November 7, 2023
LAURA JAYES: I've got James Paterson, Shadow Minister, standing by. James, you would have heard that spray there from Richard Marles. Do you disagree with anything, any points that you'd like to make?
JAMES PATERSON: Well, I'd noticed that Richard Marles didn't address at all the comments of the former Chief of the Army, Peter Leahy, who has absolutely panned the government this morning. He's not a partisan political figure. He's not a politician. He's not a Liberal. He's a former Chief of Army and he says this government is gutting the army and gutting the ADF and I think he's right. If you look at the decisions on LAND 400, if you look at decisions on the Howitzers, if you look at a whole range of decisions on where we're basing our troops, how many troops we have, this government is pulling resources away from Army to pay for other things because they're not willing to increase government spending on the military. And it's very clear that in the forward estimates there will be no new money for defence at a time of our greatest strategic peril. When the DSR says these are the most dangerous times we've ever lived in since the end of World War Two, but the funding doesn't come to match it, there's something missing and I think the thing that's missing is that Richard Marles is incapable as Defence Minister of going to the Expenditure Review Committee of Cabinet and getting his colleagues to agree to give him more money that he knows we need.
JAYES: There's always a trajectory with these kinds of things. Do you regret any of the decisions your side of politics made in the ten years it was in power because it could have left our Defence Force in a bit better shape, could it not?
PATERSON: Well, in fact, we restored defence spending to 2% of GDP. What we inherited from the previous Labor government was one and a half percent of GDP, the lowest level of spending on defence since 1938. That's the record of the previous Labor government and we fixed that. It took time, it took money, but we got it up to 2% of GDP and my hope is that this government builds on that. I genuinely want them to succeed when it comes to national security and defence.
JAYES: What's the official position of your side, though? Do you think it should stay at 2% now, or if you've got an official position that it should be two and a half or three?
PATERSON: Well, we don't have a specific number that we are suggesting at this point, Laura. But our view is that we should spend what we need to spend to defend our country. And there's no evidence at the moment that this government is willing to do that. They are saying that they will increase defence spending, but it's just going to come outside the forward estimates, outside the time at which they required to prove where that money comes from and where it will go to.
JAYES: But James, when you say we need to spend what we need to spend, that sounds like a blank check, is it?
PATERSON: Well, Laura, I don't think our children and grandchildren will thank us if we pinched pennies to save a dollar here, there and when strategic circumstances changed on us, we weren't able to defend our nation.
JAYES: I know but there does need to be some constraints around it. Would you agree?
PATERSON: Well, of course, we want to get value for money for taxpayers. We want to make sure the money that is spent is going to where it needs to go and it's buying capability that is going to defend our nation. It's why we established AUKUS. It's why we ensured we have a pathway to acquire the most exquisite military technology in the world. That's the legacy of our government and the willingness to spend the money required to do it. This government hasn't proven its ability to do so yet, and the jury's still out as it should be.
JAYES: Okay, let's talk about what I've got you want to talk about, and that is that Australia's Future Fund is being exposed to Chinese companies. These Chinese companies have links to military regimes, human rights abuses in Russia, Iran and North Korea. How concerned are you about this?
PATERSON: Look, I'm very concerned, Laura. Of the 119 investments that the Future Fund has currently in China, 50 of them are high risk companies. That includes across a range of industries from health care to defence to manufacturing, across a range of industries. And among those, as you say, are companies involved in the exploitation of Uyghur people in the region of Xinjiang. Among those companies are those that make suppliers to the [PLA]. Others are those who have been involved in, the beneficiaries of, the Chinese Communist Party's industrial intellectual property theft campaign. These are not companies that Australian taxpayers money or indeed our retirement savings should be invested in. And if even the Future Fund, with its robust processes and oversight, is making these investments, I'm deeply worried that other Australian superannuation funds, for example, are also equally dangerously exposed. And really it is time for the Albanese government to step up here and at least provide some guidance, if not put in place some outbound investment restrictions to make sure that our money is not going to these purposes.
JAYES: What should those restrictions be? Should there be a blanket rule? Is there a grey area here? Can they be de-invested if that's even a word from the Future Fund? You know, can that be extrapolated out?
PATERSON: The Biden administration announced in August that it was putting in place outbound investment restrictions on US investors into China in areas of sensitive technology, critical technology, military technology. And a report in the Financial Review in Australia in August said that the Albanese government was considering doing the same. But so far we've seen no progress on that announcement from them. In the audit there were 119 companies, but only 50 that were high risk. So therefore there were others that were deemed not to be a risk, there wasn't any evidence that they were risky. So I'm not saying that there should be no investment in China. I'm not saying even the Future Fund shouldn't invest in China. But I don't think they should be investing in companies that represent human rights or national security risk. I think that's not consistent with our values and I don't think Australian taxpayers want their money going to those things.
JAYES: Yeah, well, we will ask the Prime Minister about that, I'm sure, on his return or perhaps while he's even there. James, before I let you go, will you one of these opposition ministers critical of Anthony Albanese going to China? We've seen that meeting. It looked like it went well. Anthony Albanese has a big smile on his face. Not that I'm a body language expert, but all things considered, do you think it was a worthwhile visit? Has it been a success?
PATERSON: We provided bipartisan support for the Prime Minister's visit and for the government's efforts to stabilise the relationship. We think that's welcome and important, although I do have to say seeing some of the Instagram posts that the Prime Minister has sent of him at the Whispering Wall at the Temple of the Heaven looks like he was recreating his fantasy of a Gough Whitlam tour to China and really not all that focused on the national interest. The most important thing is that the Prime Minister stands up for Australia while he's in China, that he robustly advocates for our interest. Now we will never know exactly what happened in that private meeting between him and Xi Jinping, but it's critical that the detained Australians, that the sanctions, that the foreign interference and the espionage, all those issues in the bilateral relationship are robustly raised on behalf of the Australian people.
JAYES: James, always great to speak to you and we'll see you soon.
PATERSON: Thanks Laura.
ENDS
