Media
|
Transcripts
April 9, 2026
SALLY SARA: James Paterson, welcome back to Radio National Breakfast. Good morning. I just want to start with the events in Lebanon overnight. You're concerned by the reports of deaths of more than 250 people. Is it your view that the ceasefire should have included Lebanon?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, certainly, we're concerned about civilian deaths in conflicts like these. Clearly, what we have is a dispute between the parties to this conflict about the terms of the ceasefire. On the one hand, the United States and Israel say that the ceasefire did not include Lebanon, and on the other hand, the Islamic Republic of Iran says that it did include Lebanon. I am personally reluctant to endorse claims made by a country which has sponsored terrorist attacks on Australian soil and of which its key organ of the state, the IRGC, is listed as a terrorist organisation. But obviously Australia's national interest is that the conflict come to an end, a sustainable and durable end, and the Strait of Hormuz be reopened so that oil prices can come down and petrol and diesel prices too.
SALLY SARA: So you're not convinced that the ceasefire was meant to include Lebanon because you're not trusting the Iranian side of the negotiations? Is that a correct understanding of your position?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, the United States is our closest and most important military ally and they have publicly said that the ceasefire did not include Lebanon and against their claims are the claims of the Islamic Republic of Iran which not only sponsored terrorist attacks against Australia but has murdered tens of thousands of their own citizens in the last few months alone, has an illegal nuclear weapons program and sponsors other terrorist organisations around the world including Hezbollah and Hamas. So if asked to take the side of either the United States or the Islamic Republic of Iran regime, it's an easy choice for me.
SALLY SARA: Now that the ceasefire, at least to some extent, is in effect, what should the Australian government be doing in your view? Is there something Australia can do to contribute to efforts to reopen the Strait of Hormuz?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: I heard you ask the Foreign Minister earlier about why Australia didn't sign that statement led by such close partners as the United Kingdom, and France, and Canada, and Japan. This is the second time that we have failed at least to initially join an international statement about the end to conflict and about the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Frankly, I think it is strange that we didn't, and that the excuse has again been made that it occurred overnight. That was the excuse we made in relation to the first statement a few weeks ago and it took us several days before we joined it after countries like New Zealand and others did so, so I don't understand why Australia…
SALLY SARA: The Minister and the Prime Minister, though, have made it clear that their sentiments are very much in line with that statement. Is it really that significant if the signature isn't on the paper at the same time?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: I think it is significant. And if the statements that we've made are not inconsistent with the statements of our allies in that joint statement, I don't see why we wouldn't lend our voice to that. And only the government can explain. Last time, they said it was because we were asleep when the statement was being negotiated, but it took us several days before we joined it. And other like-minded partners, including New Zealand, joined it prior to us doing so. So that really is quite odd, frankly. In terms of what else we can do, we have to contemplate whether or not we're willing to be party to a multinational coalition after the cessation of hostilities to help reopen the Strait. That's a sovereign choice for Australia and must be made consistent with our national interest and the availability of appropriately capable military assets. And only the government can answer whether or not we have those assets available.
SALLY SARA: We heard from Penny Wong just before, saying that their focus so far has been diplomatic efforts. She didn't rule in or rule out any military assets. It sounds like that is in line with your view, that there should be multilateral work done towards it and if Australia has the capacity to contribute, it should. Is it fair to say the government and the opposition are in a fairly similar position on this issue?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Certainly, based on the level of knowledge that we have from the opposition, it's not appropriate for us to call for the deployment of military assets when we don't have a complete picture of their availability and also their capability to adequately defend themselves in this environment. We do know that the last time the United States asked us to deploy naval vessels to the Red Sea under the Biden administration, Australia was not able to comply. And media reporting at the time suggested it's because they were incapable of defending themselves from incoming rocket and drone fire. Now I hope that mitigation has occurred, particularly for our surface vessel fleet, the Australian Navy fleet, since that time. But only if the government can answer whether they're capable of defending themselves in that environment.
SALLY SARA: On Radio National Breakfast this morning, my guest is the Shadow Minister for Defence, James Paterson. Do you agree with the Prime Minister that Donald Trump's rhetoric over the course of this war has been inappropriate?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Yes, it's not language that I would use or that I could ever imagine an Australian Prime Minister using. Speaking about it analytically and dispassionately, it is clear that the U.S. President has been threatening to escalate in order to de-escalate, and it may be the reason that there is a ceasefire agreement, although a very shaky one. I don't want to…
SALLY SARA: So you think that language has materially contributed to the ceasefire coming about?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, I think there's no doubt that the Islamic Republic of Iran did not want to see the President follow through on his threats, whether he was intent on actually following through with those threats or not. I'm sure it is the case that the regime did not want to sustain the attack that the U.S. President was proposing to make. Certainly, we do not support civilisational destruction of the Iranian people. The Iranian people are the victims of the Islamic Republic of Iran, of the Ayatollahs' regime, for the last 50 years, and we want to see them enjoy freedom, prosperity and democracy one day.
SALLY SARA: The Prime Minister is travelling to Singapore today to meet his counterparts on fuel supplies. We've seen other ministers, Defence Minister, Foreign Minister, reach out in talks with their counterparts. And we've also seen the Prime Minister have a conversation with the Chinese Premier in the last 24 to 48 hours. Is that the right approach in your view for the government to be taking here to shore up those relationships with suppliers of fuel for Australia?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, there certainly shouldn't be any interruption of liquid fuel supplies to Australia because we are a critical supplier of energy to the countries that supply us with refined fuels. We are particularly a significant supplier of LNG to those countries, and they aspire for us to be a reliable partner for them, and we aspire for them to be reliable partners for us. So there certainly should be any interruptions of supply, and the Australian government should be using all diplomatic measures available to secure that supply.
SALLY SARA: James Paterson, thank you very much for joining us on Radio National Breakfast this morning.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Thank you for having me.
ENDS