Media
|
May 21, 2025
STEPHANIE DALZELL: We're joined by Liberal Senator James Paterson. Senator Paterson, welcome to the show.
JAMES PATERSON: Thank you for having me.
STEPHANIE DALZELL: Both parties in this split are saying, it's not me, it is you. Can you understand the Nationals' argument for going their own way?
JAMES PATERSON: Well, certainly the National Party is a political party in their own right who's entitled to chart their own course, and it's up to them to choose the future that they want for themselves and for their communities. The choice they have is do they want to be a party of the crossbench, a party of protest, a party that can rail against a government but not ever form part of a government, or whether or not they want be a party of government which can only occur in coalition with the Liberal Party. And that choice is the same for us as well. We will not govern unless we are in coalition with the National Party, and it is my strong view that it would be far preferable if we can get back into Coalition as soon as possible.
STEPHANIE DALZELL: You've touched on this, but some of your colleagues are saying this could be a good thing, a chance for renewal. It sounds like you don't agree?
JAMES PATERSON: I've seen some colleagues anonymously be quoted, including by your colleague Olivia Caisley for ABC Online. I've not yet seen any of my colleagues say that publicly, and no one has said that to me directly. I would find it very difficult to understand why anyone would think it is a good idea to have the two centre-right parties of Australia that only ever govern in government together in part of a coalition, instead of being at odds and competing with each other. I don't understand why, when we've already got the Labor Party, the Greens and the Teals to compete with, why we would be seeking another political competitor. It's not good for the Liberal Party, it's not for the National Party, and it is certainly not good for the people that we represent. It's not good for people in small business, it is not good for farmers, it not good for families, it's not good for people in urban areas or regional areas if we are divided rather than working together to hold the government to account and produce a policy agenda for all Australians.
STEPHANIE DALZELL: You've made comments today in the Financial Review that now the Liberals are competing against both the Nationals and Labor. Are you frustrated by this?
JAMES PATERSON: I think it's unfortunate, I think its counterproductive, I don't think it is in the best interest of our parties or our country or the people that we represent, I believe they are best served by us working together with our now even more limited resources in opposition dedicated to holding this government to account for the mistakes that they undoubtedly will enter into, for the overreach they will undoubtedly engage in and working together on that policy agenda which can excite and inspire and earn the trust of the Australian people again, that if they vote Liberal and National at the next election, that they will get a better and stronger Australia and that their personal lives will be better as well.
STEPHANIE DALZELL: Sussan Ley mentioned shadow cabinet solidarity as one of the sticking points, meaning the Nationals wanted the right to vote against Coalition policies while retaining shadow cabinet positions. Is this really all just about net zero?
JAMES PATERSON: I wasn't part of the negotiations, but I have seen those reports as well, and it is inconceivable that parties of government could form a coalition that meant that shadow cabinet solidarity was an optional extra, that a party would choose not to be bound by some decisions made by the shadow cabinet. It is a cornerstone principle of a Westminster parliamentary democracy that you have collective responsibility of a cabinet or shadow cabinet, and it would be trashing a centuries-old political principle and tradition, which is essential to delivering a stable majority government if you were to walk away from that. So if it is indeed true, as there has been widespread media reporting speculating, that that was one of the conditions, I certainly understand why we could not agree to that. The policy issues I think should be resolvable. The four policy issues the National Party identified as important to them, many Liberals think are important too, and I don't think it is beyond us to negotiate an outcome which would be mutually agreeable to both the Liberal Party room and the National Party room.
STEPHANIE DALZELL: I wanted to look at some of the potential implications of this longer term. As an example, at the next election, National's Bridget McKenzie had the number two spot on the Coalition Senate ticket at the last election. The number two means you're likely to be re-elected. Looking ahead to the next election, would she retain that without a coalition agreement, or would you run separate tickets?
JAMES PATERSON: Well, it's not up to me as an individual parliamentarian to settle a Coalition agreement on behalf of our parties, but what I would say is that a shared Senate ticket is one of the benefits of a Coalition agreement. It's one of the features of a Coalition agreement. You can run together on a shared ticket because you're running with a shared agenda and a shared platform. If, instead, there is no Coalition agreement, there is no shared agreement, there is no shared platform, and we're in fact competing with each other, then I think it's much less likely that we would have a joint Senate ticket.
STEPHANIE DALZELL: So what's the next step here? Are you just waiting for the Nationals to come back?
JAMES PATERSON: Well, those negotiations, I hope, will continue between Susan Ley and David Littleproud. They've both said that their doors are open, and I want to make sure that that is the case and that that conversation happens. We've got to now work through those policy issues as a Liberal party room and a Liberal Shadow Cabinet, but I think it's highly likely that we're able to come to a landing that would meet the approval of the National Party because it has majority support within the Liberal Party as well, particularly on something like nuclear power, which many of us in the Liberal party have been on the public record arguing for close a decade, if not more. So, I think those issues are resolvable and if the National Party is true to their word publicly that it is only those policy issues that are holding them back from being part of a Coalition, then that should offer a pathway to restoring the Coalition well before the next election.
STEPHANIE DALZELL: Well, before the next election, that's obviously three years away, how long do you think this could take?
JAMES PATERSON: I'm not in a position to say. It depends on not just me and my colleagues but on the National Party and their colleagues, and so I really can't speculate about that except that I think it is in our interests to come together as soon as possible. I do not want to see a situation where we are competing at the next election, where our resources are devoted to fighting each other in regional Australia instead of the Labor Party everywhere else in Australia.
STEPHANIE DALZELL: You mentioned Shadow Cabinet. You were the Home Affairs spokesperson for the Coalition in the lead-up to the last election. Would you like to retain Home Affairs, or are you interested in something else?
JAMES PATERSON: Look, I'll have those conversations directly and privately with Sussan Ley as leader of the Liberal Party.
STEPHANIE DALZELL: You're not going to tell us now?
JAMES PATERSON: No, I'm sorry. I'm not going to share that with you and your viewers now as much as I'd like to. In the Liberal Party, it is the right of the leader to determine the front bench positions in the Shadow Cabinet. And I trust Susan's judgement in doing so.
STEPHANIE DALZELL: Who do you think is best placed to lead the Liberal review in response to your defeat? Arthur Sinodinos is a name that's been floated. Is there anyone that you'd be keen to spearhead this review?
JAMES PATERSON: I've seen some of the names speculated in the media, including Arthur Sinodinos and also my other former Liberal Senate colleague, Scott Ryan. Both of them are eminently qualified Liberals, deep thinkers who'd be well placed to do a review like that, but it is a matter for the Federal Executive of the Liberal Party to appoint that, not for the Parliamentary party to appoint that and I'll leave it up to them to make that decision.
STEPHANIE DALZELL: Senator, I also wanted to ask you about the latest in Gaza. The leaders of the UK, France, and Canada have threatened action against Israel if it doesn't stop a renewed military offensive in Gaza and lift aid restrictions. What's your response to that?
JAMES PATERSON: I understand why many world leaders and many Australians are deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, which is very serious, and absolutely, there should be a free flow of aid to the people of Gaza. We do not want to see the innocent civilians in Gaza punished for the actions of Hamas. But it is also important that we remember the reason why Israel finds itself in this predicament and that is that it still has citizens that are held captive by Hamas in Gaza and if Hamas released those captives, those hostages, from Gaza then we would be in a very different situation and there would be a possibility of a ceasefire and peace in Gaza. So until that happens, I think the international community should put at least as much pressure on Hamas to release the hostages as it should on Israel to uphold those humanitarian obligations.
STEPHANIE DALZELL: So do you think Australia should follow suit, follow the UK and Canada, for example?
JAMES PATERSON: Well, I'd be surprised if Australia hadn't already made our view clear, through the government, to Israel that we expect them to uphold their humanitarian obligations, that we don't want to see people in Gaza suffer as a result of Hamas' crimes. But I also hope that in doing so, the government makes it equally clear through every available leverage that it has, including through Hamas's sponsors and supporters throughout the Middle East, that they expect them to release the hostages, which could finally bring this conflict to an end.
STEPHANIE DALZELL: The United Nations has warned that 14,000 babies in Gaza are at risk of dying in the next 48 hours unless aid is poured into the strip. Do you think Israel should allow more aid in?
JAMES PATERSON: Yes, I do think that aid should be allowed to enter Gaza. There's no question about that. We do not want to see innocent people, especially innocent children, suffer as a result of this. But as I've said before, and it's really important to continue to emphasise, Hamas has responsibility here. Hamas can make choices, too. And they could make sure that those babies receive the aid that they need by releasing those hostages. That is the obstacle to peace. And Hamas could remove it tomorrow if they chose.
STEPHANIE DALZELL: Senator, I also just wanted to quickly ask your response to Paul Erickson's comments that Peter Dutton's aggression and intolerance hindered the coalition in the lead-up to this last election. What's your response?
JAMES PATERSON: Well, Paul Erickson ran a highly effective campaign for the Labor Party, and although it was to my disappointment, the result, I have to take my professional hat off to him for a highly effective campaign. And in particular they ran a devastating character assassination of Peter Dutton. They painted him to be a caricature of what he is not, but we, as a Liberal Party, have got a responsibility to much more effectively respond to that in the future. One of the things I think we need to do, one of the clear lessons, is we need to invest in the story of our leader much earlier than we did with Peter Dutton. We need to tell the good things about them and not allow the Labor Party to define our leader on their terms. We have to define our leader on our own terms, and I'm sure that's what will be part of our election review.
STEPHANIE DALZELL: Senator James Paterson will leave it there. Thanks so much for joining us this afternoon.
JAMES PATERSON: Thank you.
ENDS