Media
|
Transcripts
April 12, 2026
.png)
ANDREW CLENNELL: Joining me live from Melbourne, Shadow Defence Minister James Paterson. James Paterson, thanks for your time. And I think I'll start with this big story in your area this week, a historic story. Ben Roberts-Smith, your leader, Angus Taylor, has expressed concerns about the nature of the arrest. Our viewers are seeing the pictures now. He's hauled off the plane. It's being filmed. There are reports he offered to hand himself in, so there wasn't any of this business. And his kids were there at the time, he's flying from Brisbane to Sydney. Do you have any concerns about this?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Good morning, Andrew. It's good to be with you. Look, I've certainly seen the concerns that many Australians have expressed over the last couple of days about the way in which Ben Roberts-Smith was arrested by the Australian Federal Police and the Office of the Special Investigator and the fact that it was in a public place and he was with his children at the time. And as you say, there have been media reports since then that he offered to hand himself in at any time or place required by the police. Really, these are operational questions which must be answered by the Federal Police and the OSI. I don't know what their considerations were, why they chose to arrest him at that time, and that place, and it's up to them to explain why it was operationally necessary to do so.
ANDREW CLENNELL: Do you think they could have arrested him in Brisbane, not Sydney? And you know, there's been a suggestion there might have been a particular motivation around that I think.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: I've seen that media speculation too, and I don't know whether that is true or not. Only the AFP and the OSI can answer that, and I think it's reasonable that they do answer that. There will be an opportunity to ask questions of them in Senate estimates in a couple of months' time, but there's nothing stopping the AFP explaining that in the meantime, given that it has generated significant community concern.
ANDREW CLENNELL: And the speculation, am I correct, is that you might get a more, quote unquote, diverse jury in Sydney. Were you surprised to see that kind of speculation? Because, yeah, that's interesting, isn't it?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: It certainly is interesting, and there was media reports speculating that that was the police's motivation, but I have no idea whether that is true or not. I think it is in the public interest for speculation like that to be put to bed, and the only way it can be put to bed is for the AFP and the OSI to explain the operational necessity of arresting Ben Roberts-Smith in the time and place that they did.
ANDREW CLENNELL: If that were true, that report, would you be concerned?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: I'm reluctant to speculate about whether it's true or not and whether I'd be concerned or not, given that this is a sensitive criminal matter before the courts now, Andrew. But I have said that I think it's appropriate for the police to clarify why he was arrested in the way in which he was.
ANDREW CLENNELL: Your friend and colleague Andrew Hastie has named himself as a potential witness in this case. He shapes as one of the whistleblowers. Does this make life complicated for the Coalition, and what has he told you about his view of Ben Roberts-Smith's conduct or the way he operated?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: I will not hear a word of criticism of Andrew Hastie about the way in which he's conducted himself in this matter. He has demonstrated total integrity and honour in the way in which he has handled himself. He was subpoenaed as a witness in the defamation trial that Mr Roberts-Smith initiated against the Nine papers, and as is his duty, as would be any other Australian's duty, he presented himself to court, and he answered questions truthfully under oath. Now, if he is subpoenaed again to give evidence in a criminal trial, I have every confidence that he'll do that truthfully. And that is the only thing that we can ask of any Australian, including Andrew Hastie.
ANDREW CLENNELL: Do any of the top brass in charge at the time Ben Roberts-Smith is alleged to have committed these acts have any accountability here, perhaps in terms of sending Roberts-Smith and others on so many consecutive tours? Should they face any culpability? What do you suggest should happen in relation to them?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, without commenting specifically on whether they contributed to the charges that Ben Roberts-Smith now faces, I think the political class and the military leadership from that time have reflected and accepted responsibility for overuse of special forces in Afghanistan. I think it's now widely agreed by serving members, by veterans, by military analysts, that we leant far too heavily on both the SAS and the Commandos, that we sent them far too frequently to Afghanistan, and that had a very real toll on them and on the ADF. And it is something we should all reflect on in the context of current conflicts or any potential future conflicts, that special forces is an incredibly important capability that the ADF has at its disposal, but it should be used sparingly and appropriately, and it should never be overused.
ANDREW CLENNELL: Have you been offered any sort of briefing by the war crimes office or the government on the charging of Ben Roberts-Smith, and would you like such a briefing?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: No, I haven't, and I haven't requested one. Because this is a criminal matter that is handled at arm's length by prosecutors and the police, I don't actually think it's appropriate for politicians to involve themselves in it. It's critically important that Ben Roberts-Smith retains the presumption of innocence, that he has a fair trial. And I don't want a politician, briefed or unbriefed, to say something that would in any way impinge on his ability to get a fair trial. And frankly, we should all be very cautious about whether or not we'd commit contempt of court if we did so. So I don't think a briefing is necessary in this instance.
ANDREW CLENNELL: One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has really jumped on the cause of Ben Roberts-Smith here. What do you make of her comments around the case?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, I would urge her and every other politician to be really careful about what they say. Watching us on our interviews or listening to us on the radio could be a future jury member who is called upon to help decide whether or not Mr Roberts-Smith's conduct meets the threshold of a reasonable standard under the criminal law. And we should not do anything which in any way jeopardises his ability to get a fair trial.
ANDREW CLENNELL: Speaking of One Nation, they've hired a convicted rapist to work out of their Queensland office, Sean Black, someone who's been a campaign director for them before. One of your Liberal MPs, Garth Hamilton, has written to the presiding officers asking for notice to be given when this man is in the parliament. What do you make of all this?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: I think it's absolutely extraordinary that One Nation thinks it's appropriate to hire someone who's been convicted of such a serious crime to work for them. And the fact is that according to media reports he worked for a One Nation Senator prior to his conviction and his incarceration on these crimes and One Nation chose to again employ him after he was released from prison after serving his sentence. It means it's very hard to take One Nation seriously when they talk about law and order, when they talk about being tough on crime, when they talk about domestic violence. And frankly I'm amazed that One Nation MPs and Senators haven't been asked more about this when they appear in the media. This is a political party which is polling second nationally according to most polls. They have a pretence of being a serious political party, and they are employing a convicted rapist to work for them. I don't think he should be allowed in Parliament House in sitting weeks, and if he is being brought to Parliament House, they should explain why they think that's appropriate.
ANDREW CLENNELL: Do you have any information that he might be being brought to Parliament House?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: I don't, but as you say, my colleague Garth Hamilton has written to the presiding officers to ask whether or not he's been granted a pass to Parliament House, whether or not he attends Parliament House. It is routine for employees of political parties to attend Parliament for meetings with the members of the political party that they work for. And so it's really up to One Nation to explain whether or not the convicted rapist they have chosen to knowingly employ is attending Parliament House in sitting weeks or at any other time.
ANDREW CLENNELL: Is the opposition prepared to take Pauline Hanson on in the lead up to the next election? It was put to me yesterday that focus groups are showing people regard her as a new player in the political scene when she's actually been in the Parliament as long as Anthony Albanese since 1996. Is that something you need to tackle and can tackle?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, our primary focus will always be fighting the Labor Party and this government, which is letting Australians down. But One Nation is a political competitor to ours, they have aspirations to get rid of the Liberal and National Parties to replace us. And as a political competitor, we will scrutinise their conduct, like the fact that they employ a convicted rapist working for them, or the fact that since One Nation was created, 70% of the MPs ever elected to represent One Nation no longer represented One Nation at the end of their first term. I mean, this is an extraordinary track record of failure by One Nation, and it really calls into question whether or not they could ever govern in the national interest for all Australians. Australians, I think, do have to ask themselves whether they think voting for One Nation is going to lead to our $2.7 trillion economy being better managed, whether their lives are going to improve, and they'll have to make that decision in the lead up to the next election.
ANDREW CLENNELL: And there was this lack of One Nation policies during the week, including they want to get rid of the petroleum resource rent tax and take a stake in resources projects. What did you make of that?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: What sounds remarkably like Kevin Rudd's mining tax, something which the Coalition fought and defeated a decade ago and which I think most Australians understand would threaten the mining industry in Australia. Right now, we're relying on the fact that we are a significant exporter of energy, including LNG and coal, to ensure that our trading partners continue to provide us with the refined fuels like petrol and diesel and aviation fuel to make sure our economy keeps moving. So I don't know why you'd want to go out and smash the mining and energy industries in Australia to jeopardise our international relationships and make it harder for us to guarantee the imports of fuel that we need to keep our country moving.
ANDREW CLENNELL: Let me ask about the Prime Minister's trip to Singapore, and he is to make similar trips to other parts of Asia, as I've reported next week. Is this what he should be doing to secure the fuel supply?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Singapore is a great friend of Australia, a very close ally. We have extensive military cooperation with Singapore, and they are one of our most important suppliers of refined fuels. So I think it's a very appropriate thing to be having conversations with them. I'm not sure the non-binding agreement that the Prime Minister reached with Singapore will make a tangible difference, but we hope that it will. Ultimately, Singapore, like other refiners of fuel in Asia, rely on the crude oil imports from the Middle East, and if those supplies can't be guaranteed, then Australian supplies of refined diesel and petrol and aviation fuel can't be guaranteed either.
ANDREW CLENNELL: Do you support his trips? Do you support him actually travelling to these places?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: I'm supportive of the Prime Minister doing that. I'd also make the point, though, that one of the things that's changed since the last Iran crisis in 1979, or the other threats to oil supply, particularly in the 1980s, is that now the United States is a net exporter of fuel, not a net importer of fuel, and it's highly likely that the United States will be an important supplier of those fuels to Australia. So I do have to ask the question whether or not the Prime Minister has picked up the phone and had a conversation with President Trump about whether the United States can help guarantee the importation of those fuels to Australia or not?
ANDREW CLENNELL: Should he be going to America instead of places like Singapore, or maybe both?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, I think it's a fair question to ask, Andrew. I mean, Singapore is a very important supplier to Australia, but there's been media reports that some shipments from the United States have been sent to Australia in recent weeks or will be sent to Australia in the coming weeks. And we should want to make sure that, as one of the best allies of the United States in the world, that we are guaranteed that supply before anyone else.
ANDREW CLENNELL: Do you think we need the $20 million advertising campaign on fuel the government has announced today?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Frankly, I don't think Australians want to be lectured by taxpayer-funded political propaganda about driving less. They want a government that does its job and makes sure that we are supplied with the refined fuel that we need. We want them to make sure that petrol, and diesel, and aviation fuel, comes into our country, and that it gets to the service stations that they turn up to fill up their car. And an advertising campaign is not going to make that happen.
ANDREW CLENNELL: So you don't think there should be such a campaign?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, I just think it's more about the government's political interest than the national interest. They very clearly started this crisis, not realising how serious it was. They even stood up and said threats to fuel supply were right-wing extremist misinformation. And they're struggling to make up for that poor start to this crisis, where they didn't take it seriously. And their answer is $20 million of taxpayer-funded advertising. It's very clearly about their political interest, not about fixing the problem.
ANDREW CLENNELL: Let's talk about the war in Iran. What do you think is at play here? Is there a danger that the Israeli government want to keep the war going? Do you have hopes that we'll get a resolution from these latest talks that have just begun?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: The ceasefire is welcome, and the peace talks that are underway right now are also welcome. Australia's national interest is very clear. We want the Strait of Hormuz to be reopened so the oil price comes down and the price of petrol and diesel at the bowser comes down for Australians, too. And it is critically important that the end of this conflict does not begin with a new toll booth for the IRGC and the Islamic Republic of Iran, where they get to extort oil tankers as they pass through the Strait of Hormuz. So we strongly support the United States efforts to end this conflict on favourable terms for all of us.
ANDREW CLENNELL: How worried are you about that? I mean if that would have happened the whole thing might have backfired, might not it?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: I am very worried about that. The Strait of Hormuz was open before this conflict started, and if the end of this conflict is that the Strait of Hormuz is now a revenue-raising tool for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of the Iranian regime, a listed terrorist organisation in Australia, which is responsible for at least two terrorist attacks on Australian soil, that would be an incredibly regrettable thing. I think there have been significant military gains made. We do know that Iran's ballistic missile program and their drone production program have been significantly impacted. Their air defence has been essentially destroyed, their air force has essentially been destroyed, their navy has essentially been destroyed. But if they are able to retain control of a free passage over the Strait of Hormuz, that's a big problem.
ANDREW CLENNELL: The Prime Minister was critical during the week of one of Donald Trump's posts about ending a civilisation. What's your view of that post and the President's behaviour in relation to that?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, the Persian civilisation has given much to the world, and we certainly don't want to see that civilisation destroyed, nor the Iranian people, who are the first victims of the Islamic Republic of Iran regime, and frankly, we want them to enjoy freedom and democracy one day. Now that's not Australia's gift to give, we can't control that, but the destruction of that civilisation would be an incredibly regrettable thing.
ANDREW CLENNELL: Finally, what do you make of the widespread speculation that the government will introduce changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax in the budget?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, I think the speculation is right. I think the Albanese government plans to break solemn election commitments they made over recent successive elections to make no changes to negative gearing, and to make no changes to the capital gains tax. They're doing this because Jim Chalmers and Katy Gallagher cannot control the spending side of the budget. It is at a 40 year high as a proportion of GDP outside the pandemic. And because they can't control their own spending, they're coming after Australians’ savings. They're coming to tax your home, and every Australian should judge them for it.
ANDREW CLENNELL: James Paterson, thanks so much for your time.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Thanks, Andrew.
ENDS