Media
|
Transcripts
June 4, 2026
.png)
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: This is a major admission of guilt from Jim Chalmers. He knows he's completely stuffed this up. And he's asking the parliament to let him mark his own homework. He wants to be able to just change it a little bit afterwards, after it's passed the Parliament, and effectively take on the power of the Parliament himself. These are godlike powers that no one in the Parliament should grant a Minister like Jim Chalmers, given how much he's misled the public in the past about what he was going to do with tax powers, tax changes. And I actually give the Greens some credit here. They're in principle in favour of higher taxes, particularly on capital gains and negative gearing and other things, but they also defend the principle of the Parliament, and the Parliament should not lightly give away its power to legislate to a Minister like Jim Chalmers.
STEFANOVIC: James, just wait there. As we're speaking, the Treasurer has just been pulled up outside. So let's just listen to this for a moment. We'll come back to you, James.
[INTERVIEW INTERRUPTED BY LIVE CROSS]
STEFANOVIC: That's the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, speaking live as he heads into Parliament for another big day of action in Canberra. So James Paterson, he's been waiting, he is live for us. Apologies for interrupting our interview, James, I just thought I'd get that and sure enough, we've got a bit to respond to there. Yeah, negotiating in good faith, that's despite broken promises and then rushing it through Parliament. I'm not sure if that's good faith or not, but anyway, so let's just get your reaction to what he said.
PATERSON: Well, there is certainly nothing good faith about the way in which the government has gone about this, as the Prime Minister has admitted himself. He lied to the Australian people on 50 occasions about CGT, negative gearing, and trusts, and they keep changing their mind after elections about things they promised they wouldn't do before elections. So, these are not people to trust with godlike powers to make changes at the stroke of a pen after the legislation has passed. They should actually get the legislation right. The fact that they are rushing it through the House in two days. They're going to guillotine debate today to prevent people from asking legitimate questions. They want to rush it through a Mickey Mouse Senate inquiry, and they want this done and dusted by the end of the financial year, giving the parliament no proper time to scrutinise this. So I really hope the Greens and others don't allow the government to abuse the parliament like this, to abrogate the powers of the parliament like this, and I hope they stand on principle and make sure that these extraordinary powers are removed and the bill is fixed before it's considered.
STEFANOVIC: So when he can alter these laws after they're voted on in Parliament, is that really standard practice like he refers to?
PATERSON: Not for something as contentious and consequential like this, not for something where fundamental questions still can't be answered about how this is going to apply, when senior ministers asked in media interviews can't tell you how this will apply to a granny flat, for example. Normally, this is just tiny little tweaks here and there in the application of legislation, but, actually, fundamental questions haven't been answered about this bill, so it is not standard practice.
STEFANOVIC: What about the amendments that you're moving? Do you expect them to land in any way?
PATERSON: No, I don't think a single one of the amendments we're going to move in the House of Representatives today will pass, but it's a really important principle that is going to be made here because the Liberal Party and the National Party are for lower taxes. We'll be voting against Labor's higher taxes on small business. We'll be voting against Labor's higher taxes on farmers. We'll vote against Labor's higher taxes on young people who are trying to save and invest for a deposit to buy their first home. We're very proud to be voting against Labor tax increases because we've got a better plan that lowers taxes on every working Australian, a tax back guarantee.
STEFANOVIC: So that's going to be your retort whenever, as you just heard from the Treasurer there, you'll be accused of voting against lower taxes.
PATERSON: Well, this bill doesn't lower taxes. This bill increases taxes. It increases taxes on millions of Australians, and it's part of a revenue-raising plan which the government has been very open and honest about. They want $77 billion of higher taxes as a result of passing this legislation. We are for lower taxes, we will be voting against it.
STEFANOVIC: There was an intriguing piece in the AFR today, James, as well. The Albanese government's innovation adviser has told start-ups to stop whinging, reportedly, about the tax changes and focus on AI instead. I mean, that's only going to make venture capitalists and start-ups even more nervous, isn't it?
PATERSON: This is just yet more unbelievably tone-deaf hectoring by the Albanese government and their political appointees towards small business people who are just working hard to try and create businesses, to try and employ people, to try and grow our economy. And it's a great way to send a signal that these people aren't welcome in Australia, that we don't want their innovation, that we don't want their ingenuity, that we don't want their businesses. And it will drive people offshore. It'll drive talent, energy, ideas and businesses offshore, and we'll all be poorer for it. The Albanese government needs a reality check. We're in a competitive world. These people have other places to go.
STEFANOVIC: It's been a big week when it comes to AUKUS and the future of the program, James. I mean, Senate estimates is up and a lot of questions for the Defence Minister, Richard Marles. How sure are you that it is on track?
PATERSON: There's a defensible logic to the changes that the government has made to Virginia-class submarines. Something that they've not explained to the public, but just to briefly explain to your viewers, is that there's not just one Virginia-class submarine. There are different generations of Virginia-class submarines over the decades, and they're divided up by blocks. And as they evolve from block to block, they actually get quite a bit larger, quite a big more sophisticated. They have a larger payload. The newest ones will have 40 Tomahawks on board compared to 12 previously. So there is a logic for why Australia would want all from the same class, and that we'd want it in service, ready to go. The problem for the Albanese government is that has always been the case. That's been the case for the last three years. And for the three years, they've told us that the “optimal pathway” is to get two in-service and one new submarine. And all of a sudden, they've pulled the rug out from under Australians, they've shocked even their own caucus with the changes they've made, and they've utterly failed to explain it or be transparent about it. And I am deeply worried, as a passionate supporter of AUKUS, that this government is squandering the goodwill of the Australian people towards AUKUS, they're undermining a social licence for the program, and that's a huge problem for a multi-decade, multi-generational, bipartisan program like AUKUS. And unless they lift their game, I'm worried they're ultimately going to undermine support for AUKUS.
STEFANOVIC: Okay, James Paterson, thank you so much as always. We'll talk to you again next week.
ENDS