Media
|
Transcripts
November 8, 2026
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Good afternoon. Today is a humiliation for the Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles because the Prime Minister has finally stepped in and overruled him on the sale of Victoria Barracks Melbourne, Victoria Barracks Sydney, Fort Queenscliff and RAAF Point Cook. The Prime Minister has stepped in and said these bases will remain in public hands. This is a huge victory for the community who has made it very clear that they do not want to see these bases sold. That includes almost 125,000 Australians who signed my petition to say that these sales should not proceed. And it's an embarrassment for Richard Miles because it was only a few weeks ago that he was publicly arguing that these bases were nothing more than old wine cellars that like to be frequented by former generals. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. They are iconic pieces of Australian military heritage, and they have ongoing operational capability contributions to make.
Now, while this is a very important victory and a huge backdown from the Albanese government, the fight goes on because the Labor Party still plans to evict the Australian Defence Force from these bases. They still plan to sell off many other operationally important and heritage significant properties around the country, including HMAS Penguin on Sydney Harbour, including Lancer Barracks in Parramatta, where the ashes of former soldiers have been scattered. And including Irwin Barracks in Western Australia, where 1,100 reservists currently train and will have to be sent elsewhere.
So the Coalition is going to continue to fight this every step of the way. We're going to continue to try and protect all of these bases to keep them in public hands and for military use. And I'm going to continue to push forward my legislation which would require the government of the day to seek the approval of the Parliament before they sell off any defence estates. Happy to take questions on this or any other questions of the day.
JOURNALIST: Why is it important that it remains for military use?
PATERSON: It's critically important that these bases remain available for military use because we are living in a dangerous world. And in a dangerous world, we do not need to be reducing our military capability. We particularly shouldn't be doing so because Labor refuses to fund the defence budget properly. They shouldn't flogging off sites to try and pump up the defence budget because they failed to agree at the Expenditure Review Committee to fund defence adequately. The truth is that in the future, we may need these bases. The truth is that many of them are being used today. Take HMAS Penguin, for example. It's a critical naval training facility where our Navy divers train right now on critical capabilities that contribute to the ADF. Take Victoria Barracks Sydney. It has previously been used as a staging ground for counter-terrorism functions during major international events. Take Irwin Barracks in Western Australia. 1,100 reservists train there. These are people who work full-time, who are engaged with the ADF part-time. And we're going to be telling them that they need to drive 50 minutes in good traffic to get to another base to continue their connection to the ADF. We should be making it easier for people to sign up and stay connected to the ADF in a dangerous world, at a dangerous time, not harder.
JOURNALIST: So, these buildings will be transferred to another department, what questions remain around that from you?
PATERSON: Well, the government, instead of now selling these buildings and recouping the value of these buildings, is saying it's going to be transferred to the Department of Finance and transformed for public use. It's very difficult to see how the government's budget numbers now add up. They were counting on $1.8 billion of proceeds from these sales to fund defence because they refused to follow the advice of our best informed defence experts to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP. But some of the sites they're now saying they're not going to sell, including the facility right here and in Sydney, Victoria Barracks, Melbourne and Sydney, would be some of the most valuable properties among the defence estates. So if they're not going to get the sales value, they have to explain how they're going to make the numbers add up.
JOURNALIST: Thank you, Senator. Harnsle from Channel 10 here. I'm just curious, though, so obviously, as you mentioned, the 1.8 billion dollars the government was, you know, hoping to recoup from these sales, not exactly going ahead as originally planned. I mean, on the one hand, the Coalition is calling for savings measures and spending cuts, but then opposing a lot of these measures which would help the government recoup some money, so, I mean, I guess, how do you kind of reconcile that?
PATERSON: Well, Angus Taylor and the Coalition have outlined $31 billion of savings in other areas, like for example, scrapping Labor's climate bureaucracy and their subsidies, which have failed to achieve Australia's climate and emissions reduction objectives, and instead use that to help improve the budget bottom line and deliver tax relief. The truth is that the Defence Force needs adequate funding on the budget bottom line. It needs it from recurrent spending. One-off sales like this were never going to solve the budget black hole that Labor left the ADF. The reason why the ADF is having to cut so much capability, like infantry fighting vehicles, self-propelled howitzers, F-35s, hunter-class frigates, even the number of days a reservist can train every year being brought down from 200 to 150, the reason why Labor is doing that is because they've failed to fund defence properly from the budget bottom line, and a one-off sale wasn't going to fix that.
JOURNALIST: Tim Lester from Seven, Senator, the plan to take these properties out of the defence hands and place them under the purview of the finance department, how does that satisfy the demands of those who've been saying, that the plan is wrong with them? Doesn't it still, in a sense, offend those who are arguing for no change?
PATERSON: Look, it's only a partial victory, that's absolutely clear. I am pleased that these buildings are going to remain in public hands, but it's my very strong view that they should remain defence bases used by defence in the future. The only good thing about this back-down is that Labor has admitted that in order to protect these buildings, they should be kept in public hands, and because they'll be kept public hand, a future government, a Liberal-National government, could hand them back to the ADF and hand them back to defence. Now, we've got them to agree to these four critical sites, but I want them to go further. I want them to stop the sale of other key sites as well, like Penguin, like Lancer, like Irwin, which have ongoing operational contribution to make to the ADF today.
JOURNALIST: Isn't there a contradiction in the Opposition arguing on the one hand that the government needs to spend more on defence and arguing on the other that they shouldn't recoup the benefits that can be made financially by selling these properties off?
PATERSON: I don't think so because the government spends about $60 billion a year on defence. This was going to be a one-off hit of $1.8 billion if that was ever actually achieved. I suspect with remediation costs and heritage implications, they would never have achieved that $1.8 billion of sales. But even if they did, that was going to be a one-off boost to the budget bottom line. It was very hard to see how that was going to invest in ongoing ADF capability. What the government needs to do is fund defence properly. Sir Angus Houston, Professor Peter Dean, people who completed the Defence Strategic Review for the Albanese government, have said we need to be spending 3% of GDP a year on defence to provide for the security of Australia in the dangerous world we live in. One-off sales proceeds were never going to achieve that.
JOURNALIST: Senator, what does this tell you about the political relationship between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister?
PATERSON: I think it is a fascinating insight into the deteriorating relationship between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. We already knew that Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers can't stand each other and have been briefing against each other in the media. But the Prime Minister has humiliated Richard Marles today because he let Richard Marles spend months going on the public record defending these sales. He let Richard Marles go out in the media only a few weeks ago and attack former generals. And deride Victoria Barracks, Sydney, as just a wine cellar, an old wine cellar. And now he's forced Richard Marles to backtrack and keep these bases in public hands. Richard Marles has been arguing for months that these bases don't need to remain in public hands, and the Prime Minister has overruled him. I think this is a calculated move by the Prime Minister to humiliate his Deputy Prime Minister, to pull him back into line. He obviously has no confidence in the Deputy Prime Minister's political judgement and has had to step in here and take charge of this issue. And really, Richard Marles should explain today what's changed, what changed from only a few weeks ago when he was defending these sales.
JOURNALIST: We're good here. Senator, thank you for your time.
PATERSON: Thank you. I might just add one quick thing on another issue of the day. We've seen revelations in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age by Nick McKenzie for a second day in the running about very alarming internal machinations within the One Nation political party. Yesterday we heard that, far from firing the convicted rapist Sean Black, Pauline Hanson and One Nation have been secretly continuing to pay him money to work on the Victorian One Nation state election campaign. And even that the hard working donations of One Nation supporters were being siphoned off to pay off Sean Black. One Nation has not answered any questions adequately about whether Sean Black remains engaged with and employed by One Nation, or indeed what the payout terms and conditions were for him when he was allegedly and apparently sacked by Pauline Hanson just a few months ago. We've also seen today further revelations about the relationship between One Nation in Victoria and organised crime, including bikie gangs. We've seen that a prominent One Nation activist and apparatchik is facing serious drug charges, and another One Nation employee has lied about his service record and exaggerated his service record. This is a familiar pattern of behaviour from One Nation. They often implode internally and disintegrate. That's why 70% of former One Nation MPs have left the party or the Parliament before the end of their first terms. And it's another example of why this party that claims to be tough on crime doesn't actually live up to its values. So I think One Nation and Pauline Hanson have very serious questions to answer today about how her tough-on-crime policies are consistent with her party fraternising with known criminals.
Thanks, everyone.
ENDS