April 18, 2025
PATRICIA KARVELAS:
Coalition Campaign Spokesperson, James Paterson, himself, joins me now. Welcome to the program.
JAMES PATERSON:
As I live and breathe, Patricia, thank you for having me.
PATRICIA KARVELAS:
Are you an attack dog?
JAMES PATERSON:
No, my job is to point out the facts and the truth about the Prime Minister and his record, whether it is his failure on the cost of living over the last three years, which has seen Australians have lost more living standards than any other country in the developed world and worse in our history, or whether it's his weak leadership when it comes to national security and foreign policy, where he so often gets it wrong, confusing Australian Border Force with Australian Defence Force when it was tracking the Chinese research vessel or claiming that the Australian Defence Force advised him at the same time as Virgin Australia pilot of the live firing exercises that the Chinese Navy conducted in the Tasman Sea.
PATRICIA KARVELAS:
I just spoke to Jennifer Parker, who is a well-known expert in these areas. And she has actually done some research to say that there was too much alarmism, particularly about the research vessel and the work that it was doing, that it was inaccurate. And we all have to be more careful because we'll face real crises with China potentially in the future. And so exaggeration or jumping too quickly would be problematic. Do you concede that you need to be more cautious?
JAMES PATERSON:
Well I missed her interview so I don't want to comment on it directly or what she said but taking from what you said I think it is important that leaders in government get the details right. And that's why I was concerned when the Prime Minister first said that the Chinese government gave us adequate notice of the live firing exercise in the Tasman Sea that subsequently turned out not to be true. I was also concerned when he claimed that he heard from the ADF around the
same time that he had heard from Virgin Australia pilot that those exercises were being conducted. That subsequently turned out not to be true. And I was concerned when he said that the Chinese research vessel was being tracked in Australian waters by the Australian Defence Force when in fact it was being tracked by the Australia Border Force. Now let's remember he's the Prime Minister. He chairs the National Security Committee of Cabinet. He has access to our entire intelligence and military apparatus at his fingertips. He's regularly briefed to a high level of classification on sensitive national security issues, and he can't get the details right and I think that is a concern for Australians.
PATRICIA KARVELAS:
Okay, but just this week you've had two pretty high-profile moments, Peter Dutton over the Indonesian President, whether he knew of a request in relation to Russia, and also Bridget McKenzie on this program yesterday in relation to comments about China and Russia. Should you be held to the same obligation in relation to details?
JAMES PATERSON:
One thing that will be helpful with those details is if the government abided by the caretaker conventions and provided us with the briefings that we've requested that we are entitled to. When there are significant foreign policy or national security developments in an election campaign the caretaker conventions dictate that briefings be provided to the opposition because it is important that we have an equal understanding to the government of the challenges Australia faces. Because this election could go either way and we may soon have to be making big decisions in the national interest, so it is not adequate.
PATRICIA KARVELAS:
But to my substantive question, which was, is there an obligation on the opposition? I understand your critique of the government, but is there also an obligation, on your side, to be more careful and accurate?
JAMES PATERSON:
Well, I think this is a really substantive issue, Patricia, because 48 hours since we made this request it has not been granted and I would be very grateful if the government would abide by the caretaker conventions and provide those briefings so the opposition has an equal picture about what's going on here.
PATRICIA KARVELAS:
Okay, but I am going to ask a third time. I know you want the briefing, and you've made that point, and I think it's a fair enough point, but to the question of whether there should be a higher obligation on you as well, you want to form government, do you agree, yes or no?
JAMES PATERSON:
Well, of course, there is an obligation on all of us to get the facts right and to be informed of the facts, none more so than the Prime Minister. We certainly won't be taking his advice on getting the facts on national security, given the examples I just gave you where he has got it wrong himself as the Prime Minister, who has the benefit of access to all those briefings and all that intelligence.
PATRICIA KARVELAS:
So you're saying maybe you would have got more details right if you were getting more briefings, is that what you're suggesting?
JAMES PATERSON:
Well, in an election campaign, politicians are thrown questions all the time. We have to respond to breaking news events that are often incomplete pictures, and voters expect us to respond in a timely way to those questions. And that's what happened. Occasionally, people misspeak. It's not unknown of in government or opposition, as I've pointed out to you. But one thing that would be helpful, and I think in the national interest, is to make sure that we have access to those briefings so we have an equal opportunity to be informed about things that are being developed. I mean, the Prime Minister has skirted around this today, but it is still not clear to me whether he believes this offer was made or this request was made from Russia to Indonesia. He's implied perhaps it wasn't. Well, if that is the case, we should know that, because the military publication, Janes, which published this, is a very respected publication. They put out a statement standing by their story today. The Russian government has put out a statement which doesn't directly say, but certainly implies, that this conversation has happened with Indonesia. And of course, the Russian Defence Minister, in the middle of their largest war since the end of World War II, travelled to Jakarta in February for discussions with the Indonesian government. So if no offer was being made or no request was made, then that's certainly interesting, but we would like to establish those facts, and a briefing would assist us to do so.
PATRICIA KARVELAS:
So, if you were to win the election, how would you influence the Indonesians to stop them, or, I know you suggested yesterday, you'd like to stop them having military airplanes come through Indonesia from Russia, how would you do that? I mean they're a sovereign nation they can make their own decisions how do you influence that?
JAMES PATERSON:
You're absolutely right, Patricia, they're a sovereign nation and we respect their sovereignty and we deal with them as an equal partner, and the relationship between Australia and Indonesia on national security is very wide and very deep. We cooperate on people smuggling, on anti-narcotics trafficking, on counter-terrorism and a range of other areas, and as part of that deep and broad relationship, there is give and take. We understand what's important to Indonesia's national interest, and we make accommodations for their national interest, and they understand what is important to our national interest, and they make accommodations to our national interests. That's part of a mature bilateral relationship from partners in the region who don't always share an exact same perspective but have that shared interest of making this neighbourhood safe for all of us. And so we'd mature engage with Indonesia and explain to them why it is important for us that there are no Russian aircraft access in our region and why that would be very detrimental to our national security interests.
PATRICIA KARVELAS:
Malcolm Turnbull has tweeted, saying that negative gearing is examined by every government and was examined by his government. He says that Peter Dutton was indeed a senior cabinet minister. So in the points that you've been trying to make today, the opposition's been raising questions about the Labor Party looking at those options. Didn't it also happen when there was a Coalition government?
JAMES PATERSON:
Well, I'm not asking for the Prime Minister not to consider negative gearing. If that's what he wants to do, he's welcome to do that. What I'm asking is that the Prime Minister be honest about it, and he clearly wasn't honest about it in the debate last night, Patricia. He said that his government did not seek any advice from Treasury on this issue. His own Treasurer, standing next to him today, had to admit, in fact, they did seek advice on this. When a smooth talker like Jim Chalmers can't even find a way to extricate the Prime Minister from his lie, I think that speaks volumes. The Prime Minister should just be upfront and honest about this because he has lied about tax before. Before the last election, he said they'd make no changes to Stage 3 tax cuts. They did. Before the last election, he said that they'd made no changes to superannuation taxation. They've sought to in this Parliament. And so Australians are entitled to question his motives when he lies about seeking advice from the Treasury about negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts.
PATRICIA KARVELAS:
So I just want to clarify that first bit of the answer, if I can, which is you think it's fair enough governments can look at negative gearing. Yours did. Labor did. No one's actually pursuing it, it seems, though.
JAMES PATERSON:
Well, we're certainly not; we believe that negative gearing is a perfectly acceptable part of the tax system. We think it's a way to ensure that there are adequate rental properties provided to
the market. We think it's a way for aspirational people to build wealth. So we support negative gearing, but we also want to give a leg up to first home buyers.
PATRICIA KARVELAS:
Do you also support the idea that governments ask for different advice just like the Turnbull government did?
JAMES PATERSON:
Yes, governments seek advice, and when they do so, they should be honest about it, and the Prime Minister hasn't been. He's been contradicted by his own Treasurer on the question of whether or not they sought negative gearing advice. And the question we're entitled to ask is, given that he wants to lie about that, given that he wants to hide it, what is his motivation? Why is he doing it? Is it the same reason that he lied before the last election about superannuation taxation? Is it the same reason he lied about the last election about stage 3 tax cuts? Is he trying to obscure a secret agenda from the Australian people to, in fact, make changes to negative gearing or capital gains tax discounts? We know there are many Labor backbenchers who supported it. When the Treasurer was flirting with it last year, a number of Labor backbenches went public and said that would be a good idea and we should do that, so we know there is support from within the Labor party and they should be honest about it.
PATRICIA KARVELAS:
I know people on your side of politics that support changing negative gearing.
JAMES PATERSON:
Well, if they do, they're very welcome to say that. I haven't heard them say that, we're not taking that policy to this election and we won't make any changes to negative gearing because we support the principle that you should be able to deduct the losses against your rental income. We think that's an important principle in the tax system.
PATRICIA KARVELAS:
Okay, final question. Peter Dutton said last night that the water issue for your nuclear plant is resolved, that you've included it in your modelling, but one of your own MPs, Darren Chester, says experts will first need to determine facts, not opinions. Is Darren Chester wrong?
JAMES PATERSON:
Well, I haven't seen the full context of Darren's comments. I'm not sure when that interview took place. I'll have to go and look at that, Patricia. But we are very confident about our nuclear plan. We've done an extraordinary level of work on these seven potential nuclear sites, the host communities that would have them, which of course, as you know, are on the sites of retiring coal-fired power stations, where we have the benefit of access to water already because they rely on it, but we also have the benefits of access to transmission lines and a workforce which has highly transferable skills, communities which are energy mature and understand what how a sophisticated modern energy system can work and understand that all the 20 countries in the developed world all but us...
PATRICIA KARVELAS:
Is Darren Chester wrong, that there is going to be a process?
JAMES PATERSON:
I can't contradict Darren because I don't know what it is that he said.
PATRICIA KARVELAS:
Well, that there's going to be a process to work out the water needs, whereas Peter Dutton thinks it's settled. Which one is it?
JAMES PATERSON:
Well, forgive me, Patricia, I'm not going to rely on just a partial quote from you of an interview of my colleague that I haven't seen. I don't know the full context of what he said, but I am very confident that we've done the careful, methodical, considered work and that nuclear power is a proven technology. This is not a new technology. It's not like the Prime Minister's plan to rely on green hydrogen, which is totally speculative. This is a technology which has been used around the world very successfully in the world's largest and most developed economies. Where governments of the centre left and the centre right in the European Union, in the UK, and in North America, this technology is used successfully to bring down emissions and provide reliable base load, affordable power.
PATRICIA KARVELAS:
Looking forward to a little Easter break, or aren't you getting one?
JAMES PATERSON:
Well look there will be a bit of a cessation of campaigning hostilities for Good Friday and for Easter Sunday and I think that'll be a time for a little bit of downing of the tools but otherwise it's normal campaign routine for us.
PATRICIA KARVELAS:
Okay, all right, well I hope you have a good little break even if you get one. Thank you very much.
JAMES PATERSON:
Thanks, Patricia.
ENDS