1
00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:04,400
Shadow Defense Minister James Patterson

2
00:00:02,560 --> 00:00:06,480
said today the government should be much

3
00:00:04,400 --> 00:00:08,800
more blunt about the military threats

4
00:00:06,480 --> 00:00:10,960
facing Australia and that if we really

5
00:00:08,800 --> 00:00:12,480
knew how serious those threats were, we

6
00:00:10,960 --> 00:00:15,040
would be demonstrating in the streets

7
00:00:12,480 --> 00:00:16,640
for more spending on our defense. Orca

8
00:00:15,039 --> 00:00:18,960
submarines are part of that debate

9
00:00:16,640 --> 00:00:21,039
following reports from the UK of delays,

10
00:00:18,960 --> 00:00:22,640
potential delays in production. James

11
00:00:21,039 --> 00:00:23,600
Patterson joins me now. James Patterson,

12
00:00:22,640 --> 00:00:24,560
welcome.

13
00:00:23,600 --> 00:00:26,080
>> Thank you for having me.

14
00:00:24,559 --> 00:00:28,719
>> First of all, is One Nation going to run

15
00:00:26,079 --> 00:00:30,159
over the Liberal candidate in Farah? The

16
00:00:28,719 --> 00:00:31,759
farab election is going to be very

17
00:00:30,160 --> 00:00:33,600
challenging for the liberal and national

18
00:00:31,760 --> 00:00:35,359
parties. We know we are not at an

19
00:00:33,600 --> 00:00:37,120
electoral high point nationally and we

20
00:00:35,359 --> 00:00:38,799
know that One Nation's appeal at the

21
00:00:37,119 --> 00:00:40,959
moment appears to be especially

22
00:00:38,799 --> 00:00:43,039
concentrated in regional and rural

23
00:00:40,960 --> 00:00:44,480
electorates. But we have an outstanding

24
00:00:43,039 --> 00:00:46,640
Liberal candidate, an outstanding

25
00:00:44,479 --> 00:00:48,159
national candidate. And if people do

26
00:00:46,640 --> 00:00:49,920
want to see change in this country, the

27
00:00:48,159 --> 00:00:51,439
best way to do that is to vote for a

28
00:00:49,920 --> 00:00:53,198
Liberal or national who can actually

29
00:00:51,439 --> 00:00:55,280
change the government, not a party of

30
00:00:53,198 --> 00:00:57,119
protest that can't deliver anything for

31
00:00:55,280 --> 00:00:59,120
an electorate like Farah or indeed the

32
00:00:57,119 --> 00:01:01,358
country. Let's talk James Patterson

33
00:00:59,119 --> 00:01:02,878
about your speech that you gave today.

34
00:01:01,359 --> 00:01:06,000
It's essentially, as I said before,

35
00:01:02,878 --> 00:01:07,759
about truthtelling in defense. As I

36
00:01:06,000 --> 00:01:09,438
referenced there, you say if the if the

37
00:01:07,760 --> 00:01:12,000
Australian public knew how likely

38
00:01:09,438 --> 00:01:13,759
conflict is in our region and how

39
00:01:12,000 --> 00:01:15,840
illprepared we were for it, they would

40
00:01:13,760 --> 00:01:18,159
be marching demanding higher defense

41
00:01:15,840 --> 00:01:20,400
spending. So, first of all, how likely

42
00:01:18,159 --> 00:01:22,240
is it this conflict?

43
00:01:20,400 --> 00:01:24,320
I also said it was important not to be

44
00:01:22,239 --> 00:01:25,759
inflammatory or irresponsible and so I

45
00:01:24,319 --> 00:01:27,279
don't want to do anything which alarms

46
00:01:25,759 --> 00:01:28,799
Australians and I particularly don't

47
00:01:27,280 --> 00:01:30,640
want to do anything that singles out any

48
00:01:28,799 --> 00:01:32,159
diaspora communities or fakes makes them

49
00:01:30,640 --> 00:01:34,478
feel uncomfortable. So I want to be

50
00:01:32,159 --> 00:01:35,759
measured but also direct. There's not a

51
00:01:34,478 --> 00:01:37,679
percentage that I can put on the

52
00:01:35,759 --> 00:01:39,439
likelihood of conflict except that it is

53
00:01:37,680 --> 00:01:42,000
higher than probably most Australians

54
00:01:39,438 --> 00:01:44,078
think. Uh we have the context here. The

55
00:01:42,000 --> 00:01:46,879
People's Republic of China is engaged in

56
00:01:44,078 --> 00:01:49,519
the largest peacetime buildup of

57
00:01:46,879 --> 00:01:51,199
military capability since World War II.

58
00:01:49,519 --> 00:01:54,158
And accompanied with that buildup of

59
00:01:51,200 --> 00:01:56,960
capability is menacing military drills

60
00:01:54,159 --> 00:01:58,799
around Taiwan and rhetoric from Xi

61
00:01:56,959 --> 00:02:01,919
Jinping and other Communist Party

62
00:01:58,799 --> 00:02:03,600
leaders which say reunification with

63
00:02:01,920 --> 00:02:06,240
Taiwan is a core objective of the

64
00:02:03,599 --> 00:02:08,239
Communist Party and they are willing to

65
00:02:06,239 --> 00:02:09,598
use force if necessary. Now, I don't

66
00:02:08,239 --> 00:02:11,599
believe that Xiinping has made a

67
00:02:09,598 --> 00:02:13,519
decision to use force, but it is our

68
00:02:11,598 --> 00:02:15,199
national interest to discourage and

69
00:02:13,520 --> 00:02:16,480
deter him from doing that along with

70
00:02:15,199 --> 00:02:18,878
like-minded partners.

71
00:02:16,479 --> 00:02:21,359
>> If cander is what you're looking for,

72
00:02:18,878 --> 00:02:23,199
then shouldn't you tell us given those

73
00:02:21,360 --> 00:02:25,120
circumstances, the context that you

74
00:02:23,199 --> 00:02:27,519
describe, exactly what the coalition

75
00:02:25,120 --> 00:02:30,239
would spend to defend Australia

76
00:02:27,520 --> 00:02:32,400
particularly and on what capabilities?

77
00:02:30,239 --> 00:02:34,400
Mhm. [snorts] I should provide as much

78
00:02:32,400 --> 00:02:36,560
information as I can responsibly from

79
00:02:34,400 --> 00:02:38,400
opposition, but I also shouldn't be

80
00:02:36,560 --> 00:02:40,719
cavalier about making commitments

81
00:02:38,400 --> 00:02:42,400
without expert advice. So, what I've

82
00:02:40,719 --> 00:02:44,318
said is that the best informed

83
00:02:42,400 --> 00:02:46,159
Australians like Sarangis Houston and

84
00:02:44,318 --> 00:02:47,919
Professor Peter Dean, two of the

85
00:02:46,159 --> 00:02:49,840
reviewers for the Albanesei government's

86
00:02:47,919 --> 00:02:52,159
defense strategic review, have both

87
00:02:49,840 --> 00:02:54,959
since said we need to be spending 3% of

88
00:02:52,159 --> 00:02:57,199
GDP on defense. And the coalition is

89
00:02:54,959 --> 00:02:58,239
committed to achieving that. The Albani

90
00:02:57,199 --> 00:03:00,399
government has now shifted the

91
00:02:58,239 --> 00:03:01,920
goalposts. They're now using a different

92
00:03:00,400 --> 00:03:03,519
measure which includes things like

93
00:03:01,919 --> 00:03:06,079
military pensions which we never used

94
00:03:03,519 --> 00:03:08,400
before. But that accounting trick isn't

95
00:03:06,080 --> 00:03:10,159
a real increase in investment in defense

96
00:03:08,400 --> 00:03:13,200
capability which is what we need. So we

97
00:03:10,158 --> 00:03:14,719
say we need 3% of GDP in real terms not

98
00:03:13,199 --> 00:03:16,878
in pretend accounting.

99
00:03:14,719 --> 00:03:21,280
>> There's been a shift in the terms used

100
00:03:16,878 --> 00:03:23,280
by the US military about China. Um well

101
00:03:21,280 --> 00:03:25,919
maybe it's a a shift rather in the

102
00:03:23,280 --> 00:03:28,400
analysis over over over recent years.

103
00:03:25,919 --> 00:03:31,199
This is this is how the uh commander of

104
00:03:28,400 --> 00:03:33,680
US Indo Indo the IndoPacific Command put

105
00:03:31,199 --> 00:03:36,719
it recently to the US Senate. China has

106
00:03:33,680 --> 00:03:38,879
ambitions toward a global military that

107
00:03:36,719 --> 00:03:42,318
will project power beyond its near

108
00:03:38,878 --> 00:03:44,878
geography to set the rules for every

109
00:03:42,318 --> 00:03:46,399
relationship across the globe. Is that

110
00:03:44,878 --> 00:03:48,399
what you see?

111
00:03:46,400 --> 00:03:51,039
>> I think it's very hard to disagree with

112
00:03:48,400 --> 00:03:53,039
that analysis. Obviously, the Chinese

113
00:03:51,039 --> 00:03:55,359
government's primary national security

114
00:03:53,039 --> 00:03:58,000
interest is its own homeland, and it's

115
00:03:55,360 --> 00:03:59,599
near abroad, including Taiwan. But it

116
00:03:58,000 --> 00:04:01,598
also clearly is building a military

117
00:03:59,598 --> 00:04:03,518
which is capable of projecting power far

118
00:04:01,598 --> 00:04:06,000
beyond that. By tonnage and the number

119
00:04:03,519 --> 00:04:08,319
of ships, it now has the largest navy in

120
00:04:06,000 --> 00:04:10,318
the world. And I think history tells us

121
00:04:08,318 --> 00:04:12,079
that it's very rare for great powers to

122
00:04:10,318 --> 00:04:14,399
acquire such significant military

123
00:04:12,080 --> 00:04:16,639
capability and then never use it. Now, I

124
00:04:14,400 --> 00:04:18,160
hope that they don't use it. And we can

125
00:04:16,639 --> 00:04:20,000
help make sure that happens by working

126
00:04:18,160 --> 00:04:21,600
with other like-minded partners, Japan,

127
00:04:20,000 --> 00:04:23,360
the United States, the Philippines, and

128
00:04:21,600 --> 00:04:25,520
others who have a shared interest in the

129
00:04:23,360 --> 00:04:27,520
stability and peace of the Indopacific.

130
00:04:25,519 --> 00:04:29,439
But we need to be doing more than we are

131
00:04:27,519 --> 00:04:33,039
now if that is what we want.

132
00:04:29,439 --> 00:04:35,680
>> How much is current US behavior

133
00:04:33,040 --> 00:04:37,680
impacting public support for the

134
00:04:35,680 --> 00:04:39,840
alliance right now?

135
00:04:37,680 --> 00:04:41,918
I think it's inarguable that an

136
00:04:39,839 --> 00:04:44,079
unconventionable US administration in

137
00:04:41,918 --> 00:04:46,399
the second Trump administration has

138
00:04:44,079 --> 00:04:48,000
reduced Australian public support uh for

139
00:04:46,399 --> 00:04:49,758
the alliance as expressed in opinion

140
00:04:48,000 --> 00:04:51,279
polls and that's consistent across the

141
00:04:49,759 --> 00:04:53,120
western world. It's particularly evident

142
00:04:51,279 --> 00:04:54,879
in Europe. I don't think that actually

143
00:04:53,120 --> 00:04:56,079
changes the fundamentals of the US

144
00:04:54,879 --> 00:04:58,560
Australia alliance. It's still

145
00:04:56,079 --> 00:05:00,560
incredibly robust at other levels. But I

146
00:04:58,560 --> 00:05:02,319
think we should be adult and be honest

147
00:05:00,560 --> 00:05:03,839
and acknowledge that that has had an

148
00:05:02,319 --> 00:05:05,680
impact on how Australians view the

149
00:05:03,839 --> 00:05:07,439
United States. and I hear them and

150
00:05:05,680 --> 00:05:08,959
understand why they have that concern.

151
00:05:07,439 --> 00:05:10,560
It doesn't mean though that Australia's

152
00:05:08,959 --> 00:05:11,918
national interest has changed even if

153
00:05:10,560 --> 00:05:12,720
Australians disapprove of this

154
00:05:11,918 --> 00:05:14,478
administration.

155
00:05:12,720 --> 00:05:16,400
>> I understand that. But is it realistic

156
00:05:14,478 --> 00:05:18,159
at the same time to tell Australians

157
00:05:16,399 --> 00:05:20,000
that the alliance is essentially

158
00:05:18,160 --> 00:05:22,240
unchanged when what you're saying is

159
00:05:20,000 --> 00:05:24,478
there is less trust in its

160
00:05:22,240 --> 00:05:25,918
commanderin-chief?

161
00:05:24,478 --> 00:05:27,758
>> Well, I think the alliance is about more

162
00:05:25,918 --> 00:05:30,959
than just the personalities of any one

163
00:05:27,759 --> 00:05:32,000
commander-in-chief. But it's also

164
00:05:30,959 --> 00:05:33,519
about that.

165
00:05:32,000 --> 00:05:34,959
>> Yes. And I acknowledge that and I'm not

166
00:05:33,519 --> 00:05:36,000
trying to argue with you on that Sarah.

167
00:05:34,959 --> 00:05:38,319
Of course, that's a relevant

168
00:05:36,000 --> 00:05:40,879
consideration. But the US system is a

169
00:05:38,319 --> 00:05:42,159
deep system. It includes its defense

170
00:05:40,879 --> 00:05:43,680
establishment, its intelligence

171
00:05:42,160 --> 00:05:46,080
establishment, its Congress. It's a

172
00:05:43,680 --> 00:05:47,600
co-equal branch of government. And in

173
00:05:46,079 --> 00:05:49,038
each of those branches of the

174
00:05:47,600 --> 00:05:51,280
government, support for the Australia

175
00:05:49,038 --> 00:05:52,639
alliance is fundamental because frankly

176
00:05:51,279 --> 00:05:54,638
it's in America's national interest.

177
00:05:52,639 --> 00:05:56,879
What Australia offers the United States,

178
00:05:54,639 --> 00:05:59,120
it cannot get from elsewhere. things

179
00:05:56,879 --> 00:06:00,959
like HMA Sterling which is the submarine

180
00:05:59,120 --> 00:06:02,560
rotational base that will be established

181
00:06:00,959 --> 00:06:04,879
in the next couple of years for US

182
00:06:02,560 --> 00:06:06,319
nuclear submarines to visit. Things like

183
00:06:04,879 --> 00:06:08,000
Pine Gap and other intelligence

184
00:06:06,319 --> 00:06:09,919
facilities which are a critical part of

185
00:06:08,000 --> 00:06:11,279
the Five Eyes Alliance. Those are things

186
00:06:09,918 --> 00:06:13,120
which the United States gets from

187
00:06:11,279 --> 00:06:15,279
Australia which it can't get elsewhere.

188
00:06:13,120 --> 00:06:17,120
And in turn there are things that we get

189
00:06:15,279 --> 00:06:19,279
and continue to seek from the United

190
00:06:17,120 --> 00:06:20,800
States which we can't get from elsewhere

191
00:06:19,279 --> 00:06:23,279
including the Orcus partnership.

192
00:06:20,800 --> 00:06:26,000
>> Let let's talk about um HMA Sterling the

193
00:06:23,279 --> 00:06:28,318
military base in WA. The same Admiral

194
00:06:26,000 --> 00:06:30,879
Paparro said about it recently. In fact,

195
00:06:28,319 --> 00:06:32,960
in the same testimony, he said, uh, it's

196
00:06:30,879 --> 00:06:35,519
on track for the US forces that will

197
00:06:32,959 --> 00:06:37,439
arrive there in WA next year. He said,

198
00:06:35,519 --> 00:06:39,839
"We could be ready to operate a

199
00:06:37,439 --> 00:06:42,319
rotational submarine squadron out of

200
00:06:39,839 --> 00:06:43,439
Australia tomorrow." Do you endorse that

201
00:06:42,319 --> 00:06:44,960
assessment?

202
00:06:43,439 --> 00:06:47,120
>> Well, it's certainly a very welcome

203
00:06:44,959 --> 00:06:49,198
assessment, and I can't do anything

204
00:06:47,120 --> 00:06:50,879
except take him on his word except note

205
00:06:49,199 --> 00:06:52,720
that that is not the consensus of

206
00:06:50,879 --> 00:06:54,560
opinion amongst defense and strategic

207
00:06:52,720 --> 00:06:56,720
experts in Australia. There are many who

208
00:06:54,560 --> 00:06:58,720
are concerned that we are not on track

209
00:06:56,720 --> 00:07:01,199
to meet the milestones because it is a

210
00:06:58,720 --> 00:07:02,880
very ambitious infrastructure build in

211
00:07:01,199 --> 00:07:04,720
order to have its full capabilities

212
00:07:02,879 --> 00:07:06,800
available. So, it's possible that a US

213
00:07:04,720 --> 00:07:08,400
submarine could visit now, but to get

214
00:07:06,800 --> 00:07:10,079
all of the sustainment and maintenance

215
00:07:08,399 --> 00:07:11,758
that we hope ultimately to provide to

216
00:07:10,079 --> 00:07:12,159
the US Navy, I think will take some more

217
00:07:11,759 --> 00:07:14,400
time.

218
00:07:12,160 --> 00:07:16,400
>> Why would Admiral Paparo say that it's,

219
00:07:14,399 --> 00:07:17,679
you know, in good enough state to send a

220
00:07:16,399 --> 00:07:19,679
quad a squadron there, but he

221
00:07:17,680 --> 00:07:21,759
anticipates it will be ready next year.

222
00:07:19,680 --> 00:07:23,598
It's incredibly important to him. Why

223
00:07:21,759 --> 00:07:25,680
would he say that if it's as behind as

224
00:07:23,598 --> 00:07:27,839
you suggest it is? And Angus Taylor also

225
00:07:25,680 --> 00:07:29,598
who today said the base is all talk and

226
00:07:27,839 --> 00:07:32,399
not enough investment.

227
00:07:29,598 --> 00:07:34,399
>> Well, Indopaccom is very bullish on uh

228
00:07:32,399 --> 00:07:35,679
Orcus and very bullish on the alliance

229
00:07:34,399 --> 00:07:37,598
with Australia. They are some of our

230
00:07:35,680 --> 00:07:39,680
best friends and strongest advocates in

231
00:07:37,598 --> 00:07:41,598
the US system and I'm glad they are

232
00:07:39,680 --> 00:07:43,120
positive and leaning in and want to do

233
00:07:41,598 --> 00:07:44,800
more with the United States and I would

234
00:07:43,120 --> 00:07:46,319
never discourage them for doing so. I

235
00:07:44,800 --> 00:07:47,919
think it's in our national interest. But

236
00:07:46,319 --> 00:07:49,840
I think as Australians we can also admit

237
00:07:47,918 --> 00:07:52,318
that we've got hurdles to meet. We've

238
00:07:49,839 --> 00:07:55,198
got work to do and I don't get the sense

239
00:07:52,319 --> 00:07:57,759
of urgency nor do I see the sufficient

240
00:07:55,199 --> 00:07:59,199
investment on at a sufficient pace in

241
00:07:57,759 --> 00:08:00,639
order to meet all those hurdles.

242
00:07:59,199 --> 00:08:02,800
>> I want to talk about the reporting

243
00:08:00,639 --> 00:08:05,360
that's come out of the uh UK

244
00:08:02,800 --> 00:08:07,598
parliamentary inquiry into their

245
00:08:05,360 --> 00:08:10,400
involvement in August. The language they

246
00:08:07,598 --> 00:08:13,439
used is deeply concerning uh about

247
00:08:10,399 --> 00:08:16,638
delays in the investment pipeline. Now

248
00:08:13,439 --> 00:08:19,038
you're talking about uh planning for

249
00:08:16,639 --> 00:08:21,120
contingencies now. Is that because you

250
00:08:19,038 --> 00:08:22,639
think that we are not going to meet

251
00:08:21,120 --> 00:08:25,439
those milestones and we need to make

252
00:08:22,639 --> 00:08:29,598
decisions now for acquisitions that will

253
00:08:25,439 --> 00:08:31,120
fill gaps created by Orcus next decade?

254
00:08:29,598 --> 00:08:32,879
>> What we've heard from the UK Parliament

255
00:08:31,120 --> 00:08:34,479
is sobering, but it's consistent from

256
00:08:32,879 --> 00:08:36,240
what we've heard from congressional

257
00:08:34,479 --> 00:08:38,320
analysts in the United States as well,

258
00:08:36,240 --> 00:08:40,320
which is that Orcus is achievable, but

259
00:08:38,320 --> 00:08:42,320
not on status quo policies, not without

260
00:08:40,320 --> 00:08:45,040
increased investment and focus and

261
00:08:42,320 --> 00:08:46,640
momentum. And so I want to both double

262
00:08:45,039 --> 00:08:48,319
down on August to make sure it is

263
00:08:46,639 --> 00:08:50,159
delivered hopefully on time and on

264
00:08:48,320 --> 00:08:52,080
schedule, but also prepare for

265
00:08:50,159 --> 00:08:54,000
contingencies for any possible

266
00:08:52,080 --> 00:08:55,360
capability gaps that might emerge. You

267
00:08:54,000 --> 00:08:57,120
know, right now as a country, we are

268
00:08:55,360 --> 00:08:58,720
trying to engage in a life of type

269
00:08:57,120 --> 00:09:00,720
extension for our Collins class

270
00:08:58,720 --> 00:09:03,040
submarines, which in simple terms

271
00:09:00,720 --> 00:09:04,639
involves cutting it open, upgrading the

272
00:09:03,039 --> 00:09:07,120
components, and putting it back together

273
00:09:04,639 --> 00:09:08,799
again. And that's a high-risk activity

274
00:09:07,120 --> 00:09:10,720
which could involve slippage. And I

275
00:09:08,799 --> 00:09:13,120
don't want any capability gaps to open

276
00:09:10,720 --> 00:09:16,320
up particularly in the late 2020s or

277
00:09:13,120 --> 00:09:18,320
early 2030s at exactly the moment of the

278
00:09:16,320 --> 00:09:20,240
greatest peril according to most defense

279
00:09:18,320 --> 00:09:22,720
analysts. So I do think we have to start

280
00:09:20,240 --> 00:09:24,799
thinking about possible contingencies of

281
00:09:22,720 --> 00:09:26,399
complimentary capabilities that can help

282
00:09:24,799 --> 00:09:26,799
fill any of those gaps should they

283
00:09:26,399 --> 00:09:28,080
emerge.

284
00:09:26,799 --> 00:09:29,679
>> And what would that what would that

285
00:09:28,080 --> 00:09:31,040
capability look like? You're talking

286
00:09:29,679 --> 00:09:32,639
about stealth bombers.

287
00:09:31,039 --> 00:09:33,919
>> Yeah. What one idea I put on the table

288
00:09:32,639 --> 00:09:35,679
today which I've encouraged the

289
00:09:33,919 --> 00:09:38,479
government to have a second look at is

290
00:09:35,679 --> 00:09:40,479
the B-21 uh stealth bomber. It is a

291
00:09:38,480 --> 00:09:42,080
longrange stealth strike capability

292
00:09:40,480 --> 00:09:44,720
which is one of the functions that a

293
00:09:42,080 --> 00:09:46,399
nuclearpropelled submarine would perform

294
00:09:44,720 --> 00:09:48,959
and it has the advantage of hopefully

295
00:09:46,399 --> 00:09:50,879
deterring any economic coercion or

296
00:09:48,958 --> 00:09:53,359
military coercion on Australia's supply

297
00:09:50,879 --> 00:09:55,439
chains particularly at the strategic

298
00:09:53,360 --> 00:09:57,519
choke points the maritime choke points

299
00:09:55,440 --> 00:09:59,519
to our north and northwest. Uh that's

300
00:09:57,519 --> 00:10:01,278
the kind of capability that could be an

301
00:09:59,519 --> 00:10:03,360
addition to a nuclear submarine

302
00:10:01,278 --> 00:10:04,240
capability but also supplement it before

303
00:10:03,360 --> 00:10:05,440
it arrives.

304
00:10:04,240 --> 00:10:07,759
>> James Patterson, thank you very much

305
00:10:05,440 --> 00:10:10,920
indeed for joining us. Thanks Sarah.

306
00:10:07,759 --> 00:10:10,919
>> Thank you.