February 26, 2025
SARAH FERGUSON: The Australian and New Zealand navies are closely tracking the Chinese flotilla that moved along the coast of Tasmania yesterday. Opposition Senator James Paterson questioned Defence officials in Senate estimates today about the ships and the live fire incident. Senator Paterson, welcome to 7.30.
JAMES PATERSON: Thank you for having me.
FERGUSON: We now know that Peter Dutton was trading bank shares at the height of the global financial crisis when the Australian banking system teetered on the brink of collapse. Are you comfortable with that?
PATERSON: Sarah, the Labor party started this year, and their dirt unit, with a grubby personal attack on Kirilly Dutton, Peter's wife, and they have continued in the same vein. And the reason for that is because they very little positive to say about their own achievements over the last two and a half years, let alone their agenda for the next three years. I'm entirely comfortable with the way in which Peter Dutton has dealt with this. He has nothing to hide. He's been completely transparent. He was not privy to any market sensitive information as a shadow minister in opposition about the Rudd government's plans.
FERGUSON: Now we also just learnt from Andrew Charlton that the government was sitting on the information, according to Andrew Charlton, for a matter of days or weeks. Should they have raised it then?
PATERSON: Well, it reflects on the Labor Party that they're spending taxpayers’ money in a dirt unit, digging up 16 year old share trades in order to dish it out on Peter Dutton in the lead-up to an election rather than focusing on the problems that Australians are concerned about in their own lives, including the very pressing problems of the cost of living, but also community safety and national security.
FERGUSON: I want to move to the questions surrounding the Chinese flotillas presence on the coast of Australia over recent days. Do we know exactly what the purpose is of that flotillas presence?
PATERSON: Well, I asked that question to senior Defence officials today and they're reluctant to speculate, which is understandable. But they did say that this was reckless. They did say it was disruptive, and they did say it was unprecedented. And I think it's also very clear in my own view that it's provocative and it's designed to send a message to Australia. It's designed to send a message about the reach and the power and the capability of the Chinese defence forces, that they can come all the way down our east coast, that they're willing to exercise in international waters just off our coast. And that is very clearly a message that they want us to hear.
FERGUSON: Now, clearly, at the same time, Australia operates in the Taiwan Strait, very close to China. Are we in danger of hypocrisy in overreacting to what happened with the Chinese ships?
PATERSON: I've heard the Prime Minister make that comparison, and I think, frankly, that's a slur on the professionalism of the patriotic and professional and dedicated men and women in the Australian Defence Force. We do not conduct ourselves like this.
FERGUSON: I think, I think, sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you, Senator. It's just I think I'm talking to the kind of political reaction rather than any commentary on the Navy itself. I'm talking about the discussion of what the Chinese were doing and why.
PATERSON: Yes. And you also asked whether there's hypocrisy here compared to our behaviour in the South China Sea. And I think it's really important to step out for your viewers the differences in the way we behave compared to how China behaves, which demonstrates we're not being hypocritical. So I addressed this with the ADF today. They made it very clear that when they conducted exercises like this in international waters, they do so with at least 24 hours notice if not 48 hours' notice, that they don't do so in a way that is disruptive to commercial airlines. They don't do it under international civilian flight paths. They don't do it in a way that disrupts maritime trade. And when we do operations like these, we do so in a way that's entirely consistent with international law and best practice. Now, the same cannot be said for China. They did not give us notice, at all it turns out, not even adequate notice. They did do it under a flight path that required 49 aircraft to divert themselves for the safety of the passengers on board, and they did so in a way that was extremely reckless and provocative.
FERGUSON: That's in relation to the live-firing incident. But in relation to the flotilla, they've been inside Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone, Don't we sail inside China's Exclusive Economic Zone? Including in the Taiwan Strait.
PATERSON: I'm not aware of anyone who suggested that China doesn't have a right to navigate international waters. Of course they have a right to do that. But I think we should reflect on the differences between the Tasman Sea and the South China Sea. The Tasman Sea is a very remote part of the world. It's significant really only to Australia and New Zealand. It is not a significant trade route. There are no disputed features. There are no contested international legal claims. The South China Sea is very different. It is a waterway which is significant from a trade point of view for all nations, including Australia. There are disputed features that the Chinese government has established in the South China Sea, and they have made claims which we believe are not consistent with international law. And so our purpose of being in the South China Sea, I think, frankly, is much more clearly demonstrated and obvious than their purpose for being in the Tasman Sea.
FERGUSON: Well, and as you say, we don't yet know exactly the purpose, but presumably that will become clearer as whatever exercise this is concludes?
PATERSON: It may or it may not. This may be all that we ever know about this. We do not know, for example, if a nuclear submarine has accompanied the task group while it is in the region. We don't know what their ultimate final destination or final pathway is, and that is important to know.
FERGUSON: And what would be the significance of the flotilla being accompanied by a nuclear-powered submarine?
PATERSON: Well it is the most capable military capability that most modern militaries can put to field, can put to sea. It is a formidable platform for collecting intelligence. It is a formidable platform for delivering effects, targeted strategic effects. And it would demonstrate the seriousness with which China has taken this task group. It would demonstrate it's even more capable than what we understand already.
FERGUSON: Now, will the opposition propose cutting Australia's overseas aid budget to free up money for an increased defence spending budget above the current spending levels?
PATERSON: I don't want to disappoint you, Sarah, but I'm not going to reveal our budget, our election costings tonight on your program, we will make those disclosures in the usual way at the usual time.
FERGUSON: But clearly I'm asking the question because that's what's happening. That's what's happened in the UK overnight. You know, in some ways, the Trump effect. But is it something that will be under consideration by the Opposition.
PATERSON: Well, I think it is very significant that the Starmer government has committed to 2.5% of GDP expenditure. Our government a year ago promised to 2.4% of GDP expenditure, although by the end of the decade, by the mid 2030s. And today in Senate estimates, they revealed that has already been revised down to 2.33% of GDP. I hardly think today, and this time in this strategic environment, is the time to be reducing our ambition for defence expenditure and we will have to make difficult decisions to prioritise defence spending if we want to deter conflict in our region.
FERGUSON: So that's an open question at the moment about where the money's coming from?
PATERSON: We will have more to say about where all our policies will be funded, including our commitments to increase defence spending.
FERGUSON: Senator Paterson, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
PATERSON: Thank you.
ENDS
