Transcript | 2GB | 18 February 2026

SENATOR JAMES PATERSON
SHADOW MINISTER FOR DEFENCE
SENATOR FOR VICTORIA

TRANSCRIPT

INTERVIEW

2GB

Wednesday, 18 February 2026

 Topics: Appointment as Shadow Minister for Defence, Selling of Victoria Barracks, defence spending

E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………………

MICHAEL MCLAREN:  But what they have done to raise a bit of money to apparently put back into material is decided to flog off 67 sites, the majority of which I have no problem with, but a few I do. And at the top of that list, as you know, is the Victoria Barracks, the historic Victoria Barracks in Sydney. I think it's a big mistake. The petition we've got going is now 17,290 signatures and growing every minute. But I'm glad to say the Opposition is, as of this afternoon, officially on board. The newly installed Shadow Defence Minister, Senator James Paterson, with me on the line. Senator, congratulations on your new role. 

SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Thank you, Michael, and congratulations to you for the way which you've given voice for the community on this critical issue. I mean, no serious nation sells off its military heritage in the way that this government is proposing to do. And at the top of that list is Victoria Barracks Sydney. 

MICHAEL MCLAREN: Well, I agree. The 67 sites, probably 60 of them, you can make the case no trouble about selling them, probably surplus to requirement, fine. But there are a few, aren't there, that are special. In the case of Victoria Barracks Sydney, unique and traditional. And it's not as if it's a sort of a museum piece or a trinket from a bygone era. It's still used. Okay, it might be a little underutilised, but that can change at a discretionary pen of a Minister. So why would we sever that unbroken lineage and tradition that goes back to 1840. 

SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, like you, Michael, I'm sure there are some defence assets that could be disposed of that aren't as significant as Victoria Barracks or as useful as it potentially could be in the future. But I don't think that a great nation like the United States would ever contemplate selling off West Point, that the United Kingdom would ever contemplate selling off Sandhurst and as you say it's not just about our military heritage. At any moment in the strategic environment we now face Australia could be required to mobilise, to respond to a regional crisis and something which looks like it's surplus to requirements today may become very important in the near future and I think it's very short-sighted to sell it off. But frankly, I'm also concerned with this idea that we can just banish these key military bases from our cities, that the military is something that should exist in the regions and remote Australia, and that it shouldn't be proximate to where we live and work. I think it's actually a very healthy thing in a liberal democracy for Australians to live and work and be alongside the armed forces so that it remains front of mind for them and the sacrifices they make. 

MICHAEL MCLAREN: I agree with that. As you may have heard, speaking of the strategic importance of this asset, I think too often we keep talking about this as some sort of old dust-covered bygone era throwback. But I was speaking just last Friday to the former Chief of the Defence Force, Ken Gillespie, and he spoke to me about the strategic importance of this very site. And from a national security perspective, he took us back to I think it was 2009 when we hosted APEC, but there have been other events where the helicopters have had to land, it's been a strategic base. It will remain a valuable parcel of land in defence hands going forward in the environment we face. It seems terribly short-sighted just to sell it off and potentially put some housing there or whatever the plan is. We don't really know what the plan is, but that speaks to the confusion here doesn't it?

SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: I'm really sceptical about this idea that we're going to get this big increase in housing from sales of sites like that. Are we seriously going to hand this over to a property developer to build apartments that will probably be bought by foreign investors? Is that seriously the best use of facilities like these? I'm really doubtful about the merit of that and I'm extremely sceptical about the supposed dollar value uplift that the government is going to get out of this. Let's remember the heritage that would have to be protected, that would diminish the value of a sale and let's remember the remediation costs of some of those sites are going to be significant and haven't been properly assessed yet. It's just an initial assessment. The idea we're going to net $2 billion out of this sale, I'm sceptical about. Of course, the only reason why this is being contemplated is because the Albanese Government refuses to fund defence properly. As you pointed out rightly, they're only spending 2% of GDP. That's peacetime, normal baseline spending. It is not the urgent crisis time spending that we need and that people like Sir Angus Houston and Professor Peter Dean who completed the Defence Strategic Review for the Albanese Government have told us that we need. 

MICHAEL MCLAREN: All right, well, let's look at spending. I know you're about 24 hours into the job, so I'm not expecting you to outline your policy here in every detail, ok, fair's fair. But 2.02% of GDP, you agree, I think sensible people agree, it's not enough. The Americans want at least 3.5%. Just because they want that doesn't mean we should deliver it. But there is a quid pro quo in the relationship. I mean, they are basically our plan A, B, C, and D when it comes to national defence. We can't defend ourself against say China if we're being theoretical. We need allied support and that allied support will come from the United States so we've got to keep them on side. Do you have a sense of in the next couple of years what percentage of GDP we should be spending and not just what percent but where the additional funds should be going. I mean it's one thing to say let's throw another 40 billion at defence but we need to know where it's going to go. 

SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well you're right, it's a sovereign choice of Australia how much we spend on our defence and we should be mindful of our allies' expectations but we ultimately have to make a decision for ourselves. But it's very clear it is in our own best interest to increase defence spending. People like Sir Angus Houston and Peter Dean who are the best informed civilians in Australia right now on this question because of the review they conducted say 3% is what we should be aiming for. Now I just can't see if you've got people like that saying that is what we need to do, that we should just disregard that advice, that we should just think that we know better and that we can get away with spending only 2%. And particularly, if we want to have both AUKUS, which I strongly support, and also a capable ADF in other domains, then we're going to have to do both, because otherwise you've got AUKUS spending cannibalising existing capability, and that's why so much capability has been cut by this government. 

MICHAEL MCLAREN: Okay, 3%. Now that's X billion dollars additional that we're not spending at the moment. We're in an enormous amount of debt. We know the state of the books. We think we know the state of books. It's not pretty. You either have to make some cuts somewhere to fund it or you've got to raise the capital somewhere else. And we keep being told if only we just grew the pie that well, okay, yeah, but that's easier said than done. Do you envisage that defence has to take priority over a couple of other say social programmes and we've just got to be a bit tough and ruthless about this? 

SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: We'll announce our full policies and full costings in the usual time and the usual way, including the profile of any increase in defence spending and how we pay for it. But it is a really important principle that if you do get the economy growing faster than government spending, that over time deficits fall and you have more resources for critical projects and priorities like defence. But we've also been quite open in recent months about our concern about some of the waste of the Albanese Government. You know, one very good example is this electric vehicle tax rebate, which was supposed to only cost about $90 million a year, but is now in the billions of dollars. It's blown out by about 15 times what it was originally forecast. And the benefit overwhelmingly accrues to high income earners. And the reduction in carbon emissions is about the least efficient you could possibly get ... 

MICHAEL MCLAREN: ... And yet they're obsessed with negative gearing and capital gains tax on properties  

SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Indeed and we are totally opposed to increasing taxes on Australian homeowners. We don't think that is going to make housing more affordable and we don't think it's fair that because the Labor Government can't control their own spending that they come after your hard-earned savings. 

MICHAEL MCLAREN: Just finally, hypothetical Iran, I mean, my thinking is America will strike and hit them hard with Israel in the coming month. That's my summation. I don't think these talks are going to amount to much. It's telling, I think, James, that no other nation seems willing to assist. The Europeans, I don't think, want a bar of it. As far as I can tell, the Australian Government won't want a bar of it. I don't know if they've been asked to contribute in any way. But if we were asked, should we? 

SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Look, it would be irresponsible of me to publicly speculate about that, especially as I've not been briefed on these matters 24 hours into the portfolio. But I would say that the United States military remains the preeminent global military and really the only ones in the world who have the capability to conduct any sort of operations like this. It would be a brave person who tries to predict what President Trump will do. But if I was the Iranians, I would be taking this very seriously, given the strikes that he authorised on their nuclear facilities not that long ago. 

MICHAEL MCLAREN: I think a few of them are. I think they've moved a bit of money to their old bank accounts outside of Iran, so I'd imagine they've got Plan B sorted. All right, well, look, thank you for officially putting the Opposition on the side of the petition. We'll share the link with you, and if you can share it around to all of your colleagues and associates, we'll get hopefully over the 20,000, and we'll put it to Richard Marles. 

SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Thanks Michael.

ENDS

‍