Advertisement
10:15
Coalition suggests stealth bombers could be used as AUKUS stop-gap | 7.30
ABC News In-depth
·
May 10, 2026
Open on YouTube
Transcript
0:00
Shadow Defense Minister James Patterson
0:02
said today the government should be much
0:04
more blunt about the military threats
0:06
facing Australia and that if we really
0:08
knew how serious those threats were, we
0:10
would be demonstrating in the streets
0:12
for more spending on our defense. Orca
0:15
submarines are part of that debate
Advertisement
0:16
following reports from the UK of delays,
0:18
potential delays in production. James
0:21
Patterson joins me now. James Patterson,
0:22
welcome.
0:23
>> Thank you for having me.
0:24
>> First of all, is One Nation going to run
0:26
over the Liberal candidate in Farah? The
0:28
farab election is going to be very
0:30
challenging for the liberal and national
0:31
parties. We know we are not at an
Advertisement
0:33
electoral high point nationally and we
0:35
know that One Nation's appeal at the
0:37
moment appears to be especially
0:38
concentrated in regional and rural
0:40
electorates. But we have an outstanding
0:43
Liberal candidate, an outstanding
0:44
national candidate. And if people do
0:46
want to see change in this country, the
0:48
best way to do that is to vote for a
0:49
Liberal or national who can actually
0:51
change the government, not a party of
0:53
protest that can't deliver anything for
0:55
an electorate like Farah or indeed the
0:57
country. Let's talk James Patterson
0:59
about your speech that you gave today.
1:01
It's essentially, as I said before,
1:02
about truthtelling in defense. As I
1:06
referenced there, you say if the if the
1:07
Australian public knew how likely
1:09
conflict is in our region and how
1:12
illprepared we were for it, they would
1:13
be marching demanding higher defense
1:15
spending. So, first of all, how likely
1:18
is it this conflict?
1:20
I also said it was important not to be
1:22
inflammatory or irresponsible and so I
1:24
don't want to do anything which alarms
1:25
Australians and I particularly don't
1:27
want to do anything that singles out any
1:28
diaspora communities or fakes makes them
1:30
feel uncomfortable. So I want to be
1:32
measured but also direct. There's not a
1:34
percentage that I can put on the
1:35
likelihood of conflict except that it is
1:37
higher than probably most Australians
1:39
think. Uh we have the context here. The
1:42
People's Republic of China is engaged in
1:44
the largest peacetime buildup of
1:46
military capability since World War II.
1:49
And accompanied with that buildup of
1:51
capability is menacing military drills
1:54
around Taiwan and rhetoric from Xi
1:56
Jinping and other Communist Party
1:58
leaders which say reunification with
2:01
Taiwan is a core objective of the
2:03
Communist Party and they are willing to
2:06
use force if necessary. Now, I don't
2:08
believe that Xiinping has made a
2:09
decision to use force, but it is our
2:11
national interest to discourage and
2:13
deter him from doing that along with
2:15
like-minded partners.
2:16
>> If cander is what you're looking for,
2:18
then shouldn't you tell us given those
2:21
circumstances, the context that you
2:23
describe, exactly what the coalition
2:25
would spend to defend Australia
2:27
particularly and on what capabilities?
2:30
Mhm. [snorts] I should provide as much
2:32
information as I can responsibly from
2:34
opposition, but I also shouldn't be
2:36
cavalier about making commitments
2:38
without expert advice. So, what I've
2:40
said is that the best informed
2:42
Australians like Sarangis Houston and
2:44
Professor Peter Dean, two of the
2:46
reviewers for the Albanesei government's
2:47
defense strategic review, have both
2:49
since said we need to be spending 3% of
2:52
GDP on defense. And the coalition is
2:54
committed to achieving that. The Albani
2:57
government has now shifted the
2:58
goalposts. They're now using a different
3:00
measure which includes things like
3:01
military pensions which we never used
3:03
before. But that accounting trick isn't
3:06
a real increase in investment in defense
3:08
capability which is what we need. So we
3:10
say we need 3% of GDP in real terms not
3:13
in pretend accounting.
3:14
>> There's been a shift in the terms used
3:16
by the US military about China. Um well
3:21
maybe it's a a shift rather in the
3:23
analysis over over over recent years.
3:25
This is this is how the uh commander of
3:28
US Indo Indo the IndoPacific Command put
3:31
it recently to the US Senate. China has
3:33
ambitions toward a global military that
3:36
will project power beyond its near
3:38
geography to set the rules for every
3:42
relationship across the globe. Is that
3:44
what you see?
3:46
>> I think it's very hard to disagree with
3:48
that analysis. Obviously, the Chinese
3:51
government's primary national security
3:53
interest is its own homeland, and it's
3:55
near abroad, including Taiwan. But it
3:58
also clearly is building a military
3:59
which is capable of projecting power far
4:01
beyond that. By tonnage and the number
4:03
of ships, it now has the largest navy in
4:06
the world. And I think history tells us
4:08
that it's very rare for great powers to
4:10
acquire such significant military
4:12
capability and then never use it. Now, I
4:14
hope that they don't use it. And we can
4:16
help make sure that happens by working
4:18
with other like-minded partners, Japan,
4:20
the United States, the Philippines, and
4:21
others who have a shared interest in the
4:23
stability and peace of the Indopacific.
4:25
But we need to be doing more than we are
4:27
now if that is what we want.
4:29
>> How much is current US behavior
4:33
impacting public support for the
4:35
alliance right now?
4:37
I think it's inarguable that an
4:39
unconventionable US administration in
4:41
the second Trump administration has
4:44
reduced Australian public support uh for
4:46
the alliance as expressed in opinion
4:48
polls and that's consistent across the
4:49
western world. It's particularly evident
4:51
in Europe. I don't think that actually
4:53
changes the fundamentals of the US
4:54
Australia alliance. It's still
4:56
incredibly robust at other levels. But I
4:58
think we should be adult and be honest
5:00
and acknowledge that that has had an
5:02
impact on how Australians view the
5:03
United States. and I hear them and
5:05
understand why they have that concern.
5:07
It doesn't mean though that Australia's
5:08
national interest has changed even if
5:10
Australians disapprove of this
5:11
administration.
5:12
>> I understand that. But is it realistic
5:14
at the same time to tell Australians
5:16
that the alliance is essentially
5:18
unchanged when what you're saying is
5:20
there is less trust in its
5:22
commanderin-chief?
5:24
>> Well, I think the alliance is about more
5:25
than just the personalities of any one
5:27
commander-in-chief. But it's also
5:30
about that.
5:32
>> Yes. And I acknowledge that and I'm not
5:33
trying to argue with you on that Sarah.
5:34
Of course, that's a relevant
5:36
consideration. But the US system is a
5:38
deep system. It includes its defense
5:40
establishment, its intelligence
5:42
establishment, its Congress. It's a
5:43
co-equal branch of government. And in
5:46
each of those branches of the
5:47
government, support for the Australia
5:49
alliance is fundamental because frankly
5:51
it's in America's national interest.
5:52
What Australia offers the United States,
5:54
it cannot get from elsewhere. things
5:56
like HMA Sterling which is the submarine
5:59
rotational base that will be established
6:00
in the next couple of years for US
6:02
nuclear submarines to visit. Things like
6:04
Pine Gap and other intelligence
6:06
facilities which are a critical part of
6:08
the Five Eyes Alliance. Those are things
6:09
which the United States gets from
6:11
Australia which it can't get elsewhere.
6:13
And in turn there are things that we get
6:15
and continue to seek from the United
6:17
States which we can't get from elsewhere
6:19
including the Orcus partnership.
6:20
>> Let let's talk about um HMA Sterling the
6:23
military base in WA. The same Admiral
6:26
Paparro said about it recently. In fact,
6:28
in the same testimony, he said, uh, it's
6:30
on track for the US forces that will
6:32
arrive there in WA next year. He said,
6:35
"We could be ready to operate a
6:37
rotational submarine squadron out of
6:39
Australia tomorrow." Do you endorse that
6:42
assessment?
6:43
>> Well, it's certainly a very welcome
6:44
assessment, and I can't do anything
6:47
except take him on his word except note
6:49
that that is not the consensus of
6:50
opinion amongst defense and strategic
6:52
experts in Australia. There are many who
6:54
are concerned that we are not on track
6:56
to meet the milestones because it is a
6:58
very ambitious infrastructure build in
7:01
order to have its full capabilities
7:02
available. So, it's possible that a US
7:04
submarine could visit now, but to get
7:06
all of the sustainment and maintenance
7:08
that we hope ultimately to provide to
7:10
the US Navy, I think will take some more
7:11
time.
7:12
>> Why would Admiral Paparo say that it's,
7:14
you know, in good enough state to send a
7:16
quad a squadron there, but he
7:17
anticipates it will be ready next year.
7:19
It's incredibly important to him. Why
7:21
would he say that if it's as behind as
7:23
you suggest it is? And Angus Taylor also
7:25
who today said the base is all talk and
7:27
not enough investment.
7:29
>> Well, Indopaccom is very bullish on uh
7:32
Orcus and very bullish on the alliance
7:34
with Australia. They are some of our
7:35
best friends and strongest advocates in
7:37
the US system and I'm glad they are
7:39
positive and leaning in and want to do
7:41
more with the United States and I would
7:43
never discourage them for doing so. I
7:44
think it's in our national interest. But
7:46
I think as Australians we can also admit
7:47
that we've got hurdles to meet. We've
7:49
got work to do and I don't get the sense
7:52
of urgency nor do I see the sufficient
7:55
investment on at a sufficient pace in
7:57
order to meet all those hurdles.
7:59
>> I want to talk about the reporting
8:00
that's come out of the uh UK
8:02
parliamentary inquiry into their
8:05
involvement in August. The language they
8:07
used is deeply concerning uh about
8:10
delays in the investment pipeline. Now
8:13
you're talking about uh planning for
8:16
contingencies now. Is that because you
8:19
think that we are not going to meet
8:21
those milestones and we need to make
8:22
decisions now for acquisitions that will
8:25
fill gaps created by Orcus next decade?
8:29
>> What we've heard from the UK Parliament
8:31
is sobering, but it's consistent from
8:32
what we've heard from congressional
8:34
analysts in the United States as well,
8:36
which is that Orcus is achievable, but
8:38
not on status quo policies, not without
8:40
increased investment and focus and
8:42
momentum. And so I want to both double
8:45
down on August to make sure it is
8:46
delivered hopefully on time and on
8:48
schedule, but also prepare for
8:50
contingencies for any possible
8:52
capability gaps that might emerge. You
8:54
know, right now as a country, we are
8:55
trying to engage in a life of type
8:57
extension for our Collins class
8:58
submarines, which in simple terms
9:00
involves cutting it open, upgrading the
9:03
components, and putting it back together
9:04
again. And that's a high-risk activity
9:07
which could involve slippage. And I
9:08
don't want any capability gaps to open
9:10
up particularly in the late 2020s or
9:13
early 2030s at exactly the moment of the
9:16
greatest peril according to most defense
9:18
analysts. So I do think we have to start
9:20
thinking about possible contingencies of
9:22
complimentary capabilities that can help
9:24
fill any of those gaps should they
9:26
emerge.
9:26
>> And what would that what would that
9:28
capability look like? You're talking
9:29
about stealth bombers.
9:31
>> Yeah. What one idea I put on the table
9:32
today which I've encouraged the
9:33
government to have a second look at is
9:35
the B-21 uh stealth bomber. It is a
9:38
longrange stealth strike capability
9:40
which is one of the functions that a
9:42
nuclearpropelled submarine would perform
9:44
and it has the advantage of hopefully
9:46
deterring any economic coercion or
9:48
military coercion on Australia's supply
9:50
chains particularly at the strategic
9:53
choke points the maritime choke points
9:55
to our north and northwest. Uh that's
9:57
the kind of capability that could be an
9:59
addition to a nuclear submarine
10:01
capability but also supplement it before
10:03
it arrives.
10:04
>> James Patterson, thank you very much
10:05
indeed for joining us. Thanks Sarah.
10:07
>> Thank you.
— end of transcript —
Advertisement
More from ABC News In-depth
24:16
How Qatar's careful plans for security failed | If You're Listening
ABC News In-depth
7:22
Will One Nation win the Farrer by-election? | 7.30
ABC News In-depth
24:40
How did Palantir get so powerful? | If You're Listening
ABC News In-depth
10:41
Professor Brian Cox on the big questions of the universe | 7.30
ABC News In-depth
