March 2, 2025
.png)
DAVID SPEERS: Senator James Paterson, welcome to the program.
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning, David.
SPEERS: So you're a strong and long-standing supporter of Ukraine. You've argued that it's unambiguously in our national interest to see Putin fail. Is Putin now about to get exactly what he wants?
PATERSON: You're right, David, we're very proud of our support for Ukraine. And I retain my view that we should strongly support President Zelenskyy and the people of Ukraine, regardless of anyone else's views on that matter, and we should continue to do so. I think we are being a bit premature here. Certainly the spectacular theatre in the White House, no one's going to gloss over that. But occasionally, even between allies, when there are issues of contention, diplomacy can be very robust. I think it is critical to have American leadership in the world. I think that's in the world's interest, and I think that's in America's interest. And I hope that we are able to achieve a ceasefire on acceptable terms to Ukraine.
SPEERS: But what does that mean if the ceasefire involves Russia keeping territory that's Ukraine's territory? Surely that doesn't stop there. I mean, Donald Trump clearly thinks, oh, that'll be fine then. Do you think so?
PATERSON: You might remember, David, when I was last on your program, we had a long discussion about ceasefires with Hamas and Hezbollah and Israel. And while everyone wanted to see a ceasefire and peace in those circumstances, the detail and the timing of the ceasefire was important. And that's also true for Ukraine, because if there's a ceasefire that is forced on Ukraine, that is unacceptable to Ukraine, that is a significant win to Vladimir Putin. That will not just embolden him, but it will embolden others around the world, including in our own region. And if there is a ceasefire without adequate security guarantees, particularly led by the United States, then there's nothing to stop Putin resuming his war at another stage when he's ready to do so. And that would be a disaster for everyone.
SPEERS: So you think that a US security guarantee is a must?
PATERSON: Well, it's very hard to see how this peace can be durable if there isn't American leadership, if there isn't an American security guarantee. And that does seem to be something that is part of the negotiations between Zelenskyy and Trump, and we're all hopeful that is able to be achieved.
SPEERS: And you touched on it a little earlier, but what message does this send to China?
PATERSON: Well, there are two really important points to make here. We wouldn't want China to misinterpret what is happening in Europe in two respects. Firstly, we want the Americans to continue to support Ukraine because it is possible that China would take lessons out of that for our own region, including obviously in relation to Taiwan. That would be a disaster. But I think it also would be a mistake for China to believe that the United States views the Indo-Pacific theatre in the same way that it views the European theatre. I travelled to the United States three times in the lead-up to the last presidential election to meet with potential future appointees to a Trump or Harris administration. And even meeting with the most 'America First' people in the Republican foreign policy spectrum, they very clearly said to me that America is a resident power in the Pacific. There is no retreat for America from the Pacific. And we shouldn't expect to see that in this administration or any other.
SPEERS: What about Australia's ongoing support for Ukraine? The ABC launched 'Your Say' during the week to find out the issues that Australians are most interested in ahead of the election campaign. One of the strong themes that came through yesterday after those scenes in the Oval Office was, you know, what are we going to do? What's Australia's role now in supporting Ukraine? Do you think it should be increased at this point and what about the question about peacekeepers as well?
PATERSON: I think Australia's military and humanitarian assistance for Ukraine has been very important, and it should continue, and we should continue to examine what else we can do in that department. I was concerned in Senate estimates this week to hear about the delays in supplying the M1 Abraham tanks to Ukraine, which we promised some time ago and which very little progress has been made. We need equipment like that which is no longer necessary for Australia to be on the front lines in Ukraine as soon as possible, to bolster them as much as possible. As far as I'm aware, David, there's been no request for Australian troops as part of a peacekeeping force, and I think it's premature to speculate about that. Let's see where we go. But I think we also have to recognise that our own neighbourhood is a pretty tough environment, and we've got our own security challenges here, which are our first priority.
SPEERS: When it comes to Donald Trump. We saw those scenes yesterday. We also saw during the week the US voted with Russia against a UN motion that was condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine. We know he wants to take ownership of Gaza and Greenland. We know he is going to erect these new trade barriers that could hurt Australia. Peter Dutton has called Donald Trump a big thinker and shrewd. How would you describe Donald Trump now?
PATERSON: David, again, when I was last on your program, we talked about the fact that sometimes Australia, as a sovereign liberal democracy, disagrees with our friends and partners, even our closest allies, including the United States. And if and when we do so, we'll be comfortable saying so. In relation to Gaza, we have said that's not consistent with our foreign policy of a two-state solution. And in relation to President Trump's comments about how and when the Ukraine war started, Peter Dutton has been explicitly clear about this, that he does not agree with Donald Trump. President Zelenskyy is a democratically, legitimately elected leader. Vladimir Putin is a dictator. It was Russia that started this war, not Ukraine. And it is an invasion. It's not a special military operation, and we will not pull our punches on articulating our view of this issue.
SPEERS: So, given disagreements with the Trump administration on these big issues, do you think Australia should be reconsidering at all things like AUKUS or our intelligence sharing with the Trump administration?
PATERSON: Not for a minute, David. In fact, I think we should double down on those and we should bring forward them as much as we can. I want to see AUKUS delivered in an even more timely way. I want to see other military commitments brought forward. We've announced today, David, that we're going to restore the fourth squadron of F-35, fifth-generation fighter jets that the Albanese government cancelled because we think we do need 100 of those. And we think that that's an incredibly successful part of our intimate military alliance with the United States.
SPEERS: Let's talk about that. I was going to come to this announcement today, $3 billion for the 28 additional Joint Strike Fighters. Why do we need 100 F-35s?
PATERSON: Well, as far back as the Defence White Paper in 2009, David, it was articulated that fifth-generation strike fighters were going to be absolutely critical to Australia's national security and our defence and that we would need 100 of them. And it was the bipartisan policy of both parties for a decade that we should acquire 100 of the Joint Strike Fighters. Even the Gillard government proposed that we should secure these. But in one of its many cuts to our defence capability, this government cancelled the Fourth Squadron, cancelled 28 joint strike fighters that we otherwise would have received. And we think that's a mistake. And this is a down payment on our commitment to increased and faster defence spending, given the deteriorating security environment.
SPEERS: Okay. But I mean, clearly, the decision was taken. We had a defence strategic review that we really need to ramp up shipbuilding and submarines and all of that. So defence spending is increasing on those fronts. But back to the question why do we need more F-35 Joint Strike Fighter? What's the reason for more spending there?
PATERSON: Because it's the most capable Joint Strike Fighter platform available today. It's the most capable fifth-generation fighter platform available today. And it sends a very strong message about Australia's preparedness to defend ourselves and to defend our interests and to work with our allies.
SPEERS: Just so viewers are aware, these are used in defending Australia, really, aren't they?
PATERSON: Yes, but with air-to-air refuelling, they can also have a very significant range as well. And they can project Australia's force into the region. And we should do that because, as I was about to say, we're in the business of preventing conflict. And the best way to prevent conflict is to be credible with our deterrence. We can't do that alone. We have to do that in concert with our allies in the region, obviously, including the United States, but also Japan and the Philippines and others. And this is a very important, tangible commitment in that task.
SPEERS: And $3 billion, where does that come from?
PATERSON: We'll be outlining all of our expenses in the campaign as normal, David, all of our costings, at the normal time in the normal way. But as I said, this is a down payment on our commitment to increased and faster defence spending. It was revealed in Senate Estimates this week, David, that Labor has already walked away from their commitment only a year ago to spend 2.4% of GDP by the end of the decade. Now, it looks like it's going to be 2.33% instead of 2.4%. And this is not the time to be walking away from a commitment like that.
SPEERS: Okay, but just on the cost here. You honestly can't say where this 3 billion will come from. Do you know? Or is that something you haven't worked out yet?
PATERSON: David, as you know, oppositions reveal their costings in the normal way during the election campaign and will do that in a way that's transparent and can be interrogated at the time.
SPEERS: Is this from within the defence budget, or is this additional money for defence?
PATERSON: David, we've been very clear that we are going to increase defence spending because the strategic environment is deteriorating, we are not going to cut defence sending like this government has.
SPEERS: I mean, so is the government? Okay. But would you go beyond the 2.4% or are you talking about the same envelope of money?
PATERSON: David, it's fair of you to ask, but I'm not going to announce our costings on your program today, nor am I going to announce our defence policy on your program. This is the first commitment. You will have more to hear from us.
SPEERS: This may be just redirecting money within defence from one project to this?
PATERSON: David, one of your great talents of an interviewer is to ask a question multiple times in the hope you get a different answer. But I'm not going to give you a different answer to this question, no matter how many times you ask it.
SPEERS: No, fair enough. But I do think Australians deserve to know answers to questions like this when we're talking.
PATERSON: And they will.
SPEERS: All right, look, talking of China, it would seem that this announcement following the big story we've been following over the last week of this Chinese task group sailing around the continent, might be time to show that Australia is willing to push back a little as well. Why do you think China has sent these three warships on this tour around Australia?
PATERSON: Well, the words of the Chief of the Defence Force, Admiral Johnston, this was an unprecedented move. In the words of the Secretary of the Department of Defence, they were engaged in rehearsal, and the words of the Director General of National Intelligence, this was provocative. I think we would be very unwise not to heed the message of this. This is unprecedented. This is extraordinary. And the Prime Minister's attempt to mislead the public about this and to play down the seriousness of this is a grave mistake. We need to use all the tools available in our diplomatic arsenal to push back on this, to make very clear that the lack of notice in any form to the Australian military prior to the conducting of these military exercises in our region is not acceptable, even if it is consistent with international law. And we need to make sure that we have the capability to adequately surveil activities like this in our region so that we're not reliant on Virgin Australia pilots to be the first point of referral.
SPEERS: Was this gunboat diplomacy, as your colleague Andrew Hastie called it?
PATERSON: Yes. And Peter Hartcher, the International Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, called it the same thing. I mean, that's literally what it is. They're sending warships to our region to make a diplomatic point.
SPEERS: To threaten Australia?
PATERSON: Well, the Secretary of the Department of Defence said this was a rehearsal. I don't know how else we can interpret activity in our region. Let's remember that the Tasman Sea, unlike the South China Sea, is a very remote part of the world. It is not a significant trading route. There are no disputed features or islands. There are no competing international legal claims for jurisdiction or territory. This is an extraordinary act and I think we should take it seriously.
SPEERS: So, I mean, you'd be aware of this. Liberal party's post-election review said that you do need to rebuild relations with the Chinese community. And since then, Peter Dutton, has said he is pro-China, that he wants a stronger relationship with China than Anthony Albanese. You and your colleagues are accusing them of gunboat diplomacy. How do you match those two? I mean, are you pro-China?
PATERSON: David, we should be measured and confident in our dealings with the Chinese government because we have many significant equities in this relationship. The trading relationship is mutually beneficial, and we want that to continue and grow as much as possible because it is beneficial to Australian businesses and exporters and farmers and others. It’s just as beneficial to Chinese consumers as well. So we want a strong relationship with China, but that doesn't mean we're going to allow them to walk all over us. That doesn't mean we're going to allow them to intimidate us. It doesn't mean we're going to allow them to coerce us. Because our responsibility is to stand up for Australia. And in Peter Dutton, you'll have a strong Prime Minister who will always do so. He won't downplay it like Anthony Albanese has done, and try and mislead the Australian people about what happened here.
SPEERS: Okay. Well, just on the notifications that were given, apparently Papua New Guinea was given two weeks, at least two weeks' notice, by China. What does that tell you? And should Papua New Guinea have passed on the heads-up to Australia?
PATERSON: It's absolutely remarkable that after a quote-unquote, stabilised relationship between Australia and China, our comprehensive strategic partner, that they're giving weeks heads up to the PNG government of these exercises, but no notice at all to the Australian government despite the Prime Ministers claims to the contrary. I think this is a troubling data point. It is evidence that the stabilisation process is far from complete and that we need to demonstrate our own strength and our own resilience in this relationship in order to make it the mutually respectful relationship we want it to be.
SPEERS: There was, of course, before the last election, a Chinese surveillance vessel that came up and down the West Australian coast. We had Chinese warships that popped into Sydney Harbour back in 2019. The Morrison government was aware of it but didn't tell the public. Have these notifications been given in the past?
PATERSON: I don't know the circumstances of both of those instances, except that both of them were reported publicly in the media, and were addressed and commented at the time.
SPEERS: After the event.
PATERSON: As Admiral Johnston said, this is unprecedented. We've never had a live fire exercise from the Chinese military in the Tasman Sea ever before, and we should take it seriously.
SPEERS: And New Zealand was asked to take on some of the surveillance once the Chinese ships started moving across the Tasman Sea. I saw you raising some concerns about this in estimates during the week. What's your view? Should we have handed over monitoring to New Zealand?
PATERSON: Well, David, the Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy has said that their surveillance was unprecedented, the highest levels of surveillance we should have ever had. Well, that is sort of obvious, you would hope, given that this is an unprecedented activity. But if that is the case, how come we weren't notified about this event except by Virgin Australia? And how come we still don't know, as the Defence Minister admitted over the weekend, whether or not a live firing exercise was actually carried out in the first exercise? I mean, these are major gaps in our knowledge, and it is difficult for me to understand how our surveillance could not be adequate to pick that up.
SPEERS: But do you think we should rely on New Zealand to help with this sort of monitoring?
PATERSON: Well, of course, it's appropriate, David, to work with our closest defence partner, our ANZAC partner in New Zealand, and it's appropriate to share that load. But I don't understand why the coverage wasn't adequate to ensure that we were notified first and that we still don't know whether or not a live firing exercise took place or, indeed, whether a submarine is accompanying this task group.
SPEERS: A couple of other things. You mentioned defence spending, and we know the opposition has made that commitment today of $3 billion. Would you cut foreign aid to pay for additional defence spending as the British Labour Prime Minister is doing?
PATERSON: David, I don't want to disappoint you or your viewers on this question as well, but we'll be announcing any policies in relation to foreign aid and our costings in the usual way at the usual time.
SPEERS: But do you think, just on foreign aid, that this so-called soft diplomacy, whether it's an NRL deal with PNG or the security arrangements with Tuvalu and Kiribati are they important?
PATERSON: Of course, our diplomacy is important. Of course, a foreign aid program is important. It's taxpayers money, and it's spent in Australia's national interests. And I think it has a particularly important role to play in our own region in the Pacific.
SPEERS: All right. And just a final one on the Home Affairs portfolio. You've talked about restructuring this if you're the Minister, bringing ASIO and the Australian Federal Police back into Home Affairs from Attorney-General's, would you also stick with the current Secretary of Home Affairs, Stephanie Foster, or would you replace her?
PATERSON: David, it's not appropriate for me to canvass that publicly prior to the election. As you know, it's not the role of the Minister to choose the Secretary of a Department. It's a role of the Prime Minister to do that. And we'll make those decisions if and when we win the election, not before.
SPEERS: Do you have confidence in the current Secretary of the Department?
PATERSON: I'm concerned with the way the Department of Home Affairs has conducted itself on several issues, but in particular in recent weeks in relation to Tony Burke's industrial-scale, election-eve, express citizenship ceremonies. It was disclosed in Senate estimates this week that the department arranged these ceremonies according to the Minister's personal availability, even though it's not necessary for him to be there to officiate these ceremonies. And they occurred, there were 25 of them, 21 of them were held in Labor seats. And Tony Burke ensured that Labor MPs were invited to participate in them, but Liberal MPs weren't. So I think this has been a real problem and I think the department could have and should have pushed back more on that.
SPEERS: The secretary should have stopped this happening?
PATERSON: Well, we don't know what conversations happened between the Department and the Minister. That's not transparent to me.
SPEERS: Senator James Paterson, thanks for joining us this morning.
PATERSON: Thanks, David.
ENDS