Media
|
Transcripts
August 24, 2026
.png)
SHARRI MARKSON: Shadow Defence Minister James Paterson joins me now live. James, thanks for your time.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Good to be with you.
MARKSON: Look, what's your response to Nick McKim's comments? He says he's reflected, but he stands by that dangerous accusation made on the floor of the Senate.
PATERSON: The Greens have learned absolutely nothing from the last three years in this country and the way in which they contributed to the rise in antisemitism, which culminated in a tragedy at Bondi Beach. You might remember a few years ago, Sharri, another Greens MP, Jenny Leong, a New South Wales state MP, was caught referring to the Jewish community by saying that they had tentacles and that they were using those to influence the community and government. Now, she rightly apologised for that. What Nick McKim has said is just a more professional and polished way of making the same argument. Instead of saying Jews, he said Zionists, and instead of saying that they had tentacles, he said that Zionist interests had captured the government. But it's the same sentiment, arguing that Jews in Australia are exercising improper and undue influence over the government. It's one of the oldest antisemitic tropes, and it is a dangerous one because antisemites believe it, and they draw no distinction between Zionist or Jew. They think they're one and the same. I honestly think for the Greens, how much worse does it have to get for them to realise how dangerous this rhetoric is? How many more incidents like Bondi, how many more dead Jews will it take before they reflect on their behaviour and cease it?
MARKSON: Yep, well said, and again, thank you for calling it out immediately the moment he said it in the Senate. It was so important that you did that. Now, New South Wales Premier Chris Minns today supported those calling for the Royal Commission to be extended to hear from all voices. I spoke with a former judge, Ronald Sackville, last week. He made similar remarks. In fact, he said he personally would have requested an extension. He's a former commissioner for the Disability Royal Commission. James, do you think an extension is necessary, and what other changes do you think need to happen at the Royal Commission?
PATERSON: Once again, Chris Minns is showing great leadership. He showed leadership when he first called a New South Wales royal commission, while Anthony Albanese was refusing to call a royal commission. And he's shown leadership again by recognising that this royal commission is not going to get the job done on the rushed timeline the Albanese government has given it. And if the royal commissioner won't ask for an extension, and I think she would be well within her rights to do so, then the Albanese government should heed this advice from Chris Minns and grant an extension so that it can get to the bottom of this crisis. It's extraordinary to me that hearings are ending this week and not one senior government minister has appeared to answer questions about their actions or inactions. No questions have been answered about whether or not resourcing was given sufficiently to our counter-terrorism and intelligence agencies by the government. No questions have been asked about how often the National Security Committee of Cabinet was meeting and whether it was considering the right priorities. No questions had been asked about the changes to the Home Affairs portfolio made by government ministers, made by the Prime Minister, to take ASIO out of the portfolio, to take the AFP out of the portfolio, to put them back in again, and all the churn and dysfunction that that created. And this royal commission will not have completed its task until Anthony Albanese, Tony Burke, Penny Wong and other key ministers have been in the dock to be cross-examined and answer tough questions.
MARKSON: It seems like the Commission has also avoided calling, as witnesses, people who are likely to criticise the response from the Albanese government to antisemitism. But James, just on this topic before we move on, there also seems to be, and look, there might have been in the confidential sessions, but at least in the public hearings, the discussion around radical Islamic extremism. Seems to have been limited. Now this royal commission was called in response to Bondi and when we worry about another attack it's the terrorism that we worry about. So shouldn't the royal commission be examining radical Islamic extremism and how to deal with it?
PATERSON: That's exactly right, Sharri. And let's remember, although it was the Jewish community that was targeted on Bondi, radical Islamists hate all of Western civilisation and Australia's democracy. And it could be the Jewish community again, or it could be other Australians in the future, God forbid, if there's another attack like this. So we have to get to the heart of the problem, which is Islamism and the extremism that it fosters and the violence that it licences. And as you say, based on the public hearings, it's not clear to me that an adequate examination of that has happened. And I fear that history will judge this royal commission harshly for having done a half job when a complete job was what was necessary.
MARKSON: Yeah, I'll come back to this topic a bit later with Marnie Perlstein. But, James, turning to the migration debate now, there's been a bit of a mess with One Nation today. Do you think this is simply a mistake from David Farley, or do you think he knew what he was doing when he did that interview with Spears yesterday morning?
PATERSON: David Farley has deliberately and repeatedly contradicted Pauline Hanson a number of times. He's done it on migration twice, he's done on flags, he has done it a range of issues. I think it's very clear he's chafing at the constraints imposed on him by One Nation, and it would not surprise me at all if by the next election he has left One Nation and contests the election as an independent or for some other party. But he's not the only one who's contradicted One Nation's immigration policy. Pauline Hanson has contradicted her own policy, in fact, she's articulated three different versions of the policy that are completely inconsistent with each other. And this is sadly typical when it comes to One Nation, they talk a big game on things like immigration, but they fall over when it come to the details, and I think it highlights why they're not fit for government.
MARKSON: Just before coming in here, I saw there was a story on the Herald website that mentioned that David Farley had walked into a Liberal Party meeting and maybe made a joke that he might end up there. Were you in that meeting? Did you hear about this?
PATERSON: I wasn't in the meeting, but I did hear about this. And look, we consider all applications for membership very carefully on their merits. And if David would like to make an application, we'll consider it. But it's very clear that One Nation is not a happy place. It's a divided place. And over its history of all the MPs that it has elected to all national parliaments, 70% of them have defected from One Nation or quit the parliament before the end of their first term. It's a record of failure. And I think again, it highlights why One Nation is a risk. If you want real change in this country, only the Coalition can deliver that. We've got a plan to protect our way of life and to restore our standard of living.
MARKSON: An interview like David Farley had with David Speers on the ABC. Is this why Pauline Hanson refuses to go on the ABC or have them at any of her press conferences?
PATERSON: I think frankly, it's weak for One Nation leaders and candidates not to front up to tough media interviews to always look for an easy media interview. Going on the ABC is not my favourite part of my job either, and they ask me tough questions too. But we're paid a lot of money to front-up and to answer questions and excluding some media outlets and some journalists from it and refusing to answer tough questions, I think it frankly shows that there's a snowflake mentality among some people in One Nation and I think they should harden up.
MARKSON: All right, we're turning to a tough question of my own. I mean, at least One Nation does have their immigration policy out there. Where is yours?
PATERSON: Well, we've already outlined three key elements of our migration policy. The first is we'll match the net overseas migration to housing completions to allow the housing market to catch up. Number two, we said we'll link welfare to citizenship so that the government stops funding foreign citizens, for example, to buy their first home. And thirdly, we'll put Australian values at the heart of our migration system to make sure people coming to our country uphold our values. But I won't dodge the heart of your question, Sharri, which is that we do have to put a number on that migration and we will. We're going through a thorough, deliberative, careful process so that we can stand up behind our number, unlike One Nation. We won't be chopping and changing it. It'll be well thought through, it'll be costed, it'll be budgeted, and it'll be responsible. It'll bring migration down.
MARKSON: Just before you go, I want to ask you about the topic I spoke about at the start of the show that the Albanese government and the Greens have done this deal where there are generous capital gains tax concessions for foreign investors but not for Australians. Do you think this is fair?
PATERSON: You're right, and Ben Fordham is right. I think foreign investment is welcome in Australia. It's good for Australia. But I don't think foreign investors should get a special deal that Australians don't. And just because they're investing in renewable energy doesn't make their investment any more special. A young Australian saving to buy their first home, saving to buy a deposit, will pay a minimum of 30% capital gains tax on the growth in those shares, whereas a foreign investor in renewables will only pay 15%. That is deeply inequitable. That is un-Australian and it should be fixed.
MARKSON: All right, James Paterson, thank you so much.
ENDS