian people need to know about Anthony Albanese. He will allow his ministers and his government to say anything to serve their own political purposes. So let’s see what Mr Albanese does. Now in relation to the bill that was introduced in the Senate today, Senator Paterson will take you through what the bill does. We have made it very clear that as the Coalition we fundamentally believe that the number one priority of a federal government must be the security of Australia and Australians. We are supportive of the passage of this bill, however, even in the short time that we have had it we have already identified some fundamental flaws. We believe the amendments that I have moved and Senator Paterson will move in the Senate will make this bill a better bill. Peter Dutton has today written to the Prime Minister, Mr. Albanese. He has clearly set out what these simple amendments are. They add to the list of offences for which a person’s citizenship can be stripped. Offences including the murder of Australians overseas, inciting terrorism in Australia, committing child sex offences overseas. I would have thought that it was pretty obvious that anyone who commits these offences repudiates their allegiance to Australia. So as I said, it’s now in Mr. Albanese’s hands. Peter Dutton has made it very clear – we are happy to work with the government to pass this bill and to pass this bill today. All we ask of the government is – like last time when we recognised the deficiencies in the first bill, we put forward six amendments, and the government accepted them – we put forward some amendments, Mr. Albanese is aware of them, we believe they make this bill a better bill. And if Mr Albanese is able to give us the green light, he can go ahead and accept Peter Dutton’s amendments, the bill can be dealt with today. I’ll get Senator Paterson to make some comments as well.
Senator Paterson
Thank you, Michaelia. As Michaelia said, the Coalition support in principle the restoration of the power to strip convicted terrorists of their citizenship where they have a dual citizenship. It is the power that we introduced and which the High Court has found to be invalid insofar as it is done by Minister. It’s important that power is restored through an application to the court. And we support the government’s intention to broaden the bill to also cover espionage and foreign interference. But as Michaelia said, we think it has some deficiencies. We think it is not sufficiently broad on the grounds that allows the Minister to apply to court to allow someone’s citizenship to be cancelled. And we have sought the support of the government for amendments to broaden that and written to the government to that effect today. We’re also prepared to move those amendments in the Senate if necessary. There’s a second serious issue with this bill, though, and that is that it does not address the historical terrorism caseload in this country. It does nothing to capture people like Abdul Benbrika, our most serious ever convicted terrorist offender who will be released into the community in a matter of weeks. Under the government’s proposed bill historical terrorist offenders like him can never have their citizenship stripped from them unless they go and commit another terrorist offense. We don’t think that’s good enough. We don’t propose to deal with that today because we don’t want to stand in the way of the passage of that bill. But we are asking that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has the opportunity to appropriately scrutinise this by way of an inquiry, and we will move for the bill to be sent to the committee for an inquiry after it has been legislated so any amendments can be constructed to deal with this issue. Because it is not acceptable that someone who planned and plotted to blow up the MCG on Grand Final day will soon be released from prison and be able to go about the community freely as an Australian citizen and never have that citizenship removed unless he commits another terrorist offense. Just finally, I want to comment on the total absence of the government’s readiness to bring forward a preventative detention scheme. It is almost 48 hours since the High Court handed down its reasoning, providing a green light for that scheme to be legislated. And it is now three weeks to the day when the Opposition first called on the government to introduce a preventative or continuing detention regime based on the high risk terrorist offenders framework. The government is making the same mistake it did three weeks ago when they weren’t ready for the High Court’s ruling. They didn’t have draft legislation ready to go then. They don’t have draft legislation ready to go now. We are prepared to sit as late as we need to tonight. We are prepared to come back tomorrow. We are prepared sit this weekend. We do not believe we should leave Canberra with this weekend without this having been dealt with. If the Minister is so relaxed about this that she thinks it’s not important and it can wait till next week. We don’t agree. We stand ready to work with the government on this to make sure it happens this week.
Journalist
Sorry, I just one on the continue detention bill and the then the citizenship bill, if I might. On the continued detention. Part of the reason that Benbrika has been released is because there was a report that got buried saying how we assess continuing detention orders is faulty it’s no better than chance, which is why we he was moved to continuing supervision order, what is being proposed by either yourself or by the government that is going to remedy that?
Senator Paterson
The easiest remedy to that would be for this bill to give the government the power to apply to a court to take Benbrika’s Australian citizenship off him, in which case he could be deported back to Algeria where he also holds citizenship. That is the cleanest way of dealing with this issue. We’re happy to look at amendments to the continuing detention regime if necessary. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has already examining that question. If the government wants to bring forward amendments on that, to allow Benbrika to remain behind bars, we’re absolutely willing to consider that. But the quickest pathway is to take his Australian citizenship off him. He has clearly violated the principle of Australian citizenship by his actions.
Journalist
On those citizenship laws, Senator Cash, you spoke in the Senate today about being able to apply them to people overseas. I understand it may not be an amendment…
Senator Cash
No, it is an amendment. Those offenses currently aren’t included and that is why we are saying someone who has dual citizenship and does that, that should be an offence. It is a repudiation of our values as Australians. It gives the minister the option, should the minister so choose, to make an application on that round. The minister does not have to undertake that option.
Journalist
If an offence is committed overseas and a person is still overseas, you’re arguing that they should be able to strip the citizenship if they’re still overseas? Because that’s what the High Court ruled was part of the constitutional reasons …
Senator Cash
In relation to the offense that is committed. Again, it is another tool in the minister’s armoury, should the minister wish to choose it. We want to make it as strong as possible. Based on legal advice, the minister would then determine whether or not they pursue that option.
Journalist
In your statement on Tuesday, you said that the High Court decision clearly applies to the single detainee, NZYQ. Now that’s misinformation, isn’t it? Because as a former Attorney-General, and aspiring minister in Senator Paterson’s case, you must know that the constitutional limit applies to everyone in NZYQ’s position, not just the single plaintiff.
Senator Cash
The facts of the case were in relation to in NZYQ. The order that was made was in relation to in NZYQ. What we have said is that it is up for the Albanese government to tell Australians the basis upon which they then released in excess of 140 hardcore criminals who have no right to be in Australia. We have said it is up to the government to explain why they did that.
Journalist
So you’re so you’re not saying it’s wrong to apply the new constitutional rule to the cohort? You just want them to explain why they did it?
Senator Cash
The order applied to one individual. The government then chose to release a cohort of individuals. We have said it is up to the government to explain why they did that.
Journalist
But we know why – it’s because they’re in the same position as the plaintiff. There was no real prospect of them being removed.
Senator Paterson
Professor Anne Twomey is quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald on this question today. And in her view, anyone who has the same circumstances as the applicant, NZYQ, must have the ruling applied to them. However, we know not everybody is in the exact same circumstances as NZYQ, as the High Court said in its judgment, it is significant that Australia has never successfully resettled a convicted child sex offender in a third country, and the government admitted in its pleadings on the 30th of May, that there was no prospect for him to be resettled. We know among that cohort of 141 people, there are people who have committed a range of crimes. There are also people who have not committed crimes but have violated the character provisions of the migration act and their visas cancelled. Is the government seriously arguing that those people are in the exact same circumstances as NZYQ, that they are equally hopeless a prospect of being resettled? If that’s the case, presumably the government is not now trying to find resettlement options for any of those hundreds of 141 people. And if that’s the case, they should explain so.
Journalist
Senator Paterson, on the historical terrorist offenders, the government has explained that the reason that they can’t be [INAUDIBLE]. What makes you confident that there is some kind of solution that remains constitutionally sound?
Senator Paterson
Based on the briefing we had from the government on Monday, where we had an opportunity to ask questions to ministers and officials, I don’t think they have adequately tested this proposition. I don’t think that adequately explored the available advice. And that’s exactly why the PJCIS should inquire into this. So, we have the time to consider legal advice from a range of perspectives. If the government has that advice, they can share it with us. If the Solicitor General has said that they should say so. But they haven’t shared that advice. And they haven’t made the Solicitor General available to us. And frankly, we’re just not willing to take them on trust, given the two weeks ago, they said their Migration Amendment Bill bridging visa conditions went as far as it possibly could, and then hours later agreed to six amendments from us, which they subsequently endorsed as constitutional. So we’re not going to be willing to take their first answer as the last answer.
Journalist
Will you still support the bill even if the amendments that you put up aren’t accepted?
Senator Paterson
We want to facilitate the passage of this bill today, but it requires the government to come to the table too. We’ve proposed very reasonable, very targeted amendments that could easily be passed. And we asked them to consider that and we’re waiting for the Prime Ministers answer.
Senator Paterson
So is that no, to that question?
Senator Paterson
We’re waiting to hear back from the Prime Minister, the Opposition Leader wrote to the Prime Minister at 9:25am this morning, we’ve not yet received a response. Until we receive responses, we’ll have to evaluate our position.
Journalist
Senator Paterson, you’re talking about the PJCIS looking at these amendments, but it’s already looking at the Citizenship Act. There’s a review underway already and it will look at these amendments if they pass?
Senator Paterson
No, the Parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security is looking at a different manner relating to this, in relation to the VERA-2 process of assessing whether someone is likely to reoffend once they’re released. We’re proposing that they look at this new amended bill as it as it is to be passed today, if it is passed today, to consider whether or not it can apply retrospectively to the historical terrorism caseload in this country. Because at the moment the government has no plan to deal with that and people such as Benbrika will be free to retain their Australian citizenship. We think a new reference to the committee is necessary.
Journalist
just on VERA-2, because if these rules go through this week, if VERA-2 still applied that just going to make anyone under continuing detention order able to challenge that court using Benbrika as precedence. I’m not talking about Benbrikas case in terms of stripping citizenship, but the court essentially in his case. So how does rushing these laws through with VERA-2 mitigate that?
Senator Paterson
There is no bill before the parliament that deals with continuing detention orders or extended supervision orders or high risk terror offenders at all other than as it relates to their citizenship. That’s a separate issue. As you’ve said and identified the PJCIS is looking into the VERA-2 to issue, how we assess how likely it is a terrorist would reoffend if they’re released into the community. And we’ll come back with a report in due course on that, but no amendment or bill before the parliament deals with that.
Journalist
Should that inquiry come back to that any indefinite detention order is sound?
Senator Paterson
We will look at any sensible recommendations the PJCIS puts forward.
Journalist
Apologies if you’ve covered this already, but we’re waiting for the Victorian court to hand down a decision on Benbrika in the next three weeks. Why would you try and legislate something around his citizenship? When there’s a decision pending?
Senator Paterson
That decision relates to whether or not he continues to be detained. We’re talking about whether or not he should continue to retain Australian citizenship. We have a couple of avenues here to protect the community. One is to keep him in prison. Hopefully that’s successful. If it’s not, it would be good to have the ability to restrict citizenship of him so he can be deported.
Journalist
Just to get a clear answer on this. Will the Coalition support the bill or not? Citizenship bill? If it’s amendments aren’t accepted today?
Senator Paterson
The ball is in Mr. Albanese court. We have written to him this morning on very reasonable terms with very sensible amendments. We don’t know what his response is, he has not yet provided a response. As soon as he’s done so, we will carefully consider what we do next.
Journalist
Senator, didn’t the Coalition support the bill in the House?
Senator Paterson
Yes, we supported its passage in the house. And we facilitated it to be introduced in the Senate. We exempted from the cut off, so that it could be debated. We’re debating it right now. We’re being constructive on this. We think it’s a necessary law, we just want to make sure it deals with the problems it should.
Journalist
Some constitutional experts have said that any continuing detention and measures have to be assessed case by case and given you acknowledge that there’s quite a spectrum of offenses, or issues, does the Australian public need to be prepared for the fact that not all 141 of these people are going to end up back in detention?
Senator Paterson
Well, we already know of the 141 people who have been released, the Immigration Minister only decided to apply electronic monitoring to 138 of them. So he’s obviously in possession of information which suggests that at least three of them are not a danger to the community. We don’t have the rest of the information about the rest of that cohort. We don’t know what other offenses or how many of them have been convicted of offenses. Only the government’s has that information. We have always said that a preventative or continuing detention order regime would apply and should apply to the highest risk cohort, and only a court can ultimately decide on the application of the government who should be detained under that regime.
Journalist
So I’m gonna kind of go back to the start. I just want to be absolutely clear about this one so that I don’t misrepresent your position when it comes to the citizenship stripping laws. Are you saying that only people on Australian soil can have their citizenship stripped? Or are you saying that the court should be able to determine that Australian dual citizens overseas will be able to have their citizenship stripped?
Senator Cash
If someone who commits an offence in various circumstances, one of them is rapes a child or a person overseas, if the minister receives advice that it is appropriate to make an application on that basis, then that is the basis upon which the minister would proceed. Remember, this must be done by application of the minister – it is a court that ultimately will determine whether or not there was a stripping of the citizenship.
Recent Comments