Media
|
News
June 2, 2026
SALLY SARA: Senator Paterson, welcome back to Breakfast.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Thank you for having me.
SARA: The government has announced that Australia will now buy three second hand Virginia-class subs from the US instead of one new sub and two second hand. You've said you're concerned about a very serious capability gap that could emerge as a result. What is that gap?
PATERSON: Well, obviously, used submarines have a shorter lifespan than new submarines. The Virginia-class submarine has a rough operational life of 33 years. I understand from media reporting that we're going to get these boats when they're about a decade old. So that's a much shorter span of life in the water than we otherwise would have had. And it means they need to be replaced sooner by other submarines, and that's the SSN-AUKUS program which is the Australian program to build nuclear submarines with the United Kingdom. If that doesn't happen on plan and on schedule, and these are mega projects that have high risks, then you have a real risk of a capability gap emerging.
SARA: Why do you think this has happened? Is it possible this was recommended by Pentagon official Elbridge Colby in his review of AUKUS?
PATERSON: Yes, that certainly is possible. And if that is the case, I think the government should be transparent about that, because three years ago, they released what they called the “optimal pathway” to acquiring nuclear propelled submarines. And in their optimal pathway, they said we would get at least one new nuclear submarine. So what has changed in the last three years to make it no longer the optimal pathway? The minister says, well, it's because these boats are going to be cheaper, and they're going to be easier to operate. But if that is the case now, that was also the case three years ago, nothing on that front has changed.
SARA: In the past week we've heard US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth singling out Australia for praise. If a second-hand sub is the price the federal government has to pay to maintain a good relationship with Washington, is it a price worth paying?
PATERSON: Not in my view, no. I think the most important thing about this program is securing Australia's national interest, about being able to defend our values, about how to defend our country ultimately. And we shouldn't swap that for praise from a foreign government. We should do what we believe is in our national interest. So the government has to make a compelling case that it is better for Australia to get used submarines, and I'll be pursuing that with them in Senate estimates this week.
SARA: You've said you're not an advocate for a Plan B alternative for AUKUS if the pact doesn't deliver nuclear subs to Australia as planned. What could make up the capability gap?
PATERSON: I'm confident that the nuclear submarines will ultimately be delivered, but I'm also aware, especially given the risks of the Life-of-Type Extension to the current Collins-class submarines, that there are multiple points where a capability gap could emerge, and we urgently need to have a conversation about what could fill that capability gap and also be a supplement to nuclear submarines. I've made the suggestion to get the debate started to look at the B-21 Raider, it is a stealth bomber. It can do some of the things that a nuclear submarine can. But if others have better suggestions of how we could fill that gap, including long-range drones, including hypersonic or ballistic missiles, I'm very open to hearing those ideas.
SARA: Pete Hegseth thanked Australia for boosting its defence spending. You've previously accused the government of creative accounting on defence. Did Pete Hegseth get it wrong?
PATERSON: Well, it's good that the Defence Secretary is being publicly positive about Australia, but anyone who reads the story on the front page of The Australian newspaper this morning will understand that this government has engaged in extraordinary accounting trickery to cover up their failure to invest in defence. We now know that the government's higher claimed defence spending includes things like military pensions, superannuation, and veterans welfare, which while important, don't contribute to acquiring any new capability, sustaining any platforms or funding any current operations. And they've even done things like counting the expenditure on the Inspector-General for Intelligence and Security as defence spending. So unless the Defence Minister is planning on deploying the IGIS to battle in future I don't think that's really defence spending.
SARA: On Radio National Breakfast, you're hearing from Shadow Defence Minister Senator James Paterson. Senator, you've been critical of One Nation leader Pauline Hanson for her failure to attend Senate estimates. Do you think that Australians who support or are considering supporting One Nation care about Pauline Hanson's attendance at Estimates?
PATERSON: They may or they may not, but I still think it's important, because senators are paid very well by taxpayers to do our job. And there's no more important forum for an opposition or cross-bench senators than Senate estimates. Some of the issues I've had the biggest impact on have been from questions I've asked at Senate estimates. And if, 88% of the time, Senator Hanson can't even be bothered showing up to do her job, to advocate for her constituents, I think that reflects badly on her commitment to her job.
SARA: Yesterday on this program, I spoke with Tony Abbott, the new Federal President of the Liberal Party, and he says that Liberals should remind voters that they are a patriotic party, the tradition party, also criticised the PM for standing behind three flags, and opposes acknowledgments of country. Should cultural issues be the focus? Are they the main driver of One Nation support in your view?
PATERSON: My assessment is that support for non-major parties, including One Nation, is being driven by a range of factors, but ultimately I think the biggest driver is the economy. I think it is the loss of living standards that Australians have suffered in the post-pandemic era, which has meant they're very disillusioned with the direction of their country, and they are looking for alternatives. But they are also animated by cultural issues. They are animated by the flag, and the anthem, and Anzac Day. They're also very concerned about immigration. A major political party must have answers to all of those questions, because I think it's in Australia's interest that mainstream politics resolves those problems, solves them in a way that minor parties have no interest in actually solving them, they just want to mine them for political grievance.
SARA: Your colleague Tim Wilson says Tony Abbott should not involve himself in policy formulation and that his role should be purely administrative. Do you share that view?
PATERSON: Well, I've spoken to Tony Abbott about him putting himself forward for Federal President, and I'm confident he understands that that is the role of the Federal President, to be focused on the organisational wing. Tony is a student and creature of the Liberal Party. He has devoted most of his adult life to the service of the party. He understands Menzies' vision for the party, which is that the organisational wing runs campaigns and endorses candidates and raises money, and the parliamentary party determines policy.
SARA: James Paterson, thank you for joining me.
PATERSON: Thank you for having me.
ENDS