Subjects: Hakeem Alaraibi; Paladin Holdings contract; Bill Shorten's weakening of border protection policy; Cyber Security.
EO&E...........................................................................................................................................
PETER DUTTON:
Good morning. Happy to take a few questions.
QUESTION:
Are you concerned by the evidence that was given last night by Border Force in relation to Hakeem Alaraibi? Is it embarrassing that it got to that level?
PETER DUTTON:
No. Again, I'm not going to hang the officer out to dry. An innocent mistake was made. There are obviously thousands of transactions that take place and years of precedent before this where it's been no issue. The officer's dropped the ball on this, but that's a human error that's been made and let's put all of the hype aside. That's what's happened here. There's no conspiracy about somebody being denied information. It was a mistake that was made by an officer within Border Force and I think the Commissioners – both Outram and Colvin – have dealt with it appropriately yesterday.
QUESTION:
He may have dropped the ball, but given it was a human error, surely there are some changes that can be implemented?
PETER DUTTON:
Yes, and they've stated that. So there's a review. They'll look at the way in which the processes work, but literally I mean they're getting thousands of these notifications, Red Notices, other notices from partners around the world. There's not an integration with that information as I understand the system from international law enforcement agencies etc, so it necessitates that manual input. As I say, there have been thousands of transactions where there's been no problem at all. There was a problem in this case regrettably and I think the Commissioners have answered that yesterday.
QUESTION:
Will you be reaching out to Mr Alaraibi to discuss any of this at all personally?
PETER DUTTON:
I think the Government's shown its intent in relation to Mr Alaraibi through the work that we've done to get him back home and I've said last week the work; the efforts of in particular the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister in this need to be applauded. They pulled out all stops to get him home and he's back now and I think that's a good thing.
QUESTION:
In terms of the Paladin affair, if I can ask you about that Minister; it was mentioned before Senate Estimates yesterday. Are you comfortable with the way that procurement was carried out?
PETER DUTTON:
Yes I am. These are difficult contracts to administer because you're talking about remote islands. Now Labor's cost the Australian taxpayer $16 billion when it comes to border protection. They've never shown any interest in, you know, $15.6 billion of that $16 billion. They've suddenly shown interest in $400 million this week, why? Because they want a distraction from the disastrous Bill that they've passed.
Now the fact is under Labor's Bill people will come to our country who have been rejected by the US, people will come to our country who are of bad character and Labor's proposal yesterday or response yesterday – oh it doesn't matter because these people will just end up in immigration detention – is a complete nonsense. We don't hold people indefinitely in immigration detention. There are many cases where people are released into the community because there's no capacity legally to hold them.
So it seems to me that Labor is now just starting to understand what it is they've done, the mistake that they've made. They're looking for a distraction through Senate Estimates. That's a fair political play by Bill Shorten, but nobody's going to forget the fact that he's passed a law which is going to be a disaster for our border protection policies.
QUESTION:
And Minister, just on cyber, are you confident that this year's election will be adequately protected given that what we heard in our Parliament yesterday?
PETER DUTTON:
Yes, because I have full confidence in the agencies in my Department of Home Affairs, the ACSC, ASD, other agencies that are involved. Obviously this is one of those times where our relationships with our Five Eyes partners and others becomes invaluable and it is a concern though to all Australians to see our Parliamentary network attacked, to see the major political parties in a democracy like ours attacked, and it's on the eve of the New South Wales state election and obviously the Federal election to be held in May.
So you do have to ask what intent a state actor has and all of those answers obviously will be provided in due course, but at the moment we're in that investigative phase – but that's the reality of what we're dealing with.
QUESTION:
Minister, just one last one in relation to Christmas Island. [Inaudible] obviously it was [inaudible] the Prime Minister said, in anticipation of transfers and arrivals. Is it your view then that the medical evacuations will be carried out to Christmas Island alone and only Christmas Island?
PETER DUTTON:
Well, we'll have a look at the individual cases, but that's the default position. Now, there are few reasons for that. One is that you'll remember that we've closed 19 detention centres. Labor had opened 17. We've closed 19. Now that means that we've had some people that have gone from the centres that we've closed into the existing network of onshore detention centres or immigration detention centres. So they are largely at capacity because whilst we've had no boat arrivals, and most of those people are living out in the community – unless they've committed a crime and they've gone back into immigration detention – many of the places have been taken up by people that have had their visas cancelled under Section 501 and are awaiting deportation.
So there's not the capacity within the onshore network to house hundreds of people. That's the logistical reality.
The other point is that Christmas Island for a number of reasons is always held in hot contingency for us and that's been a decision that I took some time ago; that if there was a re-emergence of boat arrivals, if we became overwhelmed on Nauru that Christmas would be the fall-back position and I did that, in particular at a time when we closed down with the PNG authorities, the Manus Island centre, because we obviously then didn't have that capacity on Manus or in PNG. So we've had it in hot contingency unlike the other centres that have closed on the mainland and that's the way it's operated.
QUESTION:
Can I just clarify, is that also because on Christmas Island any asylum seeker who goes there can't access the legal system because it's annexed from Australia?
PETER DUTTON:
No, there's obviously a lot of effort that's underway at the moment to provide additional medical services on Christmas Island and again depending on the condition or the acuity of the condition of the particular patient, judgements will be made about whether that person can be treated, but again, I dispense with all the hype and the emotion in this area. I understand lots of advocates are very worked up, but the reality is that our job is to keep our borders secure and to keep Australians safe and there are some people under Labor's law who will come to our country who are of bad character – and we'll detail some of that – but that is a major concern.
Now there's a hardened component to the facility on Christmas Island as well, where people can be put into held detention and I think it's appropriate frankly if you're coming here for medical attention, you receive the medical attention, in most cases I think people can be held in held detention and then returned back once they've received the medical attention or hopefully back to their country of origin, particularly for those that have been found not to be refugees.
QUESTION:
If the United States is able to reject hundreds of asylum seekers on character or national security grounds, isn't the case that Australia could also use those same grounds to veto medical evacuations?
PETER DUTTON:
No, no, you can't. I mean again, please; I saw some interjections yesterday in Question Time; it's clear to me that the members of the Labor Party don't understand the Bill that they've introduced and passed through the Parliament. The fact is that on national security grounds – so that is if somebody is a terrorist or ASIO's to that satisfaction – there is the ability for the Minister to stop that person.
But there are examples on Manus right now where men are accused of having sexual relationships with children under the age of 16, 14 and younger; they can come under Labor's proposal if the medical panel provides that they can come. So if the two doctors say that person can come; the Minister says no I don't want to bring him on character grounds, I'm sorry that person under Labor's law comes to Australia.
QUESTION:
But as the Department said last night, aren't they automatically going into detention anyway?
PETER DUTTON:
But again this is Mike Dreyfus's response and this was Tony Burke's response yesterday. You can't…
QUESTION:
…but it was the Department's response as well at Estimates last night…
PETER DUTTON:
…but again, people can't be held in detention indefinitely in our country which is a good thing. So the thought that Labor can protect Australians from these people of bad character is a nonsense because at some stage they are going to be released into the community. That's the reality and there will be Federal Court action as there always is in this space. There will be cases taken to the Federal Court almost straight away in my judgment. There's a lot of pro bono legal work that takes place in this space and it will happen again no doubt.
QUESTION:
Just on the cyber attacks; do you think there's a greater role for Defence to play in this when there are attacks on our critical infrastructure or our democracy?
PETER DUTTON:
Well Defence is already involved through their efforts and the work that they put into their agency – the Australian Signals Directorate – and there's a lot of work that the agencies do together, the skill and expertise that we've brought together is quite remarkable – and don't forget the Government had already stood up in a cross-government task force led by the Australian Electoral Commission to deal with the prospect of cyber or interference with any electoral process.
So as we've seen in other democracies, including the US, the UK, Canada, elsewhere; we've learnt from that experience or we've looked at that experience and nobody should think that a western democracy like ours is exempt from interference from state actors.
So the investigation is under underway in relation to the matter at the moment. We'll wait to see what that brings out.
QUESTION:
Is the Government discussing this issue with Five Eye countries like Canada and that sort of thing?
PETER DUTTON:
Yes. Yes, we are.
QUESTION:
If you're confident of which state is behind this, should they be named publicly?
PETER DUTTON:
Well that's a question that can only be answered if that information is able to be discovered by the agencies. So let's take that first step and then it will be a decision for the Government as to what is in our best national interest in relation to whether or not we attribute, respond, whatever; that will all come in due course.
Thank you.
[ends]
