Television Interview, Sky News - Sunday Agenda

SUBJECTS: Middle East conflict; Australia-US Relationships; Defence Spending; NATO

ANDREW CLENNELL, HOST: Joining me live from Geelong is the Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister, Richard Marles. Richard Marles, thanks so much for your time. Can I ask you first to update us in terms of what Australia's military is doing in the Middle East on evacuating Australians at present?

RICHARD MARLES, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: Well, nice to join you this morning, Andrew. Firstly, the numbers of Australians both in Iran and Israel seeking assisted departures has grown. So, right now, and this number is probably already out of date, but the last briefing is around 2,600 Australians in Iran are seeking assisted departures and around 1,200 in Israel. We have DFAT consular staff who are in Azerbaijan looking at how they can provide assistance across that border. We do have civilian aircraft chartered ready to go in the event that airspace opens up over Iran and Israel. And right now that is the biggest constraint here, that both airspace over both countries is closed. We have a C-17 and a KC-30 which both can take hundreds of passengers placed in Al Minhad, which is just outside of Dubai, in direct answer to your question. And we normally have a footprint of about 40 people at the base that we operate out of at Al Minhad, that's been raised to about 300. And there are people there with various capabilities, depending on the scenarios, to provide assistance. So, we really are poised to provide whatever assistance we can in the event that airspace opens up, which will really be the main opportunity to get- to make a dent on those numbers. We have had a couple of groups leave Israel by land through Jordan. We're hoping to do a couple of more groups today, but relative to the numbers of people who have registered, they're quite small numbers. As I say, we are really poised, ready to act in the event that airspace opens.

CLENNELL: There are reports the US has positioned B-2 bombers in case they want to strike the Iranian nuclear facility Fordo. Do you believe the US would be justified in using a bunker bomb on the Fordo underground site?

MARLES: Well, look, I'm not about to speculate on what the United States does. I mean, the position that we have articulated in relation to this conflict has been consistent from the outset, and that is that we are worried about the prospect for escalation here, and we've been urging de-escalation, we've been urging dialogue and diplomacy, and we continue to do that. Now in saying that, we obviously recognise Israel's right to defend itself and we very much acknowledge the risk that the Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile program represents to both the region and the stability of the world, in fact. So, we acknowledge all of that. But we are concerned about the prospect of escalation here and this entering into some wider kind of conflict. And that's why we are exercising our voice internationally, along with many other countries, to deescalate and to put an emphasis on dialogue, on diplomacy.

CLENNELL: Do you believe Iran is close to having a nuclear weapon?

MARLES: Again, I'm not about to speculate on that, other than to say what I already have, and that is that the Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile program is most definitely a threat to the peace and stability of not only the Middle east, but the world. Actually, President Macron a couple of weeks ago in Singapore at the Shangri La dialogue, spoke very forcefully and eloquently on exactly this. The prospect of Iran gaining a nuclear weapon would be incredibly destabilising for the world, for the ongoing effectiveness of the Non Proliferation Treaty, which we have consistently been a supporter of and a party to throughout its history. So, we definitely see the risk associated with the Iranian program, as I said. That said, you know, we are anxious, as I've said already about the prospect of this conflict now escalating.

CLENNELL: Because Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump's Director of National Intelligence, told a congressional hearing in March that, quote, ‘the intelligence community continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.’ What do you make of that contradiction between her and Donald Trump in recent days?

MARLES: Well, again, I'm not about to go there- it's really a matter for them as to what they say. What matters here is, in a sense, our position, the Australian government's position, which is what I can speak to, and it is as I've stated it.

CLENNELL: Well, we remember the head of the CIA, George Tenet at the time telling George W. Bush that the fact Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was a, quote, ‘slam dunk case’, unquote. Is there any danger we're seeing history repeat itself here? Or are you of the view that Iran is getting close to nuclear capability?

MARLES: Well, I can only reiterate what I've said, Andrew. We do believe that the Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile program is a threat to the peace and stability of both the region and the world. That is very much our view. But our view also in relation to this conflict is that there is a real risk of escalation here, which is why we have used our voice to urge a de-escalation. And that's our position in respect of both the Iranian program, but also more specifically in respect of this conflict.

CLENNELL: Mr. Marles, you have to excuse me if I suggest here that you're having a dollar each way almost. Now, ordinarily in this situation, in times past, with Coalition governments in charge in particular, but even in the time of Bob Hawke, we've seen our nation in lockstep with the US on these matters. Here, the government position on the US bombing Iranian nuclear sites is ambiguous, isn't it? You're saying deescalate, but the nuclear things are worry. So, you're not in lockstep with the US, are you?

MARLES: Well, I'm articulating the Australian government's position and that's the only thing I can articulate. We are making it clear that we see that the Iranian program represents a threat to the peace and stability of the region and the world. Now, that's something that we've been saying for a long period of time, quite apart from this immediate conflict. One then needs to make an assessment about whatever happens in the world and what our view is in terms of the particular benefit of a strategy going forward. What we're saying in relation to this specific conflict is that we are worried about its prospect for escalation. Now, both of those things can sit together. That is the position that we hold. And, and in holding that position, we sit with many countries around the world who hold exactly both of those positions. France itself has, as I said, President Macron has spoken very forcefully about the risks associated with Iran's nuclear program. But it too, in this moment, is seeking for greater diplomacy and dialogue and a de-escalation of the current conflict that's playing out in the Middle East. That's where Australia sits as well. And I might say in relation to the United States, you know, the position that the US has been holding has effectively been one of a defensive posture in support of their assets and people in the region, we obviously understand that. And they too have been making arguments in relation to there being greater dialogue around this question and in this moment. So, our position is our position and it is very clear and it sits consistently with that of many other countries around the world.

CLENNELL: But not with the US. And this is an issue I think in terms of Anthony Albanese not getting that meeting with Donald Trump. Have you reached out to Pete Hegseth in the last week or so to discuss the American position on this?

MARLES: Well, I'm not about to go into what conversations or communications I've had with my counterpart in the United States. I mean, to be fair Andrew- 

CLENNELL: Why not?

MARLES: Well, I'm not going to do that publicly because those communications that I have are between me and Pete Hegseth. There will be times where we make some of those communications public and that may happen going forward as well. But I'm not about to make what is essentially private communications public. But can I just say also, Andrew, I mean you've reported it in your preamble to this interview; America is considering its position. So, exactly where America stands is a matter which is under consideration right now. We have made our position clear, actually it has been consistent with where America has been at over the last few days since this conflict started. But at the end of the day it is our position and we will continue to articulate it in our national interests-

CLENNELL: You've said in the last few days-

MARLES: It is a position which is the same as very many countries around the world.

CLENNELL: You've said in the last few days you've been briefed about what the US are thinking of doing. I put it to you from what your, from your previous answer that you've been briefed by the Defence Secretary of the US in relation to that.

MARLES: You're making a whole lot of speculations there, Andrew, which I've not said. And so I'm just not going to go down that path. I mean, our own agencies have briefed us in terms of their best understanding of what's happening in the region, as you would expect. And I'm not about to go into those briefings either. And obviously our agencies have close relationships with not just the United States, but other agencies around the world- 

CLENNELL: You spoken to Pete Hegseth about this or not?

MARLES: I think I've answered your question. I'm not going to go into communications I've had and for good reason.

CLENNELL: Alright. I wanted to ask you about Donald Trump bailing from the G7 before he met Anthony Albanese and not even giving him a phone call afterwards. Have we got a problem here?

MARLES: No, we don't. I think everyone would understand given what's playing out in the Middle East that the President of the United States attention becomes occupied by world events such as this, and he returned to Washington D.C. as a result. And as you've again reported this morning, there were a number of meetings that did not proceed between Donald Trump and world leaders on the day on which there had been scheduled a meeting with our Prime Minister- that happens. It's not about the relationship between the United States and Australia, it's a function of the fact that the man is the President of the United States and he has to deal with issues that are playing out in the world and this is one of them. There's absolutely no issue here and we continue to work very closely with the United States across all our equities. And I'm sure that in the not too distant future, you'll see a meeting between the Prime Minister and the President.

CLENNELL: And you're obviously going to NATO. Anthony Albanese considered it. Was there some risk in going to NATO because he might not have met Donald Trump there anyway, Donald Trump might not have gone?

MARLES: Well, that really isn't the consideration of why or why not the Prime Minister would attend NATO. I mean, the Prime Minister has attended NATO on a couple of occasions. It is a really significant meeting on its own terms. As the world is becoming increasingly more connected between the Indo Pacific on the one hand- and the North Atlantic on the other. I think it's fair to say that as a meeting, it has risen in the priority of the Australian government, and the Prime Minister has attended a couple of times. I attended the NATO meeting last year, I'll be attending it again this year. There'd be a whole lot of reasons to go, but you know, there are a lot of meetings. Again, as you reported in your preamble to this interview, which the Prime Minister has to attend over the course of the year and so he obviously got to be judicious in what he does attend and what he doesn't. And really, in that, the decision is to go or not to go.

CLENNELL: One of the key men in organising these meetings with US officials and attempting to organise one with Donald Trump is Kevin Rudd. Now, Kevin Rudd harshly criticised Donald Trump several times over the past few years. And one of Mr. Trump's aides, Dan Scavino, posted an hourglass next to Mr. Rudd's congratulatory message following Mr. Trump's election. Is Kevin Rudd a hindrance to getting this meeting? And during the election campaign, your side dog whistled that Peter Dutton could be a Trump. You referred often to not having American style government here. Could this have ticked off the Trump administration as well?

MARLES: No, and no to both of those questions. Kevin Rudd is doing a fantastic job as our Ambassador in the United States. He has a wide range of contacts across the political spectrum, but very much including amongst Republicans, Trump-Republicans. He himself has met President Trump. And so Kevin Rudd is doing a fantastic job. And, no, I don't accept the second assertion that you made in relation to the election campaign. We treat the American relationship with the deepest of respect, and that's irrespective of who sits in the White House. The Prime Minister has been completely respectful in terms of all of his comments in relation to the President. And we are very optimistic about how we can manage the alliance relationship during the course of our term and during the course of President Trump's administration. And it is early days in terms of President Trump's administration, but we already feel that in relation to a number of our equities, that we are very optimistic about how we can maintain and keep advancing that relationship.

CLENNELL: When do you think the PM's getting this meeting?

MARLES: Well, I'm sure the meeting will happen in the not too distant future. But again, I'd remind you, Andrew, that almost immediately the Prime Minister was speaking with the President by phone. He's had a number of phone calls. They're beginning the process of establishing a rapport between the two of them. And we continue at Ministerial level and at official level to have pretty well constant contact with the United States, as you would expect, given that the US and our alliance with the US is the cornerstone of our strategic and foreign policy. We are managing all the equities associated with that relationship, and it is fundamentally going well.

CLENNELL: You said to Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth in Singapore when he went to Shangri La Dialogue, that increasing our defence spending, his demand was to 3.5 per cent of GDP, is, quote, ‘a conversation we are willing to have’, unquote. Then the Prime Minister effectively contradicted you, in my view. He said we're not going to a certain level of GDP. Aren't you on a different page to the PM here?

MARLES: No. And you know, you've needed to caveat that question with your view. Respectfully, I disagree with your view. I mean, we will have a respectful conversation with the United States, of course we will do that. And of course we will determine our own defence spending based on Australia's national interest. And the Prime Minister is absolutely right that the way in which we should think about our defence spending, and in fact, what we have been doing since the moment that we were elected, is to try and articulate what our strategic landscape is, what our strategic threat, and therefore our strategic need, is to build a defence force to meet that need and then to resource it. So, that's all about thinking what are our national interests? What is it that we actually need to have in terms of a defence force? And then we go out and resource that. Now that's the way in which we've been managing defence policy, the defence portfolio and from their defence spending. And in fact, as a result of that, we have seen the biggest increase in peacetime defence spending in Australia's history over the last couple of years while we have been in power. And we will continue to walk down that path. But of course you start on the basis of what is our needs and you go and resource them.

CLENNELL: Here are a few things you can buy; long range missile interceptors- missiles which stop other missiles, minesweeping vessels, a drone capability that prevents another drone attack. Are these things you are looking at? Are you being duded by the Prime Minister and Treasurer on defence spending?

MARLES: Well, I really think that comment doesn't bear scrutiny at all, Andrew. And as I said, we have gone through the biggest peacetime increase in defence spending in Australia's history- I mean that is a fact. And it might be an inconvenient truth for a whole lot of analysts who want to pedal a particular line, but that is actually the fact of the matter. And given that that is the fact of the matter, it is impossible to make the assertion that you've just made. In terms of the specific capabilities that we are pursuing, we have had more clarity in terms of what is our strategic direction and what it is that we are trying to do. And that was all laid out in the Defence Strategic Review and now the National Defence Strategy. And it is all about capabilities which give us the capacity to project. I mean that is absolutely our focus and I've spoken about that on many occasions which is resulting right now in us building a much more amphibious army. It is about having much longer range missiles. It is about having a more capable surface fleet and bringing into service, in what will be the quickest peacetime acquisition of a surface combatant, and again in our history of a new general purpose frigate. It is obviously about a long range submarine capability and a successful capability to the Collins class submarines. It is about seeing our air force planes be able to project further and that means having much more capable northern bases. All of this is articulated very carefully and very clearly and in fact very publicly both in the Defence Strategic Review and the National Defence Strategy-

CLENNELL: But we don’t get new frigates for a decade right. We don’t get new frigates-

MARLES: This is just not true, Andrew. If you're going to ask questions, they need to be accurate, and that just isn't true. We are going through with the general purpose frigate acquisition, the fastest acquisition of a surface combatant in Australia's history, which will see one in service this decade. That is the fact of the matter. When we came to office, your claim might have been right. What we inherited from the Coalition was the prospect of not seeing a new service combatant on our Navy until the mid-2030s-

CLENNELL: We don't get our own subs for 15 years, right as well?

MARLES: I mean, no, that is, Andrew, now you're just saying- that isn't right either. Under the optimal pathway that we announced with the United Kingdom and the United States, which is underpinned by a treaty between our three countries, the first new Australian flag nuclear-powered submarine will come into operation in the early 2030s. That's not 15 years away, so I'm not sure where you're getting that figure from. That is much sooner. And again, what we inherited from the Coalition was the prospect of not seeing any new submarine, new nuclear-powered submarine in service until the early 2040s. We have brought that forward by a decade. And going back to your first question in respect of defence, it is exactly those kinds of decisions which we needed to make in order to build the capability of the Australian Defence Force which we are now resourcing, which has given rise to the biggest peacetime increase in defence spending in Australia’ history.

CLENNELL:  All right, I'm nearly out of time. I'm nearly out of time. Now you've consistently said this is the most complex strategic situation for Australia since World War II. Doesn't that mean we should be going even further in our defence spending? And do you mean by that we need to have a deterrent for China?

MARLES: We are building a defence force with a very clear strategic objective. And that strategic objective is to be able to deter the coercion of any potential adversary. And that is the defence force that we are seeking to build. And we are confident that we are able to build it in a time frame which will empower us to engage in that. Now we will take every step required to resource the building of that defence force over the relevant period of time. And indeed that is what the Prime Minister himself has said. And that's the way in which we will go through the planning of this and executing it. It is about looking at our needs and then resourcing them. And can I say that is what every country does. I mean, yes, there is a benchmarking of countries by virtue of a number which inevitably occurs. But when any country goes down the path of resourcing its own needs, thinking through its own defence planning, it does so based on what it needs to achieve and then it goes and resources that. And that's exactly the process we've been doing with a clarity and an openness which you did not see during the former Coalition government and with a quantity of spending which you did not see during the Coalition government.

CLENNELL: Just finally, you're travelling to NATO. As we said, you'll be meeting the IP4, Japan, New Zealand, Korea. What are we hoping to achieve here? Do you expect to come under pressure on that issue of defence spending at the meeting?

MARLES: Well I mean, I think there'll inevitably be conversations around defence spending. But again, I'd make this point. What we have already done is acknowledged around the world in all the conversations that I have had. And so, you know, we have a story to tell here which is actually a very good story and that is the way in which it's been received in every conversation I've had. This is an important meeting because there is an increasing connectedness, as I said earlier, between the Indo Pacific on the one hand and the North Atlantic on the other. I mean, the war in Ukraine is a perfect example of how a conflict in eastern Europe absolutely engages our national interest, but engages the interests of those in the Indo Pacific, precisely because the moment that Russia and China had a no limits agreement on the eve of Russia's invasion of Ukraine meant that what plays out in Ukraine will give rise to lessons, good or bad around the world. And the rules based order which we are so reliant upon around the world but in the Indo Pacific is really what's on trial in the conflict in Ukraine. So, it is the discussion of all those matters, how we can work more closely together, which is what will be at the heart of the meeting which occurs in The Hague. And we're very much looking forward to participating in it.

CLENNELL: Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, thanks so much for your time.

MARLES: Thanks, Andrew.

ENDS