Media
|
Transcripts
May 28, 2026
PETER STEFANOVIC: Joining us live this morning, the Shadow Defence Minister, James Paterson. Good to see you, James. Why submit a bill without all the detail? Isn't that a bit of a cart being before the horse?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: The government's got this completely backwards, even they admit their own legislation is so flawed that they will have to fix it in the future, but they're saying just trust us, we'll rush it through now, and then we'll negotiate with you afterwards to repair the mistakes we've made. Well, that's an outrageous approach to legislating. It is not in Australia's national interest. It will harm our economy, it will harm small businesses, it will hurt young people. But I understand why they're trying to do it because every day this debate goes on, it gets worse for the government. More people speak out, more problems are identified. We've now got two Labor Premiers on the public record canning Jim Chalmers' budget, and Labor MPs are getting very, very nervous, and they should be, because this is doing serious damage to the government.
STEFANOVIC: Well, it's funny you say trust us, you know, we'll work it out at a later date, but hasn't trust been thrown in the bin following broken promises?
PATERSON: Well, who's to say that Anthony Albanese won't change his mind about this? He's changed his mind about CGT. He's changed his mind about negative gearing. He has changed his mind about trusts. He has changed his mind about superannuation. He has changed his mind about stage 3 tax cuts. So if this is rushed through the parliament, if it is slammed through, why wouldn't he change his mind again and not go back and fix the problems that have been identified and just leave it as it is? Once this is legislated, only the government can fix it. And I think that's why they need to stop, they need to pause, they need to consult properly and fix it before they legislate it, not afterwards.
STEFANOVIC: Yeah, as you mentioned there, the WA Labor Premier, Roger Cook, he wants a carve out for miners now, and also you've got the Business Council, the BCA, it's entered the chat overnight, saying changes should just be limited to housing. So what sort of damage is this being done to corporate Australia, but also does this not all show the importance of consultation and even holding a public inquiry?
PATERSON: Yes, well, consultation should have been done before the budget, not afterwards, and it should be done before the legislation passes, not afterwards. And of course, there should be a proper parliamentary inquiry. This is incredibly complex changes. It clearly has severe unintended consequences, although maybe we have to question how unintended the consequences are. And rushing this through without a parliamentary inquiry is frankly an outrageous thing to do. Australians deserve to have proper parliamentary process and scrutiny of such significant changes, particularly when the government is saying this is about improving housing affordability, how does taxing mining companies improve housing affordability?
STEFANOVIC: Or farmers.
PATERSON: How does taxing small businesses improve housing affordability? How does taxing young people saving for a home deposit through shares improve housing affordability? Of course it doesn't, it's just a grab for revenue, and that's what's being exposed.
STEFANOVIC: Yeah, you would throw farmers in the mix there, too. I mean, as things stand, though James, you're still against, officially, are you voting against the package?
PATERSON: Absolutely, we're voting against the package, and you know, points for effort to Jim Charmers putting on a brave face in Question Time yesterday, but what we'll be voting against is a tax increase. We'll be voting against a tax increase on our mining industry, on our small businesses, on our young savers, on florists, on hairdressers, on plumbers, on concreters, on gym owners, on all Australians who are going to be smashed by this government's tax increases, and we won't be helping them pass them.
STEFANOVIC: So, Ok, well, what about the working Australian tax offset? So, as you heard from the Treasurer there, and you just referred to this, he's framing it as that you are voting against tax cuts. So with that $250 in mind, how do you argue against that?
PATERSON: Well we've got a bigger, better tax cut which will deliver at least $250 to Australians in the first year of its interaction and then every year after that will get bigger and bigger and bigger. And that's our tax back guarantee, which will index brackets to inflation so Australians are never again pushed into a higher tax bracket just because inflation is running rampant as it is under this government. We want lower taxes, we've got to plan for lower taxes. That's why we're going to vote against Labor's plan for high taxes.
STEFANOVIC: Still related to the budget and more in your wheelhouse now, ASPI, they were on the program a little earlier, they've done some homework on defence spending, arguing the government's defence spend will drop. That's despite Labor's $53 billion pledge in the long run. What's your reaction to that?
PATERSON: Well, ASPI has blown just another hole in Richard Marles' spin when it comes to the defence budget. They join Marcus Hellyer at Strategic Analysis Australia, and even last night in Senate Estimates, the Department of Finance, in calling out Richard Marles' bluff here. Richard Marles has been claiming there is $14 billion of increased government spending on defence over the forward estimates. In fact, ASPI shows, as the Department of Finance also admitted to Dave Sharma in Senate Estimates last night, it's only $6.8 billion of funding from the budget for defence over the forward estimates. And the much touted $53 billion of investment over the decade is in the words of the Finance officials incredibly uncertain, decisions have not yet been made, and maybe as little as $35 billion not $53 billion. If Richard Marles is serious about the strategic environment that we face, the dangers that we face as a country, he should match his rhetoric with reality and actually fund the ADF how they need to be funded.
STEFANOVIC: Yeah, ASPI, again on the program earlier saying, you know, the big problem is going to be when we face our biggest strategic threat, which is going to be in the 2030s, and that's where some questionable financing has been done, if that financing is even there. And further to your point, James, we've got a clip here from last night involving the Finance Minister, Katy Gallagher, coughing up some of these figures in Senate estimates. Let's just run this, and I'll get your reaction out the back.
[CLIP START]
SENATOR DAVE SHARMA: I was just, does that figure, those figures, 14 billion over four years and 53 billion over ten years, does it include estimates of private capital or is that public money only?
FINANCE OFFICAL: Senator, the alternative financing could include both.
SHARMA: Ok.
FINANCE OFFICAL: That hasn't been ruled out. But, I mean, I would think, yeah, alternative financing in the defence portfolio through government equity, for example, is not unusual.
SHARMA: Okay, so when you say alternative or when it says alternative financing, that's different to regular defence funding like on the budget, it's like a government equity program?
SENATOR THE HON KATY GALLAGHER: So it's like ANI.
SHARMA: Yeah, like ANI or something. Yeah, okay, okay. And there could also be private capital, private equity, for instance.
GALLAGHER: There could be. None of those decisions have been finalised.
[CLIP END]
STEFANOVIC: That's the Finance Minister and the Department there. Just a closing thought on that, James.
PATERSON: Well, it doesn't fill me with confidence when the Finance Minister says none of those decisions have been made. Richard Marles has been claiming that this government is going to invest $53 billion in defence over the next decade. It turns out the government hasn't actually decided to do that. It is all spin, it is no substance, and it's no delivery, and it doesn't make our men and women in uniform or our country any safer.
STEFANOVIC: Ok, that's the Shadow Defence Minister, James Patterson. Thanks, James.
ENDS