Media
|
Transcripts
July 7, 2026
SALLY SARA: Let's get a response from the opposition now to this Chinese ballistic missile test in the Pacific. James Paterson is the Shadow Defence Minister and Liberal Senator for Victoria. Senator, welcome back to Breakfast.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Good morning, Sally.
SARA: Do you believe this was a direct response from China to the deal that was signed between Australia and Fiji? What do you make of the timing?
PATERSON: No, I think it's unlikely that it was directly responsive to that because military exercises like these take weeks, if not months, in planning. However, I think is consistent with the People's Republic of China's approach to the region, which is not only destabilising and unwelcome, but also threatening and coercive. And part of the reason why they undertake these tests is for the demonstration effect. They want Pacific Island nations, they want countries like Australia and others in the region, to know they are capable of exercises like these. And the reason why is they want to intimidate people in the region, and we should be very clear that we won't be intimidated by it.
SARA: A spokesperson for China's Navy said the test launch complied with international law and international practice. Did it, in your view?
PATERSON: No, I share the concerns that Pat Conroy just aired on your program, that it is not consistent with best practice, that there was very minimal notice given of just a couple of hours and very little details given about where it would be fired from and where it will be fired to. It's not how the professional men and women in the Australian Defence Force exercise. The only thing he can say is that they at least gave more notice than their previous live firing exercise in the Tasman Sea, when the People's Liberation Army Navy circumnavigated Australia, and they gave no notice at all, which required commercial aircraft to divert their routes to avoid the firing range.
SARA: Are you satisfied with the federal government's response to this test so far?
PATERSON: Yes, I am. So far, I think they've made it clear that Australia does not welcome and does not approve of this conduct. And I think it's important that the PRC understands Australia's perspective. I think we would be within our rights to seek an explanation from the PRC about why they conducted this in the way they did, at the time they did. And I think we would also be within our rights to make representations, not just on our own behalf, but on behalf of our Pacific family, because the Pacific has made it very clear. They want to be a conflict free zone. They also want to be a nuclear free zone. And while this particular ballistic missile did not have a nuclear warhead attached to it, it is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, and therefore testing it in the Pacific is a particularly provocative thing to do.
SARA: The signing of the agreement yesterday between Australia and Fiji, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said that, quote, China doesn't engage in geopolitical rivalry or seek selfish political gains, and it's hoped that Australia will, quote, truly respect the independence of Pacific Island nations. What did you make of that response?
PATERSON: A typically florid statement on behalf of the Foreign Ministry of the People's Republic of China. Of course Australia does respect the sovereignty and independence of our Pacific Island family and we enter into arrangements like this on the basis of respecting the sovereignty and self-determination of our Pacific partners who have freely and willingly agreed to enter into these relationships with Australia because they believe it is in their national interest to do so. And it is partly because of the coercive and intimidating behaviour of the PRC that Pacific Island nations want to enter into these durable relationships with Australia.
SARA: You're listening to Radio National Breakfast. You're hearing from the Shadow Defence Minister, Senator James Paterson. The Oceans of Peace Alliance in the Pacific includes a mutual defence obligation that would require either country to respond should the other come under military attack. Will this alliance make Australia safer?
PATERSON: Yes, I think it will. Speaking very directly, Australia's national interests would be grievously damaged by the establishment of a presence from a country like the PRC in our region of a naval port. That is the strategic circumstance that many Australian military planners have been concerned about for some time. And arrangements like these bilaterally entered into with our Pacific partners reduce the risk of that happening. I think it's important that we continue to seek further bilateral arrangements like these and also that we explore multilateral arrangements with the Pacific, as the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands has proposed, because they will be even more durable and even more likely to protect our interests.
SARA: In your view, is there a risk that this test by China may intimidate some Pacific nations and prevent them from signing further agreements with Australia?
PATERSON: I think it's possible it will have the opposite of that effect, if that was what the intention was. I think that demonstrates exactly why security in the Pacific is best dealt with by members of the Pacific family, of which Australia is one, and why we have a mutual interest with Pacific Island nations of sending a strong message that this sort of conduct is not welcome in our region. I hope it builds further momentum for proposals like Prime Minister Wale's proposal for a regional security pact, and the Opposition offers our unconditional bipartisan support to the government if they want to pursue initiatives like that.
SARA: Just finally, you've been a vocal critic of parliamentarians of all stripes pursuing social media stunts, gags, dances, to garner engagement. What did you make of the Prime Minister's apology following his appearance on a podcast and making remarks about Kylie Minogue?
PATERSON: I thought it was slow and inadequate, and this is exactly why I've been warning parliamentarians against diminishing themselves and their offices by engaging in stunts like this. The Prime Minister shouldn't be participating in comedy podcasts, certainly not if he can't control himself and prevent himself from making sexual observations about prominent Australian women, and the least he can do is apologise for it. He should remember he is not a social media influencer, he is not a celebrity, he's a Prime Minister, and his position is more important than just his own personal reputation. It's the office of the Prime Minister that he holds, and I think, frankly, the defence that was given of him by people like Tanya Plibersek and Jacinta Allan yesterday was absolutely extraordinary and unwarranted.
SARA: What do you mean?
PATERSON: Well, I just thought it was remarkable that any senior politician, male or female, Labor or Liberal, would think it was appropriate to defend that conduct. I feel sorry for Tanya Plibersek, who went out before the Prime Minister apologised, but the Victorian Premier, Jacinta Allan was publicly defending the Prime Minister even after he apologised for participating in that podcast, and I think that shows poor judgement and double standards.
SARA: James Paterson we will need to leave it there, thank you for your time this morning.
PATERSON: Thank you for having me.
ENDS