Subjects: National security and security of our community; same-sex marriage plebiscite.
E&EO…………………………………………………………………………………………..
JOURNALIST:
Minister, the reports this morning that a number of people who were potentially going to come to Australia under that quota of 12,000 may have had adverse security findings, is it true that more than 500 have had some form of adverse finding?
PETER DUTTON:
The Government was very clear when we made the announcement about bringing the 12,000 Syrians in that we were not going to in any circumstance compromise on security checks that need to be conducted.
Now, we were criticised at the time for not conducting checks quick enough and people wanted us to bring the 12,000 here quickly. I think the tragic events in London and elsewhere demonstrate the Governments approach was prudent and there are people that we'd excluded on national security grounds and people that we do have concerns about that we have not brought to our country and we never will. We have brought people here who have passed the security checks and they will contribute significantly to Australian society. They will be good Australians, they will work hard and they will educate their children. They're the migrants that we want coming to our country.
The Government's resolve in making sure that we do not in any circumstance compromise on the security checks that are required, will always be the case. This Government has been very clear in making no apology for that and making sure that we conduct the requisite security checks on each of these individuals and if we have any indication at all that person could be a security risk to our country then that person is excluded.
JOURNALIST:
Can you confirm that figure though, that 500 figure and also the 30 that apparently had biometric matching as well done for double confirmation?
PETER DUTTON:
Well I can confirm those figures and I think that they're startling because the Labor Party had advocated that we should bring people in very quickly and if we had have done that we wouldn't have detected these people and I think there would have been significant consequences in our own country and I think we should be very frank about that.
I think it is important for us to recognise lessons from other countries and from the intakes of other people into our country and other countries around the world in the past. We do live in a different age and we do need to conduct these security checks and the fact that we have excluded people from the que because we were worried about them posing a threat to our country, is significant, but I think it gives us reassurance that the 12,000 that we have brought into the programme are genuine refugees – people who want to contribute to our country.
They will be good Australians. They will work hard and educate their children and they're the people that we want to come because that's the history of this country, of welcoming people who want to flee violence, not bring violence into our country. They're the people that are coming in the 12,000, but we have excluded those people that we believe would have been a threat to us.
JOURNALIST:
How difficult is it to do background checks on people who come or originate from countries where checks and balances aren't the same as ours?
PETER DUTTON:
Well this is the beauty of the security relationships that Australia has with our Five Eyes partners. So, the United States has significant intelligence holdings in relation to people that are coming out of the Middle East. There is a lot of work that we do with the Brits and Canadians in particular as well, but there are other partners that we have worked with beyond the Five Eyes partners so we can really provide the best assurance that any country can.
We have been stringent; we have been deliberately methodical in the way in which we have conducted these checks because I don't want people coming into our country that are posing a threat. I want people coming here who are escaping violence, not bringing violence here and that's why we have made the changes that we did.
JOURNALIST:
Can I just ask a follow up question on that? If it's the United States which has significant information on these people coming out of Iraq and Syria – what you're saying is you're not necessarily getting the information from local authorities, this is background information provided by spy sources looking into these peoples backgrounds?
PETER DUTTON:
Well we don't discount any source of information and there is information that we've collected though intelligence agencies, through law enforcement partners, predominantly from Five Eyes partners, but not restricted to those partners. So we have conducted every possible check available to us and as a result it has taken time, there have been delays rightly and appropriately, but we have brought the best people here.
The worst thing that we could do is displace somebody who is facing persecution, somebody that may have been executed by terrorists in the region and to have that person displaced from the que and somebody come here in their place that seeks to cause harm to us. So we have been prudent and I think these 12,000 people will demonstrate that they will become very good Australians.
JOURNALIST:
What sort of bar is applied in terms of risk? I mean these things are inherently complex I know, but what sort of approach has the Government taken – would a hostile social media post for example in someone's background be enough to exclude them, what's the bar in terms of risk?
PETER DUTTON:
I issued a very clear instruction to the assessors, to the decision makers right from the start of this programme that if people had any indication that they could pose a national security threat to us, they were not to be considered.
I reinforced that through each stage of the process and that's the test that was applied and I want to say thank you to the officers within my Department and the partners that we've relied on because we have given ourselves the best, the very best chance, of bringing the best people here and I think that's a good thing.
JOURNALIST:
Just related to that, slightly peripheral, when you look at resettlements, it true that the Government is going to try and increasingly look to resettle some of these people, as well as refugees more broadly, in regional areas rather than in the cities?
PETER DUTTON:
If we can settle people in regional areas, I think it's a good thing. I mean there are many communities that are crying out for a labour force, there are many communities already where you are seeing for example abattoirs are only operational because of the workforce that they've got, the migrant workforce that they've got and in other communities there's not the need for those jobs or for that employment.
So it's a case-by-case basis and it is obvious that we provide support to people to relocate. For many people though they will move to capital cities because they've either got family there, they've got a community support network, they've got services that they require. So it's a case-by-case basis and we'll look at each of the cases.
JOURNALIST:
What can you tell us about this postal vote on gay marriage we're hearing about, that apparently you are brokering?
PETER DUTTON:
I've been very clear in relation to the issue of same-sex marriage. I've said that we went to the election with a policy to hold a plebiscite and that's the policy that I think we should adhere to.
Obviously the Senate has knocked back the legislation and there is no prospect of the plebiscite proper passing through the Senate and there is an option, as I understand in relation to the postal plebiscite; that's to be contemplated, but I don't any have comment to make otherwise.
JOURNALIST:
Is that because you could use regulation to do that, you wouldn't have to get it through the Parliament?
PETER DUTTON:
Well I think others can comment on the legality or otherwise of it, but I'm advised that it is an option. It adheres with our policy that we took to the last election and I think we need to deal with the realities of the current Parliament.
The current Parliament will not pass the plebiscite legislation and that's the policy we took to the last election. So I want us to stay true to the policy that we took to the last election and I think ideas should be considered in that context.
JOURNALIST:
Is it right to say that you're the man that's trying to broker a solution that is politically palatable?
PETER DUTTON:
I think all of us in senior roles work together on all sorts of issues all the time and I think that's a good thing for the Government. It means that we can get the sorts of Bills that we've just seen pass through the Senate and the work of Government concluded successfully otherwise. So all of us are working together on a number of issues every day and…..
JOURNALIST:
…you are though trying to clean the decks at the moment before the Budget, get as many issues out of the way and start the new year afresh, really aren't you?
PETER DUTTON:
Well I mean, issues can't be dealt with. We've got two sitting weeks before…now a week and part of a day left before the Budget. So look let's see what happens. All I'm saying is that the policy we took to the last election should be honoured and that's the principle that I take to it.
JOURNALIST:
The issue of same-sex marriage will hurt you at the next election if it's not dealt with though, won't it?
PETER DUTTON:
I've answered your questions on that topic. Thank you very much.
[ends]
