Media
|
Transcripts
May 14, 2026
PETER STEFANOVIC: Well, joining us live now as a matter of coincidence is the Shadow Defence Minister James Paterson. So it's good to talk to you again, James. So let's just get back to the One Nation volunteer that you had the scuffle with. So, some of his past statements relating to Dezi Freeman have emerged that he was targeted because of his knowledge of constitutional law, according to the SMH. That he seemed to defend, in a way, Sewell and other members of the National Socialist Network, it goes on and on, but your thoughts on what appears to be a bit of a plot twist?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, Dezi Freeman is a cop killer who was being investigated for possessing child sex abuse material, not because he's a constitutional law expert. And Thomas Sewell is a neo-Nazi who has engaged in utterly reprehensible conduct. It's a matter for One Nation, the kind of views and values and behaviours that they choose to embrace.
PETER STEFANOVIC: Do you have any other thoughts and reflections over that incident last week? It really did set the scene for the Farrer by-election?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: No, I don't really have any further thoughts or views except as I said to you when we spoke about this last week Pete, I'm very happy to have a robust verbal exchange with other volunteers on booth, that's part and parcel of being on a polling booth and my role as a public figure, but it's never acceptable to cross the line into a physical altercation and that's what that did and it shouldn't have happened and it shouldn't happen again.
PETER STEFANOVIC: Would you be suggesting that Pauline Hanson take a stronger stance against One Nation volunteers or anything of that nature?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, I mean, I presume that Pauline Hanson and One Nation did their due diligence before they invited that volunteer up onto the stage during the by-election victory party and embraced him in front of the audience and the nation. So I assume they're familiar with his views and they're comfortable with them. If they didn't do their due diligence, they should say so. And if they disagree with the things he has said and done, they should also say so.
PETER STEFANOVIC: Okay, let's get to this announcement by Angus Taylor. We just heard some of it then as his was doorstopped outside from where you are at the moment. So, do you support shutting out every non-citizen from getting welfare support, James?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Yes, although there are sensible exemptions to the policy, obviously existing residents are grandfathered. We're not going to take away any welfare entitlement for someone who is already here. This is about sending a message to future migrants that is twofold. One, don't come to Australia if you want to be on welfare. Don't come here on a visa if you just want to be on welfare. And secondly, if you want to have the benefits of citizenship, you should become a citizen. So yes, I'm very comfortable with the policy. I think it's very much in line with how most Australians would think the system already operates. I think a lot of Australians would be shocked to know that non-citizens can access welfare.
PETER STEFANOVIC: Even though it can take years, four years, to receive full citizenship?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Yes, and I think it is appropriate. If you are coming to this country on a visa, you should be able to support yourself. You shouldn't be coming here with a plan to go on welfare. And the benefits of citizenship are for Australian citizens only, not non-citizens.
PETER STEFANOVIC: So I think the example of a skilled migrant becoming disabled is a worthy point to raise. So, bearing in mind that the NBA told me this week that we need 300,000 builders on worksites in Australia at the moment. So what if, and Cam pointed this out too, what if someone has a bad accident on a work site, needs the NDIS, but isn't allowed? Is that fair?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, that's why we have workplace health and safety laws and why we have insurance for things like that. If someone is injured in the course of their work, they should be compensated for that by their employer in the usual way.
PETER STEFANOVIC: Okay, so there are avenues for if anybody gets sick, or injured, or disabled, or whatever, you believe there are other avenues that they can use rather than soak up the bigger institutions that hand out the welfare?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Yes, and we've been very clear that this doesn't apply to the health system. People are not going to be turned away from a hospital if they are injured just because of their visa status. We have a universal health care system in this country, and we strongly support that. This is about things like the kind of payments that we make to people when they're unemployed.
PETER STEFANOVIC: Sure.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: About things like the NDIS, which are incredibly generous and are intended for Australians because they are paid for by Australians. And if you become an Australian citizen, you're entitled to access all those benefits, too. But if you're not an Australian citizen, we don't think it's a good idea to come here for the purposes of being on welfare.
PETER STEFANOVIC: So, have you got a more specific figure on what that saving to the budget would be?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: We'll outline those savings in due course, and it will be significant savings, but that's not the main reason that we're doing this. The main reason we're doing this is because of the principle. We think it's really important that Australian citizens have the benefit of Australian citizenship. This government thinks that it's ok to give taxpayers money to non-citizens to become first-home buyers in Australia. Thousands of people, in fact, who are not Australian citizens have been given taxpayers' money by this government to buy a first home. Now, we think that there are too many migrants coming to Australia right now, and that is squeezing out Australian first-home buyers. But it's even worse that they're being subsidised by our taxes to do so. And that's something this government can explain and defend if they like. But we think that benefits like that should be quarantined to Australian citizens.
PETER STEFANOVIC: But savings and budget are a part of it, and the presumption, I guess, is that you'd use that to pay for indexing the tax scale. Is that right?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, nice try, Pete, fair effort. But I'll let Angus Taylor outline any more details he chooses to in his budget reply tonight. I won't be preempting that.
PETER STEFANOVIC: Okay, so is the opportunity there now for you to do that, following Jim Chalmers' budget on Tuesday night?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, what genuinely surprised me about Jim Chalmers' budget, honestly, was that if he is going to go into this intergenerational warfare, this politics of resentment, of hitting older Australians to try and win the support of younger Australians by raising taxes on older Australians, I thought he would cut taxes for younger Australians. I thought it would cut taxes for working-age Australians. The fact that he didn't do that, I think, is very revealing. It shows that this isn't about reform, this isn't about intergenerational justice or fairness, this is about resentment, and this is about raising revenue. And I don't think that's a way to run a budget, and I don't think that is a way to run a country. It's certainly not a way to promote social cohesion, as the Prime Minister says he's doing. And, in fact, it's not even going to achieve their stated objective of helping people into the housing market because their own budget admits, in black and white, that the result of their tax policies is 35,000 fewer homes will be built in Australia.
PETER STEFANOVIC: Yeah, not to mention an increase to rent that people will be charged, but let's close out on your portfolio, James. I mean, Richard Marles, who was out front yesterday talking up an increased defence spend of about $14 billion over the forward estimates, which is higher than your spend in the past in your department. So, picking through some of the details with your budget reply, how's defence going to feature? Will you be matching that?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, it would be good if the Defence Minister was actually doing what he says the government is doing, but his claim that the government is increasing defence spending by $14 billion over the forward estimates, and $53 billion over the decade, is something that the budget papers do not substantiate. What the budget papers show is there is only $7 billion of new taxpayer funding for defence over the forward estimates, and $35 billion over the decade. The rest of it will be made up by alternative financing means, including private sector financing and relying potentially on the sale of some of these defence assets. But what if that doesn't come off? What if those sales don't proceed? What if they don't earn the income that they are supposed to? What if this experimental private sector finance doesn't eventuate? Will Defence be compensated? Will there be increased taxpayer funding to make up for that shortfall? That is not clear based on the budget last night. We have a government that is all smoke and mirrors when it comes to the defence budget. They're about accounting tricks, not about capability, and it doesn't make our country safer.
PETER STEFANOVIC: Any nuggets you got from me this morning on defence on what Angus might say tonight?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, you have to wait and see what is in the budget reply speech tonight, Pete. All right, we'll see.
PETER STEFANOVIC: James Paterson, good to see you. We will chat to you next time.
ENDS