Media
|
Transcripts
August 7, 2026
KIERAN GILBERT: So I caught up with the Shadow Defence Minister, James Paterson. There's been a discussion about the American military presence on the West Coast, at HMAS Stirling, the naval base. And I asked him about America's ongoing presence in the West and the fact that it's been called a base by the US. The defence minister says, no, it's not a base, it's a rotational force. I asked James Paterson, does any of that really matter?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Kieran, it's a slightly semantic debate about HMAS Stirling and the Submarine Rotational Force West, but I don't want to avoid your question. I think the government has got themselves into an uncomfortable position by seeking to imply for a period of time that it was a temporary presence, not an ongoing one, and then Pat Conroy really explicitly said last week that the United States presence there would come to an end in 2032. I think it's better now that we've clarified that it's an enduring presence. But in my view it's not actually a US base. I have visited US bases overseas, for example in the Middle East, and you are in absolutely no doubt when you set foot on one of those bases that it is a US base. It has a US commanding officer, it has a US security checkpoint, when you go to the mess they serve American food. I was at HMAS Stirling recently, there's an Australian commanding officer. It is Australians who control who comes on and off the base. The mess serves Australian food. It's genuinely an Australian base with an enduring US presence.
GILBERT: Do you get the sense, are you implying in some of your answer there that there's a squeamishness within elements of Labor about that ongoing presence that might have been on display recently at the ALP conference?
PATERSON: Unfortunately, I think that is the case. I wish it wasn't, but it's just true that some on the left flank of the Labor Party are uncomfortable with AUKUS, uncomfortable with nuclear submarines, and they're particularly sensitive for historical reasons about US presence on Australian soil. It dates back to debates about Pine Gap in the 70s in particular. I mean, we know Josh Wilson, for example, the Assistant Minister, whose electorate is just to the north of HMAS Stirling, is publicly opposed to AUKUS even though he's a member of the ministry. So I think Pat Conroy and Richard Marles and other government ministers have had to manage that sensitivity on their left flank, and they sometimes get themselves into rhetorical holes as Pat did last week.
GILBERT: Minister Marles, the Deputy Prime Minister, made the point. I think it's a fair point that what this actually demonstrates is that AUKUS is progressing, that in his words, it's a demonstration that AUKUS is happening.
PATERSON: Well, AUKUS is happening. There's no doubt about that. And it needs to happen, and it needs to be full steam ahead. And we offer our unqualified bipartisan support to the government for anything that they need to deliver AUKUS. My concern is not whether AUKUS will be delivered, but whether or not the government is spending enough on defence and the impact on the rest of the ADF while we try to deliver AUKUS. People like Sir Angus Houston have been really clear. If you try and deliver AUKUS without increasing the defence budget, you're going to cannibalise the other services. And we've seen that across Army, across other parts of Navy, and across the Air Force, where really significant cuts to joint strike fighters, self-propelled howitzers, infantry fighting vehicles have had to be made in order to pay for this future capability. That's not the fault of AUKUS. That's the fault of the Albanese government for not increasing defence spending adequately.
GILBERT: Let's bring the focus back to home. And very close to home for you, your home state of Victoria. Jess Wilson has been very effective. She's doing a good job. But do you sense, and did you predict that Labor would go in this direction? Ben Carroll, let's say he'd be a more welcome face within the business community in Victoria. He's no good mate of Daniel Andrews, that's for sure. Day one, distancing himself from Andrews and his immediate predecessor. He's taking and making all the right noises. Is this a bit of a worry for you and the Liberal Party in Victoria right now, given how close we are, a blink of an eye to the election?
PATERSON: I completely understand why the state Labor in Victoria has done what they've done. Jacinta Allan was touching record levels of public disapproval never before seen in poll history, but the problem with what they have done is it's clearly politically driven, it's clearly poll-driven, it is clearly panicked. It's not a sincere change of direction, it's a change of direction because they're worried about the politics. I mean, Ben Carroll had the opportunity, if he wanted to, to argue for a royal commission when he was the deputy premier serving under Jacinta Allan, and he's admitted never once in a Cabinet meeting did he ever advocate for a Royal Commission or any of the other performative political changes he's now making. So I think Victorians see through this. They know he was Jacinta Allan's right-hand man. They know he even sat around the Cabinet table with Daniel Andrews and didn't speak up then, didn't push back then either. And so he owns every decision this government has made over the last decade. And the changes he is making now, I think Victorians see as desperate and political and not sincere. And that's why I think they'll still vote for change in November.
GILBERT: He's even suggesting, and this might surprise some, but 12 years on, he's saying that new ministers will look under the hood of some of the big build, as to say what's in taxpayer interests and what's not. Is this something that could resonate with voters?
PATERSON: He sent some very confusing and contradictory signals on this. In the first 24 hours of his leadership, he was suggesting that the Suburban Rail Loop might be scrapped. He's clearly been hauled into line by his caucus or the factions. He's not allowed to scrap the SRL. It's too important to the business model of the CFMEU and the ETU and other unions to allow that to happen. So the Suburban Rail Loop is going to proceed full steam ahead, despite what he suggested. He briefly suggested he might scrap Daniel Andrews' statue. Then he walked away from that. He suggested he'd make quite significant changes to working from home. Doesn't look like that's going to eventuate. I think the danger here for Ben Carroll is he's raised expectations about how much he's going to change things from Jacinta Allan and Daniel Andrews, but in the end there's actually much more continuity than change, and voters are going to see right through that. He's not going to solve the crime crisis, he's not going to fill the potholes, he is not going to balance the budget. He's certainly not going to scrap any of these big Big Build projects, which are the signature of this government and the corruption that has come with it.
GILBERT: Parliament back next week, in relation to the gambling bills, do you instinctively, and I know this is not your area of responsibility, but you're a Dad like me, and like many others, you're concerned about the prevalence of some of this advertising that's going on. Do you want to see a bill through in some form when it comes to gambling?
PATERSON: I think it's an important thing that the Parliament should be able to do, and I think it's important that the government show flexibility and a willingness to compromise to get a bill through that meets community expectations and that might not be exactly in the current form that it is. It might be sensible amendments that are made to improve it, but the idea that the government briefed off this week that if any amendments are moved to this bill, if it doesn't pass in exactly this form, they're going to throw up their hands and walk away in a huff is frankly petulant and childish behaviour. They should be willing to negotiate with the Parliament to get something sensible through. I think a balance can be struck here. I'm one of those people who believes that gambling can be a healthy pastime. It's part of Australia's history and culture. We should never seek to eradicate it from public life, nor do we need to banish all forms of gambling advertising to do that. But it's clearly also a problem for some people, and we need to make sure that young people aren't being induced into taking on those problematic habits and becoming addicted to gambling. And so there's a balance to be struck here, and it shouldn't be beyond Parliament to do that.
GILBERT: I think a lot of people would agree with you on that, and balance often in life is the way forward, isn't it? On so many fronts. James, great to see you. Thanks for your time. Appreciate it.
PATERSON: Thanks, Kieran.
ENDS