Media
|
Transcripts
October 23, 2025
PETER STEFANOVIC: A spokesperson for the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, has confirmed to The Australian that the $1.4 trillion figure is an updated estimate that was generated by the sector. On that note, let's bring in the Shadow Finance Minister, James Paterson, for this and much more. James, good to see you this morning. So, because attention was simply elsewhere this week, this agreement didn't get much exposure until Ted O'Brien brought it up with us yesterday. But if super funds have maxed out opportunities here, why not spend more in the U.S., where returns are always going to be better?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, good morning Pete. One of the other reasons why it didn't get a lot of attention here is that it was a big feature of the U.S. side statement talking about this deal, but it wasn't a big feature of the Australian statement. And that's why I think some suspicion has been aroused. If it is the case that this is purely a projection of the current behaviour of Australian super funds, and if they're investing in the United States simply to deliver the best return on investment for their policy holders, then of course no one would have a problem with that. The only area where we would have a problem is if the government was directing super funds to invest as part of a political deal. All we can do is take the government on their word. If the government is saying they have not directed super funds, that this is simply a projection of their current behaviour, then of course, we don't have a problem with that. Although it will be interesting to know whether the Future Fund, which is a government run superannuation fund, has been directed in any way to increase their investments in the United States as part of this.
PETER STEFANOVIC: Okay. Still related to everything this week. So Sussan Ley and Jane Hume are now at odds over the future of Kevin Rudd. Did the Opposition Leader make a mistake, James, by demanding Rudd lose his job in Washington after he was scolded by Trump this week?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Peter, I understand the interest in slightly different language from two colleagues, but I actually think there is a part of this story which hasn't been examined publicly, which is very, very weird. When the President addressed our ambassador, Kevin Rudd, it appeared that he didn't know who he was. But our Prime Minister has claimed that Kevin Rudd and Donald Trump have met each other previously. It apparently happened in January this year. It apparently happened on one of Donald Trump's golf courses in Florida. And when I asked questions about this to DFAT officials in Senate Estimates, they were very uncomfortable about it and very reluctant to give me information. So has the President met Kevin Rudd? Was it at the golf course in Florida in January, or is there something else going on here? Because I thought that was very, very strange.
PETER STEFANOVIC: But how do you read into the differences of opinion between Sussan Ley and Jane Hume?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Look, I don't think they're substantial at all. The reality is, we are the Opposition, we have no control over whether Kevin Rudd continues to be Ambassador in the United States. He was a captain's pick of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister bears responsibility for Kevin Rudd's success or failure. I think it has clearly been an irritant in the relationship. We all saw that across the table. I hope it isn't causing damage to the bilateral relationship, but it's up to the Prime Minister to explain his choice of ambassador in Washington, D.C.
PETER STEFANOVIC: But when Sussan Ley said his position was untenable, I mean, that basically means he's got to be sent home. So do you agree with her?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, we can't govern the country from Opposition. We can give the government our best advice, we can wish them well, but ultimately it's their decisions about who represents us overseas in our missions, including in Washington, D.C. I think it would be ideal to have an ambassador who hadn't previously publicly attacked the President whom he is trying to influence. And I think there clearly has been some issues between the ambassador and the administration. Kevin has very good access in Congress, there's no doubt about that. And I think he has good access at the Defence Department and in the intelligence community. But as far as we know from public reporting, this is only his second visit to the White House. And his first one was only a month or so ago with Richard Marles. That's actually very unusual. Our ambassador is normally in the White House or the executive office building on a routine basis, on an almost weekly basis. Now, unless Kevin has been very shy, which would not be like him, and he has been making lots of secret visits, which he hasn't publicised, then I think it is odd that only twice so far in this administration he's been in the White House.
PETER STEFANOVIC: But at the moment, are you comfortable for him to see out his term?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, it's really not a matter for us. It's a decision of the government. They have said he has a four year term - that is also unusual. It's more typical for ambassadors to serve three year terms. Apparently, Kevin was given a four year term, and that means that his term will come to a natural end in early 2027. And it's up to the Prime Minister to satisfy himself that this is not impeding our relationship with our most important ally, our most important security partner, in any way, shape or form Because even the slightest impediment to that relationship is a problem for Australia.
PETER STEFANOVIC: But it seemed as though Sussan Ley started backtracking after Jane Hume accused her of being churlish with Laura yesterday. I mean, does that put friction on show between some members of the Liberals?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Peter, I appreciate your interest in this. I really have nothing more to add than what I've already said. I'm interested in the substantive issue of our bilateral relationship with our most important security partner, the United States. Also, our number one source of foreign investment, a critical partner for Australia. Australia's national interest is best served by having an ambassador and an embassy that's directly connected, deeply connected to both the administration and Congress, the intelligence community, and the Defence Department. And it's up to the government to demonstrate that that's the case with Kevin, that his past statements about Donald Trump are not an impediment to him representing our country.
PETER STEFANOVIC: Okay, I bring it up because obviously there's a fair bit of history between Sussan Ley and Jane Hume, but I'm running out of time, so I'll move on anyway. James, how do you feel about one liaison officer being sent to the Middle East as part of our, or as part of a global effort to restore peace to the region? So that would be our contribution.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Pete, I've not been briefed on this, so I want to be a little bit cautious about what I say, but from the open source reporting, it doesn't look like this is a significant contribution. In fact, it looks like it's a very, very modest contribution. Just one liaison officer and no one serving on the ground. I would be cautious, very cautious about Australian troops serving on the ground in Gaza, given what we know about what's happened there on the ground and what still occurs with Hamas's re-emergence in Gaza. So we should be making a modest contribution in this instance.
PETER STEFANOVIC: What does that mean? What would your preference be?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, as I said, I haven't been briefed. And so I don't want to unilaterally comment on this without being better informed about exactly what the arrangements are. But I think we should be extremely cautious about the ideas proposed by some, that we should have Australian troops on the ground, that we should have a role in peacekeeping in Gaza. Hamas has re-emerged in Gaza. That's very clear. They've conducted executions in the open light of day, and deploying Australian troops would be an enormously risky thing to do. So I would be very reluctant to endorse that.
PETER STEFANOVIC: Okay. So I mean, even if it's just sort of administrative on the ground away from the battlefield, I mean, if it's just one, would you be okay with that? Or if it's administrative, perhaps more?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: That's the distinction I was drawing. This sounds like a behind the desk rather than on the front lines role. It sounds like, from public reporting, a purely liaison role. Certainly you wouldn't send one soldier to go and patrol the Gaza Strip. So it doesn't sound to me like this is anything more than a behind the scenes limited operational role.
PETER STEFANOVIC: We will have to leave it there. James Paterson, as always, good to talk. We'll chat to you again soon.
ENDS