Media
|
Transcripts
September 16, 2026
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON
SHADOW MINISTER FOR DEFENCE
SENATOR FOR VICTORIA
TRANSCRIPT
INTERVIEW
ABC RADIO NATIONAL BREAKFAST WITH SALLY SARA
Wednesday, 16 September 2026
Topics: AI, Marles satellite backflip, AUKUS, One Nation
E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………………
SALLY SARA: The federal government is considering workarounds to allow artificial intelligence companies to train their models on Australian intellectual property. Leaked policy documents seen by the ABC reveal Labor is considering imposing an opt-out model where the work of artists could be made automatically available to AI companies unless creators actively take steps to block or remove them. Meanwhile, the Coalition is calling on the government to introduce legislation to regulate artificial intelligence by Christmas this year. James Paterson is the Shadow Minister for Defence and Senator for Victoria. Senator Paterson, welcome back to Radio National Breakfast.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Thank you for having me.
SARA: What do you make of this? These leaked copyright proposals, which would make inclusion in AI training, opt out by default?
PATERSON: I want to come to that detail in a second, but I think first we just should take one step back and ask ourselves why we even need to look at that at all, why that's an issue at all. And that is there is three compelling reasons why Australia should want to have sovereign access to the most advanced US frontier models of AI. The first is the economic opportunity. We're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars of investment, including some of the most advanced chips in the world, which we don't really have access to now, coming to Australia. The second is a national security imperative. These technologies are incredibly important for intelligence collection, for cyber defence and for modern warfare. And the third is that if we're successful in securing these training models in Australia, it gets us a seat at the table as arguably one of the most important jurisdictions for regulation of AI in the western world after the United States. But if we don't have the public policy settings that attract that investment in the first place, we miss out on all of those opportunities and most importantly that last opportunity.
SARA: So, do creatives and their intellectual property get thrown under the bus here?
PATERSON: No, I don't think that's necessary. I think it's very clear that people's intellectual property, if it is used, should be paid for. I think what is open to being resolved is how they're paid for, the mechanism that they are paid by ...
SARA: So, is that licensees? Is it groups? Is it via government?
PATERSON: I'm personally open-minded about that and I think we should keep all options on the table. I think what's happening now is effectively a negotiation between the AI companies who are willing to pay, between the creative industries who reasonably want their intellectual property to be compensated and between the government that has to mediate this. But I am concerned about the timelines here. Because there are windows for investment that are closing. They will not be open forever and Australia is not the only market in the world these companies are looking at. They're looking at countries like the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and they could go elsewhere. And if we hold out for what we think is a better deal, if we wait too long, we risk missing that investment window entirely and this sovereign AI training never coming to Australia at all in any meaningful way.
SARA: Is the government right to seek a balance here between domestic laws and the demands of AI companies so that it can attract investment?
PATERSON: In short, yes, I think a balance can and should be struck here, but only if the government has the sense of urgency to move quickly and get this done. And my view very strongly is we should seek to get this done this year.
SARA: So, let's look further at what you're saying. Is there a national security argument for Australia to get access to these frontier AI models that the largest companies are developing? Is there risk and opportunity here?
PATERSON: There's absolutely risk and that's one of the reasons why I want Australia to have a seat at the table so that our voice actually counts when it comes to global regulation of AI, which is where these questions are going to be decided. But in terms of why it's important for a national security imperative. I mean, we've seen in the open-source realm, the advances in Chinese open-weight models, for example, and the utility they can provide to hackers to find vulnerabilities in our critical networks. That could include our financial networks, it could include our energy networks, it can include our water, our infrastructure. And if we don't have AI helping us first identify and patch those vulnerabilities, then we are a sitting duck for criminals, for nation states, for others. And there is a real risk, given that the United States has previously revoked access to these most advanced models, that that could happen again in the future. The best way to guard against that is to make sure they're being trained here. It'll be very difficult to remove them once they're being trained here.
SARA: What do you make of some of the broader discussions at the moment of AI causing harm to humanity? Earlier this week on the programme we were speaking with Nobel Laureate Professor Geoffrey Hinton about these issues and the call for a slowdown right now.
PATERSON: I think we should listen to those warnings very carefully and take them seriously. They should not be lightly dismissed. These are people who are working in the heart of these companies who have sincere concerns. But in my view, it's not a reason to stop. And I think it would be very challenging to achieve an enforceable global agreement to stop the development of AI. The reason why that is, is you've not only got competition between the companies, whether it's OpenAI or Anthropic or Microsoft or Google, you've also got competition between nation states. And getting the United States and China to agree on this would be very difficult. And then, particularly getting the PRC to agree to comply and have those agreements enforced would be almost impossible. It'd be very difficult to observe. And I wouldn't want to see a situation where western headquartered AI companies go on pause, China marches ahead and they crack these models before we do, and all the advantages that come with that.
SARA: You're listening to Radio National Breakfast. My guest is the Shadow Minister for Defence, Senator James Paterson. Senator, according to a report in The Australian, the Department of Defence has revived plans to acquire military communications satellite after Defence Minister Richard Marles axed a similar plan two years ago. What's your observation? Why do you think the government's changed its mind?
PATERSON: This is an extraordinary mess of Richard Marles' own making. When the Albanese government came to power, they inherited a tender to acquire a sovereign geostationary single large military communications satellite. They cancelled that because Richard Marles said very memorably it could get blown out of the sky. And it looked like they were going to prefer what's called a MEO or LEO constellation of mid-Earth or low-Earth observation satellites that were distributed and therefore less exposed to that risk. Well, they've now cancelled that process too and they've gone back to square one and they're now seeking again a single large geostationary satellite which would be as vulnerable now as Richard Marles says it was four years ago. And what have we lost in the meantime? We've lost that time and it's so critical in a dangerous world that we have these sovereign capabilities. The waste of money is one thing, but the waste of time is extraordinary. Even once a decision is made, it'll take another five years before we get one of these in the sky and we've lost a lot of time in the meantime.
SARA: The new British Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, has yet to set a timeline for achieving defence spending level of 3% of GDP and has said national security can't come at the expense of social security. Does that concern you at all?
PATERSON: Look, that's a sovereign democratic choice for the UK government to make. I'm not concerned at all about the UK Government's commitment to AUKUS. Because for the United Kingdom, it's a national security and an economic imperative. It's a huge opportunity for them to work with Australia on those SSN-AUKUS submarines in the late 2030s and 2040s. So particularly having the Chancellor of the Exchequer being a former defence minister who's very committed to AUKUS, I'm confident about the UK pathway.
SARA: Just briefly, in an interview on News24 yesterday, Senator Pauline Hanson made some comments about you and also Shadow Treasurer Tim Wilson. Let's take a quick listen.
CLIP
PAULINE HANSON: I wish that Tim Wilson and James Paterson would actually listen to me and stop this in-fighting that's going on between One Nation and the Liberal Party because you know who are the real enemy ...
KIERAN GILBERT: Do you think they are to blame?
HANSON: Yes, I do.
GILBERT: James Paterson?
HANSON: Yes, I do ...
GILBERT: And Tim Wilson?
HANSON: And Tim Wilson. I think they're dragging this out. You know, this whole thing with Indigenous was a year ago, the podcast. Everything they're dragging out now is to take the focus off the immigration policy or our superannuation policy.
END CLIP
SARA: What do you make of all of that?
PATERSON: It's a bit strange. They're baseless claims which Pauline Hanson has provided no evidence for and Kieran Gilbert pointed out to her that News24’s sources were not either myself or Tim Wilson. So, I don't know where she's getting these ideas from. I think what One Nation is experiencing is the scrutiny that comes when you say you're running to form a government and that's unusual and uncomfortable for One Nation. But you don't need a private investigator to find a YouTube video of a podcast that Senator Hanson or Malcolm Roberts or her other colleagues have recorded. It's just that the things they used to say which didn't attract attention and scrutiny in the past because of their position in the polls are now attracting scrutiny. I think that's healthy and normal in a democracy.
SARA: James Paterson, thank you for coming into the studio this morning.
PATERSON: Thank you.
ENDS