Topics: ISIS Brides, Coalition Immigration Policy, Pauline Hanson comments

PATRICIA KARVELAS: I want to bring in my political panel for today. Dave Sharma is a Liberal senator and the newly minted shadow assistant minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs. Josh Burns is the Labor MP and the special envoy for Social Housing and Homelessness. Welcome to both of you. Congrats, Dave.

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Thanks, Patricia.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Yeah, yeah. Congratulations, Dave. We've had breaking news this afternoon that the government and the federal government has temporarily banned one of these people in Syria from returning to Australia. Just, Dave, first to you. This is actually what the opposition was talking about yesterday. Clearly, the government's got advice on this one person and has issued this. Isn't this exactly the way it should be working?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Well, I think, um, clearly our security interests, the security interests of Australia and Australians who live here should be being put first here. I think the government has only acted because they've come under political pressure. I think if you look at their actions in the past they've tried to allow these people to return home on the quiet without declaring to the public who they are, whether they've been vetted, whether a security agency has made an active assessment about a temporary exclusion order or any other number of considerations. I think Australians are entitled to know if and when these people are returning and being repatriated and what measures are being taken or what measures are needed to protect the security of other Australians. Bearing in mind that these people have been... gone overseas to fight with Islamic State or accompanied people who were joining Islamic State and have been in effectively ISIS-run camp for the last nine or 10 years.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Yeah, I'm confused. That's exactly what the government is saying. I feel like the opposition's been trying to raise something and the government's saying, "We're stopping them coming." So where's the difference?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Well, I think where the government has been a little too acute here is, is what measures the government is, here taking to assess and screen these people or to actively facilitate them or not. Now, it's, there's been detail that has emerged in Senate estimates hearings over the past week about me-... past fortnight over meetings between defense officials, Save Children, Home Affairs officials and others, which suggests at least that there has been a higher level of facilitation than what the government is acknowledging. Now, if they, if they think it is the right thing to do, then I think the government should be upfront about that. I would just raise one more point though that I don't think has been canvassed. Anthony Albanese has been saying that, um, these people are being issued passports because it's the normal course of the law. Well, Section 14 of the Passports Act makes quite clear that there is a discretion to refuse the granting of a passport or a travel document if that person may prejudice the security of Australia or Australians. That discretion is there. That discretion, as far as I'm aware, has not been exercised.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay, I'll put that to you, Josh Burns. There is a discretion. Why not use it?

‍

JOSH BURNS: Well, Patricia, there's a, there's a few really important points that need to be made. The first one is, is that I haven't been briefed by our security agencies on each individual case. Unless I'm much mistaken, I don't think Dave has been either. So what, what needs to happen here is that each individual needs to be treated as an individual. And you don't group people as a collective, especially when there are minors in here.  Each person needs to be deemed and, and assessed as per what would happen under the previous government. And unless I'm much mistaken, there was repatriation under the previous government that was far more interventionist than what we're than what we're discussing here today, where we're not intervening in this particular case, or these cases. What, I would also say is that if someone breaks the law, then they should feel the consequences of that and their actions in accordance with the law. But we are... we are a country that respects the rule of law. We have, laws in this country that mean something. We are not here to do... to act on the whims of, of the Coalition or One Nation. We're here to act in accordance with our laws and in accordance with the security advice of our agencies, which in this instance has suggested or has issued to government advice around, issuing a temporary exclusion order for an individual, and we've acted on that advice.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay, I'll throw it back to you, Dave Sharma, with that very specific point. The Morrison government repatriated some of these people. That's true. That's factually correct.

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Yeah, so some of them did return to Australia, but it was after in my opinion and under... on my understanding, intensive process of assessment, vetting, and security measures. Now bear in mind, the people who are proposing to come out now are... they're the last Australians remaining in this camp, to my understanding. And it's clear that, they weren't repatriated earlier. They weren't eligible to be repatriated earlier. They weren't released earlier, because I would expect that they are probably the cohort of the highest concern.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay, I'll throw that back to you, Josh Burns.

‍

JOSH BURNS: Well, I mean, look but, like, to be honest Patricia, I have no idea because I haven't been briefed on these individuals. And like, Dave, have you been briefed on these individuals? And if you haven't, then it's just speculation and I don't think it's particularly helpful to have people just speculating on in, individuals of whether they're at more risk or less risk than the people who were repatriated under the Morrison government. We need to deal with facts. And I think, and I think that when we start, when we start grouping people in together, it sounds less like the Liberal Party and more like One Nation, and that's not particularly sophisticated and nor how we nor how we should be, managing these circumstances. The issue there and we should be doing it respectfully and with facts.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Dave Sharma?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Exactly, and I think it's been a fact free zone from the government. I mean, I think this is the issue, right? They haven't provided much information or assurance. They've tried to sweep this under the carpet at every opportunity. I think the public is entitled to know answers and all we in the Liberal Party are seeking to do is get those answers.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Yeah, I mean, just one further one on that, Dave Sharma. I mean, I've covered a lot of governments and usually there's a lot of language from your side of politics when you actually have power, that these things are for security agencies, that you can't reveal much of this information. Is that threshold different when it's a Labor government?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: No, no, I don't think we're asking for that. We're asking details about process, not about outcomes or about individuals. I think what people want to know is, what is the process that's being gone through to decide firstly, whether to issue these people with travel documents. As I said, the issuing of a passport, there is a discretion to refuse to grant a travel document. Uh, has ASIO had an opportunity, have our security agencies had an opportunity to look at all of this cohort or have they only managed to look at a few and we've only got one temporary exclusion order? How long do they need to do that? What are the steps that would be gone through to satisfy our security agencies, uh, that the security of Australians will not be compromised or endangered by these people arriving in Australia? Asking the processes be followed and asking the government to be transparent about what those processes are, I don't think is an unreasonable request.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay. I want to just change the topic if we can. Pauline Hanson's comments clearly have, uh, stirred a lot of rebuke and emotion about Muslims, saying they were no, uh, basically rebuking all Muslims. She's since walked them back a little, but not really entirely. Josh Burns, is that just... I mean, a little earlier Tim Wilson rebuked her, but said, this is her brand. This is what she does. Is, should we just ignore it? Like how do, what, what's your response to it? What, what do you, what do you say when these things are said?

‍

JOSH BURNS: Well, I am genuinely torn not to grant oxygen to Pauline Hanson's racist brain farts. But, I would also say that when something, when somebody says that and they are being taken seriously as a serious political force and the Liberal Party and the National Party are talking about joining them in coalition and swapping preference deals here in Victoria in the upcoming election, people need to take Pauline Hanson seriously when she says things like this. And I can't imagine if someone would've said, that there's no such thing as good Jewish people, or good Christian people, or good Hindu people or anyone. It, it's appalling and it's unacceptable and it's un-Australian. And Pauline Hanson, if she wants to be taken seriously in Australian politics, then she shouldn't be, going to the gutter with xenophobia. It's not what Australian politics should be, and the Liberal Party shouldn't be under the table playing footsies with her and looking at swapping preference deals if she's gonna behave like this.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Final word to you, Dave Sharma.

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Well, look, I think the comments were abominable and reprehensible. I think one of the great virtues in Australia is that we assess people as individuals on the basis of their character, and the idea that any ethnicity, religion or racial group should be stereotyped in this way, in a deeply hurtful and distressing way, I think is appalling.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay, well I have to ask quick question then. What about banning entire countries or regions, terms of visas, which is one of your immigration plans. Would that be problematic as well?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Well, firstly I, I dispute or refute the, the suggestion that it's one of our immigration plans. I don't know, certainly never policy.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: It is, I can, tell you I've spoken to senior, I can tell you, 'cause I've reported who are actively discussing it.

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Well, I'm not aware of those discussions. Every public commentary I've seen from senior Liberals has said they've never seen the document. I would be opposed to any such policy. Let me make that very clear.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay, so just, I want you to make it super clear one more time. You think the idea of creating a list, a blacklist, even of regions which are maybe hotbeds for terrorism, that's the wrong thing to do?

‍

DAVE SHARMA: Well, I think we should be assessing every application on the merits of the individual. Nothing more. Not their race, not their ethnicity, not their gender, not their sexual orientation, their ability to contribute to Australia and abide by Australian values. That's the only prism through which we should be looking at this issue.

‍

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay, I'll leave it there. Thank you to both of you.

‍

[ENDS]