|
July 4, 2024
JAMES PATERSON: Good morning. The Foreign Minister Penny Wong needs to stand up today and explain what her Assistant Minister Tim Watts meant when he hauled in the Israeli Ambassador and told our friend and ally Israel that it could not count on Australia's support if they found themselves at war with Hezbollah, a listed terrorist organisation. Let's remember that Hezbollah has been attacking civilian communities in the north of Israel since the 7th of October. Launching rockets into those communities on a daily basis. And to this day, nine months on, tens of thousands of Israelis have been internally displaced and are living in hotels in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv because of Hezbollah's attacks. The international community said in U.N. resolution 1701 in 2006 that the territory south of Litani River in southern [Lebanon] should be demilitarised, and it is anything but. If Israel finds itself in that war, then Australia should stand with our ally and against a terrorist organisation.
JOURNALIST: On your colleague, Senator Payman, if she does quit the Labor Party. What do you think that means for the Senate moving forward and passing legislation and things like that?
PATERSON: Well if Fatima Payman quits the party today that is another sign of Anthony Albanese’s weak leadership and a very divided Labor Party. Since those 7th of October terrorist attacks Labor has been deeply divided on the question of Israel and Palestine, and the Prime Minister hasn't led in a way that's been able to unite his team or unite our country and it will be a symptom of his failures if she quits today. It will of course make the Labor party's job that little bit harder in the Senate. One less spot they can count on, one more crossbencher that they have to cultivate, one more person that they have to do deals within exchange to pass their legislation. And I hope the Prime Minister will not further sacrifice or compromise our national security or foreign policy in any deals he's now required to do if Senator Payman joins the crossbench.
JOURNALIST: Do you think the Greens have been divisive in the motions they have put forward on Palestine, considering they knew that stance on the matter?
PATERSON: I think the Greens are entitled to move whatever motions they like or whatever issues they like in the Senate, and it is the responsibility of major parties, parties of government like the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, to stand up for Australia's national interest and act in a sensible way. The area where I do think the Greens have crossed the line is the way in which they have sought to weaponise foreign conflicts for domestic political gain and stoked the flames of divisions in our community. And we've seen that very clearly with the attacks on our war memorials. We have seen that very clearly with the attacks on electorate offices. And the Greens do need to be much more careful about the way they have inflamed community tensions.
JOURNALIST: Just on supermarkets, just how much disagreement was there in the party room when this was discussed the other day?
PATERSON: For obvious reasons, I don't talk about what happens in party room. But let me just say that in my eight years in the Senate and in the Liberal Party, I have not seen a debate that was conducted more respectfully, more thoughtfully than this one. It was a measured thoughtful debate, colleagues had contributions to make, questions to ask that were entirely reasonable questions about a significant policy issue, which demonstrates that our focus is on the people of Australia and the cost of living crisis that they're facing, particularly their grocery prices. If you ask Australians what is one of the number one pressures on the household budgets, they will tell you it's grocery prices and we should be doing everything we can to get those down. And that's what we're doing.
JOURNALIST: Are you concerned that those powers could expand to the aviation sector or, you know, insurance sector. Do you think there's a push from the Nationals to expand that?
PATERSON: We've been very clear that this is a sector specific policy. We've introduced it for the supermarket industry only because of the unique circumstances of that industry and because of the significant impact it has on the cost of living for Australians. I think that's an appropriate and targeted focus. It's a very measured policy that has significant safeguards that I'm very comfortable with.
JOURNALIST: What side of the debate were you on in party room?
PATERSON: I don't speak in party room, as a Shadow Minister. I speak in Shadow Cabinet and I made my contribution in that forum. And I'm very pleased to have contributed to the policy and where it's landed.
JOURNALIST: Do you think it goes against sort of, liberal values at all?
PATERSON: Yeah, I've seen this argument. I mean, the bastion of free market capitalism, the United States has had these laws for 100 years. And, free market economists will tell you it is possible for a market participant to abuse their power and to stifle competition. And competition is actually ultimately what we aim for, to the benefit of consumers. Consumers benefit when you have competitive markets. Consumers can suffer when those markets aren't competitive, and it is appropriate to have a last resort power to prevent that abuse of market power to make sure that consumers are not paying more then they should be.
JOURNALIST: Just to clarify, do you want to make sure that it doesn't go beyond supermarkets?
PATERSON: Well, we don't have a policy to extend it beyond the supermarket industry. It's targeted there for good reason. Thanks, everyone.
ENDS
