Media
|
Transcripts
November 23, 2025
TRANSCRIPT
INTERVIEW
SKY NEWS SUNDAY AGENDA
Sunday, 23 November 2025
Topics: New South Wales and Victoria’s New Liberal Leaders, affordable energy, Nikki Savva’s new book, Chris Bowen's warped priorities, EPBC
E&OE…………………………………………………………………………………………
ANDREW CLENNELL: Well, joining me live now is the Shadow Finance Minister, James Paterson. Thanks for your time, James. We've seen, you've seen here, Kellie Sloane, we've seen female leaders of the Liberal Party elected in New South Wales and Victoria. Are you about to depose one federally?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Good morning, Andrew. No, we're certainly not. And although I don't know the New South Wales Division and Kellie, as well as I know the Victorian Division and Jess, you know, that was another very typically polished performance by Kellie, and I can see why she was unanimously elected by her New South Wales state parliamentary colleagues this week, just as Jess was unanimously elected by her state parliamentary colleagues this week. In Victoria we've got the highest debt in the nation, the highest taxes in the nation, unemployment above the national average, growth below the national average, and frankly just an absence of hope for the future. And what Jess Wilson offers the Victorian people is hope that they can avoid sixteen years of Labor, which this state just can't afford.
ANDREW CLENNELL: What if we get a dire newspoll in the Australian tonight? Do you think that would encourage your colleagues to move on Sussan Ley?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Andrew, you know that politicians are reluctant to comment on polls at the best of times, but it would be particularly unwise to comment on a poll that hasn't even yet been published. What I'll say is that whatever the results are tonight, I'm sure they will say that we've got more work to do because the average of recent polls show that we've got more work to do to be competitive, and we all know that. And I think now with a very strong position on net zero and affordable energy, we can unite behind that principle and take the fight up to the government in a high contrast in an area of public policy that's failing, right. A 40 percent increase in electricity prices on this government watch, almost a 40 percent increase in gas prices. The promise of the renewable energy transition has turned out to be something very different for Australian households and businesses, and we want to seek a mandate from the Australian people at the next election for a different direction.
ANDREW CLENNELL: All right, well you heard what Kelly Sloane said, RE net zero. And you heard her say that she thinks she can work with the nationals to perhaps compensate them to stay with the target. And Jess Wilson is also a supporter of a net zero target. So what do you make of that given the federal Liberals' position?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, national targets are responsibilities of the federal government. State governments are entitled to pursue whatever energy and emissions policies they like, but it's ultimately the federal government that will be held to account for whether or not we meet our international commitments. And we've been very clear. We want to continue to reduce emissions as we did when we were last in office, but we're not going to do so at the expense of affordable energy. Affordable energy is our number one priority, and we're willing to change the direction to the Australian Energy Market Operator to make clear that their priority should not be emissions reduction, it should be energy affordability. And that's the problem that we've got under Labor right now. The only thing that matters to Labor is a 2050 target of net zero. They have no regard for energy affordability and look at the damage that's doing. They've got energy subsidies because they don't want households to feel the real pain of electricity prices. And they're running around the country bailing out heavy energy users like smelters because they're uncompetitive under Labor's energy policies.
ANDREW CLENNELL: There was this footage I'm about to show the viewers that got a wide run of you shaking Andrew Hastie's hand once the net zero decision was made in the party room. Do you want to, here we go. Do you want to talk us through that?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: So you want me to do psychoanalysis on myself and my friendship with Andrew...
ANDREW CLENNELL: Well why did you decide? Hang on...
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: I can understand why that would be of interest to some viewers...
ANDREW CLENNELL: Why did you decide to make such a big public show of that?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Andrew, as you know, Andrew Hastie is one of my best mates. We've been in parliament together for almost a decade. We've been in a lot of political trenches together. We've always had each other's backs. We remain strong friends as we always have been. And on the issue of net zero, we're on the same side of that debate. And I think it was really important that the Liberal Party made a clear choice to have a high contrast with Labor in an area of public policy which is demonstrably failing and hurting our country. And we think we can win this debate, and that's what we're up for.
ANDREW CLENNELL: All right. Well this is what you said about net zero to me earlier in the year. Have a listen.
[CLIP PLAYS]
ANDREW CLENNELL: Seven MPs spoke in the party room during the week calling for a debate immediately on climate policy. How concerning is this in terms of keeping the Coalition together?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: I'm not concerned, Andrew. It is perfectly normal, particularly after a very significant electoral defeat as we've just experienced, to genuinely and sincerely examine all of our policy positions and that's why they're all up for review. I think we can go through this process in a constructive way, that airs the debate internally as we're proud and happy to have, and lands on a position that is both economically sustainable and supportable, but also that is politically viable as well.
ANDREW CLENNELL: What does politically viable mean? Is it politically viable to keep backing net zero or politically unviable to abandon it?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: I mean we are competing in elections to win government, form government. We have to have positions that are politically viable, that are supportable in the community.
[CLIP ENDS]
ANDREW CLENNELL: So politically viable. Is what you've done now politically viable in the way that you said that was politically viable? Gotta win seats.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Absolutely it is, Andrew, because.. Yes, absolutely, I think it is a very strong position that puts energy affordability first which should always be a priority...
ANDREW CLENNELL: But I don't think that’s what you had in mind when you made those comments, James Paterson. I think what you had in mind were Teal seats, Tim Wilson's seat, city seats. Would you agree that's what you meant there?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: I didn't realise, Andrew, you're a mind reader as well as a journalist. I very clearly didn't express a view on net zero in that interview or in any other interview or any other public comment since the election because I knew, as I've said to you before, I'd have the opportunity to have my say internally in the Liberal Party. And when I had my opportunity to have my say, I made my view very clear. I think our position is electorally viable because it melds our responsibilities to uphold our international commitments and yes, reduce emissions, which we will do as we did when we were last in government, do our fair share internationally, but also which puts energy affordability first and at the forefront of our policy. And honestly, Andrew, if you're out in the community, if you're talking to people, they are far more interested in having affordable energy than any other energy industry objective.
ANDREW CLENNELL: All right, the journalist Nikki Savva has a book out this week where she reports that you urged Peter Dutton not to oppose Labor's tax cuts. Is that correct?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Andrew, I haven't had the pleasure of reading Nikki's book yet, but I did see those extracts in the newspaper. And obviously I'm not going to breach private confidences with Peter or anybody else. I don't think anyone reading that though would be surprised to know that I'm in favour of lower taxes. I've always argued for lower taxes. It is core to the Liberal Party's DNA that we should have lower taxes. And I think it was on your programme straight after the election, Andrew, that I acknowledged that it was a mistake to oppose tax cuts. It was an audacious claim by the Labor Party to say they were in favour of lower taxes than the Liberal Party, but we allowed them to make that claim with a tactical error to vote against tax cuts.
ANDREW CLENNELL: Why do you think Dutton made that tactical error?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Look, I don't want to commentate on historical decisions made by Peter and the team. I have enormous respect and gratitude and affection towards Peter. He's a good Australian, he's a good Liberal. He fought very hard for our country and I'm very disappointed that we didn't have more political success at the last election. And I know Peter was always driven by what he thought was in the national interest. He always put our country first and that's what we should all seek to do in politics.
ANDREW CLENNELL: Do you think the government should keep its energy rebates or get rid of them? And what do you make of this speculation of a gas reservation policy? Which even Don Farrell said you had before the election in this show.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Yes. Well, on energy rebates first, I mean it's a real dilemma for Jim Chalmers because he has publicly said that it's not sustainable and he's heading towards a $42 billion deficit this year on current projections. And, of course, energy rebates make that problem worse, not better. But as Ken Henry said, what they're trying to do is mask their energy policy failure with energy rebates. And they either are going to have to make a decision that Australians have to bear the full cost of that energy policy failure, or the budget's going to have to bear that cost. It's a very difficult dilemma.
On the gas reservation policy, I think, yes, you're right, the Labor Party is coming to where the Coalition was before the last election. We think Australians should have first access to our gas. Of course we have to honour our international contracts and our important trading partners like Japan and Korea and others. But Australians shouldn't be paying among the highest gas prices in the world when we are a major exporter of gas around the world, and particularly in Victoria we have a shocking shortage of gas. It is far too unaffordable and it's hurting both households and businesses.
ANDREW CLENNELL: What do you think about Chris Bowen becoming COP President of Negotiations and staying Energy Minister?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, Chris Bowen should do two things when he heads overseas, particularly when he goes over to Turkey. He should thank President Erdogan for saving Australian taxpayers $2 billion by not having to host COP. And secondly, I think he should probably stay there because that's where his priorities are. He wants to be on the international circuit, he wants to be hobnobbing and negotiating at climate conferences. He has no interest in lowering energy prices for Australians. On his watch, Australians are paying up to $1300 more than they promised they would before the previous election. So if that's Chris Bowen's priority, then let's get a real energy minister who's actually focused on Australians and getting energy prices down.
ANDREW CLENNELL: Well the government argument is the COP Presidency of Negotiations assists us with the Pacific countries and that regional security stoush with China there. What do you make of that?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: I'm sure Xi Jinping is quaking in his boots that Chris Bowen is going to turn the international COP conference into a national security conference. I have my doubts about that. I think actually the energy minister's job is to get energy prices affordable so we're not driving jobs and industry offshore.
ANDREW CLENNELL: All right, just finally, where are things at with environmental law reform? Because my investigations yesterday found that it seems like the Government and Coalition aren't likely to come to a deal, particularly over the power of the EPA. What happens if the government goes with the Greens to pass this legislation?
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Well, where it stands today, we certainly couldn't support the proposed legislation. It is deficient in a number of areas, and the business community has been very vocal about that. But Sussan Ley and Angie Bell have written to the government and proposed seven changes to the legislation which would allow us to potentially support the passage of that legislation. So the ball is in the government's court. If they're willing to compromise, if they're willing to deal with the concerns of the business community, then we are up for acting in a bipartisan way in the national interest. But if they're pursuing ideology over Australia's national interest, then they are welcome to go and do a deal with the Greens and they will wear the consequences of that.
ANDREW CLENNELL: Shadow Finance Minister James Paterson, thanks so much for your time.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Thank you Andrew.
ENDS