April 26, 2022
LAURA JAYES: Joining me live now is Liberal Senator James Paterson. Don't know really where to start with that interview, to be honest, but let's go back to basics, James Paterson. What do you think of the Labor Party's Pacific solution, if you like today?
JAMES PATERSON: Well Laura, it's not really clear how it's any different to what the government is already doing. We've increased foreign aid to the region. We train enormous numbers of Pacific Island Defence Force personnel and I've actually met some of them when I did an ADF parliamentary program at Duntroon, where they were cadets alongside Australian cadets. So a lot of what they're talking about, we already do. To the extent that there's any difference between what they are proposing and what we're proposing, it appears they think if we broadcast a few more episodes of Q&A or Hard Quiz into the Pacific,that somehow that will stop the Solomon Islands doing a deal with China. It will be nice if that was, it was easy as that. It'd be nice if it was as simple as that. But the truth is, these are much more complex matters that we're dealing with Laura.
JAYES: They certainly are. But you have been in power your government for 20 of the last 26 years. This happened on your watch.This is on you. Is it not?
PATERSON: Well, no it's on the government of the Solomon Islands who made a decision in what they judged to be their own interest, which we disagree with, and we've clearly communicated that to them.It's actually very dangerous the way in which the Labor Party is saying that we could just wave a wand and the decision of a sovereign government in the Pacific would be overturned. It would have been different. That's actually really disrespectful...
JAYES: No, James, no one's suggesting you could have waved a wand, but surely to move forward you need to look at this and admit that mistakes have been made from your side of things over the last 20 years. If the Solomon Islands is looking to China as their preferred partner and the number one issue is climate change, I mean, something's going totally wrong here.
PATERSON: Well Laura, I'm very open to hearing specific suggestions as to what would have been done differently that would have stopped this....
JAYES: Money...
PATERSON: but it's not clear to me...
JAYES: No cuts to foreign aid.
PATERSON: Well let's talk about money. So foreign aid, we're the largest foreign aid contributor to the Solomons Islands, much larger than China is.
JAYES: You also cut, you also cut foreign aid over successive budgets.
PATERSON: Well, in fact, what we did Laura, was refocus our international aid program, which under Labor was about chasing votes for the United Nations Security Council, was being spent in far flung places and we brought it back to our own region. And as a result of that,foreign aid in the Pacific is higher now than it's ever been. Under our government, we're giving more foreign aid to the Pacific...
JAYES:... It is now. But it wasn't always, was it?
PATERSON: But Laura, even Penny Wong said today,this morning, that we can't outbid China and that no matter how much foreign aid we spend, we can't outbid China. I agree with her. It's not about foreign aid. We're already the largest foreign aid contributor to the region. China contributes much less than us, and this deal was still done. So the idea that if you just increase foreign aid a little bit more, these problems will go away. I think is very naive and wrongheaded.
JAYES: Ok, well, Kristina Kenneally has also said this morning that Labor's going to going to try and stamp out corruption.Is that possible?
PATERSON: Well, that's an ambitious objective. I think it's one that all Australians would share, and we would hope that the whole world is free of corruption and that our region is free of corruption.
JAYES: Is corruption the fundamental problem here? Is that money talks and China's got plenty of it?
PATERSON: Look, I think it's very clear that China is willing to do things that we are not willing to do Laura, because we are a liberal democracy which is governed by the rule of law and we won't go to the Pacific or anywhere else and just pay money to make people do what we want directly. What we do is deal with the Pacific much more respectfully as genuine peers and partners who we work with and who we try to listen to and understand their perspective and work with them on shared problems. Now, I think in the long term, that will be in Australia's national interest. I don't think the short term gains that the Chinese government plays in our region will be rewarded in the long term. But unfortunately, there are people who are susceptible to these sort of tactics from time to time.
JAYES: China promised there'd be no military presence in the South China Sea. They're promising, well Solomon Islands and China kind of, are promising the same thing won't happen on the Solomon Islands? It's not really an undertaking that we can take seriously, can we?
PATERSON: Well, we certainly have to hold both the Solomon Islands government and the Chinese government to the commitments they made, and they're commitments which they not just made to us...
JAYES: How? How will you do that?
PATERSON: Well they're commitments which have not just been made to us and other partners in the region and other Pacific Islands who are equally concerned by this development as we are. But it's a promise that in the case of Prime Minister Sogavare has made to his own people, he's made to the people of the Solomon Islands, and he will have to face those people in elections like all politicians do in the future, and they will have an expectation of him that he adhere to that commitment.
JAYES: Scott Morrison says if that happens,it'll be a red line. What does that mean?
PATERSON: Well, it means we regard it as a very serious thing indeed, Laura, and we join with our allies in the United States and others in making that statement. It would be a very, very significant development and we would have to respond.
JAYES: How?
PATERSON: It would not be responsible for me to publicly canvass what that response might be, Laura, except to say that we would take it as a very grave matter and would respond appropriately.
JAYES: Are we talking about conflict?
PATERSON: I'm not going to start speculating about that, Laura, it would be very irresponsible of me to do that. All I can say is backing in the Prime Minister that we would take it very seriously and we would have to respond.
JAYES: We've seen red lines been drawn before then when they are overstepped, nothing happens. It happened under the Obama regime. So why would this be any different? Is this just talk?
PATERSON: Laura, I agree with you. I think given the Obama administration's red line of chemical weapons use in Syria and then didn't enforce it, that was a problem. And we have to be very clear that when we set red lines, we intend to enforce them and live up to them. And I don't doubt our resolve to do so.
JAYES: So do you have a new policy for the Pacific islands or is it just situation normal?
PATERSON: Well, we've got a very proud record in the Pacific islands, we have a Pacific Step-up, which we launched five years ago, Laura, anticipating the sort of problems...
JAYES: But that's not working. My point is we're in the middle of an election campaign now. Is there anything new?
PATERSON: Well I'll defer to the Foreign Minister Marise Payne and our Minister for the Pacific, Zed Seselja, to any announcements that they might want to make. It's not up to me to preempt them,except to say that we have a very proud record and we had a lot of foresight in this area. We identified that there were risks in the Pacific to our national security, and we set about addressing them by stepping up in the region, by increasing our commitments, by being present, by being active in the region.Now it's not a foolproof strategy. We can't guarantee that sovereign governments in the region will always make decisions we like because they are sovereign governments and it is up to them to make their own decisions. And anyone who promises to you, but they can force the Pacific to do what Australia always wants is making a false promise and is treating the Pacific with disrespect. We have to deal with them as partners and peers and not talk down to them.
JAYES: You see things that we don't. On a scale of one to 10, how worried are you about us seeing some kind of conflict with China in the next five to 10 years?
PATERSON: We'll it's our mission, Laura, to deter conflict as a way of preventing it and deterrence requires both capability and intent. Through the AUKUS agreement, we're acquiring very significant military capability and through this government's investment, increased investment in defence, we'remaking sure it arrives in a timely way to make sure it will make a difference to our ability to defend ourselves. That's our objective, we don't seek conflict. It would be insane to seek conflict, but we are seeking to deter it through strength. What I fear with the Labor Party is that their record in office is to cut the defence spending, not increase it. When they were last in office, they reduced it down to the lowest level since 1938, 1.56 per cent of GDP. Now, of course, before this election, they're saying they won't do that again. But in 2007, they didn't run the election, saying they're going to cut defence spending. You have to look at what they do, not just what they say.
JAYES: Sure, but James, I'll go back to this point. You've been in power for 20 of the last 26 years. We should be in a much better situation than we are now. Peter Dutton just yesterday said to maintain peace, you need to prepare for war. That is a statement of fact in many ways.Are we prepared at this point? We seem years away from it.
PATERSON: Well, I'm very proud that under our government, we've ordered dozens of naval vessels to make sure that we have the capability that we need. Unlike the Labor Party who in six years in office,didn't order a single vessel and we are making up for those failures over those six years in office. They had a Defence White Paper in 2009...
JAYES: So we're not prepared though are we? So what happens...
PATERSON: Well let's talk about this...
JAYES: What happens if there is some kind of aggression from China in the next couple of years? We don't have the equipment to defend ourselves. Do we rely pretty much solely on the US on the AUKUS arrangement?
PATERSON: I don't agree with that. The Collins class submarine, which we have in the water today is a regionally superior capability. We are acquiring through AUKUS in the short term, capabilities that are going to be very potent, including significantly enhanced cyber warfare capabilities under the Redspice program, which was announced in the Budget just a few weeks ago. We are working with the United States on precision guided munitions and we're going to make those here in Australia to add to our capability and to the collective deterrence. We are exploring artificial intelligence and quantum computing. We're working in the United States on hypersonic missile research. There was an enormous amount happening. It's happening right now and we have placed more orders for naval vessels than any government in a long time, and we've actually followed the advice of our Defence White Papers in doing so. Unlike the Labor Party, who in office in 2009, were told they need to 12 conventionally powered, regionally superior submarines and didn't order a single one. Not one in six years in office. And we're making up for that today because there are very long wait times on those capabilities.And if you don't order anything for six years in, then subsequent government has to do a lot to make up for that and that's what we're doing.
JAYES: Sure, but 20 of the last 26 years you had an opportunity to order them. You cancelled orders. Do you admit some of your own failures here?
PATERSON: Well, very clearly, we've made a decision, and I think the right one by the AUKUS agreement, to walk away from a diesel powered electric submarines provided by the French, to nuclear powered submarines provided through AUKUS with our partners, the United States and the United Kingdom. I think that was the right decision because the updated advice on anti-submarine warfare demonstrated to us that a diesel powered capability in a decade or so's time was no longer going to be regionally superior, it was no longer going to be competitive. It was going to be too easy to identify, too vulnerable, and we couldn't afford to just stay on that pathway and order those submarines that were not going to meet our needs, we have to change the pathway. That was a difficult decision, but it's exactly the kind of tough decisions you need a government and a Prime Minister to make. The Labor Party,by contrast, were much more concerned by the upset feelings of the French government than they were about replacing what would have been inadequate capability with a much more potent and capable capability. So that shows their unwillingness to make those tough decisions and our willingness to do so.
JAYES: James Paterson, appreciate your time.Thanks so much.
PATERSON: Thanks Laura.
