Radio Interview, ABC Adelaide

SUBJECT/S: AUKUS.

DAVID BEVAN, HOST: We're joined by the Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles. Good morning, Mr Marles.

RICHARD MARLES, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: Morning, David. How are you?

BEVAN: I'm well. What's to stop the United States or Britain pulling out of the AUKUS agreement if they decide it's no longer in their interests to support the AUKUS deal?

MARLES: Well, what we signed last week was a treaty level agreement between our three countries. Treaty level agreements, treaties typically have clauses which allow countries to exit treaties, and that's very normal. But the answer to the question really lies with the commitment that exists in all three countries in a bipartisan way in support of AUKUS. When I was in the United States over the last couple of weeks, what is clear is that there is support for AUKUS from Democrats, from Republicans, from Trump Republicans. And that was demonstrated in the Congress last year when people across the political spectrum were supporting the legislation which has enabled AUKUS from the perspective of the United States, which provided, for example, the transfer of Virginia class submarines to Australia. Within the month, I've been in Britain, where I met the new Defence Secretary, John Healey, and the new Labour government in Britain is wholly supportive of AUKUS, as the former Conservative government was. And to be fair, here in Australia, AUKUS is supported on both sides of politics. That's actually the basis upon which people should have a sense of confidence about the enduring nature of AUKUS. And it's less about what's in a written agreement, as it is in the fact that there is bipartisan support in all three countries for this, because it makes sense. And underpinning that really is the shared values, the shared strategic alignment that we've got with the United States and the United Kingdom, and which we have had for decades. And the sense of confidence that we draw about the future of AUKUS is drawn from the fact that we expect to have those shared values and that shared alignment with the United States and the United Kingdom for decades to come.

BEVAN: Can you think of an instance where a country has taken another country by surprise by pulling out of a large defence project?

MARLES: Well, I mean, I know where that question is going in terms of what the former government did in respect of its relationship with France. But I think what is clear here is the steps that we are taking each and every day to make this a reality. And the commitment that exists across all three countries, which is now enshrined in a treaty level agreement between us all, does, I think, give confidence to, or should give confidence to people that this is happening.

BEVAN: And isn't that exactly what the French would have thought?

MARLES: Well, the scale of what we are doing here, to be frank, is at a different level. What the United States and the United Kingdom have agreed to do, under the banner of AUKUS, is to provide Australia with a nuclear-powered submarine capability. It's not just a new submarine. It's actually a total elevation in terms of the military capability that we have. It's only ever happened once before, and that happened in respect of the provision of that technology from the United States to the United Kingdom back in the 1950s. This is a step that we must take, and this is the pathway by which we take it. And, you know, I think we can draw confidence from the steps and the actions and the commitment that has happened across the political spectrum in all three countries going forward. Obviously, this is going to be about maintaining that enduring commitment into the future. But I have a sense of confidence that will happen.

BEVAN: You say the scale is of a different level. Doesn't that mean the risks are even greater?

MARLES: Well, we live in a world where we have challenges. I mean, we have to walk down this path. When you describe a sense of risk, you have to balance that against the risk of another alternative, which would literally be to stand still.

BEVAN: But one of your arguments is that well, look, this is just so much bigger than anything we did with the French. And we pulled out on the French at short notice, and they were shocked. But this is so much bigger, so we wouldn't do it. Nobody's going to pull out a deal that is this big. But the point is it can be done. And if this is an even bigger deal, that the risks are even greater. You're spending a lot more money on this. You are putting so many eggs in this basket that if somebody does decide to pull out, and it's now clear that in this treaty there is a mechanism to do just that, we will be even more vulnerable.

MARLES: Well, again, in terms of going to the question of the treaty, it's not that the treaty has opened a door which didn't exist previously. I mean, I think that's an important point to understand. This is not a commercial arrangement. This is an agreement, a treaty between nations. And the whole notion of parliamentary sovereignty is that governments of one day can't bind governments into the future. So, if that's the point you're seeking to make, that's a point that's understood. But we can draw a sense of confidence about the actions of governments into the future based on why this makes sense. The other point to make is that it's what choices we have. I mean, to not do this is to look at walking down the path, I don't know, of extending the life of the Collins class submarines, which obviously there is a finite term to that. We need to acquire new long-range submarines in some form. This is the way to do it, which gives us the greatest sense of certainty. But to be clear, to acquire this kind of capability and to walk this path does have risk. But the risk of not doing it is much greater. Because this, more than any other military platform that we would seek to have or that we have had, totally transforms our capability, totally transforms the question that our military asks of other nations and the ability for us to give any potential adversary pause for thought. I mean, we must pursue this because to not do it is in fact to make us much weaker going into the future. And that entails an even greater risk.

BEVAN: How much extra money has to be spent at Osborne to house the nuclear-powered subs?

MARLES: Well, all of this was mapped out when we announced this in March of last year. I mean, there is a significant expense in terms of what we're doing. It's $50-58 billion over the decade, that was from March of last year, that number gives you a sense of the order of magnitude. We're looking at investing over the next three decades $30 billion into Australian defence industry and a significant proportion of that is in Osborne. But the dividend, I might say, for South Australia, well, actually for Australian industry, but very much South Australian industry is profound. What we're going to see at Osborne ultimately, is a shipyard which will be building ships and submarines, which will have something in the order of 7000 workers there. This will be the highest tech, the most significant industrial production line in the country, just about the highest tech production line that exists in any context in the world. And that's a great opportunity for South Australia.

BEVAN: But it all hinges on the United States and the United Kingdom continuing to be involved. And we now know that they can pull out of the deal with one year's notice. And that is exactly what you would expect, because, as you say, sovereign nations can. This is just putting in writing what is common sense. But it's now out there for everybody to see. If we spend billions of dollars building a facility down at Osborne which is to take these huge boats and they pull out, could we be left with an incredibly expensive white elephant?

MARLES: To acquire a nuclear‑powered submarine capability, we need to work with the United States and the United Kingdom. That is clear. And there's nothing new that we know now that we didn't know when we were announcing this. This will require the ongoing commitment of governments for decades to come across the three countries. We've always known that. And they will be, you know, decisions that will continue to be made by governments across those three countries. But we have a sense of confidence that that will occur by virtue of the fact that across the political spectrum in all three countries, there is the support for this. But I come back to the point. Well, I’d make two points. One is to not walk down this path entails enormous risk, because to not walk down this path is to weaken our country dramatically. The single most important platform that we have in the Australian Defence Force, we would be conceding if we didn't not walk down this path. But secondly, people should understand it is happening. You know, we've had legislation passed through the United States Congress, supported by Democrats, Republicans, Trump Republicans, which have enabled AUKUS to continue and to be what we want it to be, including the ability, for the first time in American history, for America to sell nuclear-powered submarines to an other country. That's not in prospect. That has happened. That is law in the United States today. Now, we had a whole lot of naysayers who said that would never happen, there is no way America would ever take that step. It is now the law in the United States. People should take confidence from that. On Friday, last Friday, three Australian submariners, which were just the latest three in a list of numbers, graduated from the naval nuclear power school in Groton in Connecticut, in the United States. Our submariners are being trained. We've got South Australian workers right now who are in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, learning the skills to build submarines. We've got submariners working with the Royal Navy in Britain. We've got workers working in Britain as well. This is happening. We have land swaps between the Commonwealth and the South Australian governments which have enabled us to commence work on the facility, which is where the nuclear-powered submarines will be built. 

We do have naysayers, and I think we will continue to have naysayers who will tell us that this isn't going to happen. But the fact of the matter is, people said there would never be able to be derived a pathway by which we could have the nuclear-powered submarines, that you would never get any kind of agreement from the United States and the United Kingdom. Well, that agreement happened in March of last year. People said there is no way that would be backed up by the United States Congress and they would actually back the administration in this. Well, that happened last December. People said we won't be able to get the submariners trained. They're being trained right now. So, the steps are being taken. We need to do this. The risk of not doing it is profound. Are there going to be challenges? Of course there are. Is there risk in this? Of course there is. But we don't live in a risk free world and we simply must take this step as a nation.

BEVAN: We're talking to Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles about the AUKUS deal, following the tabling in Parliament of the treaty which formalises the arrangements between Australia, the United States and UK in receiving nuclear-powered submarines and then building the next generation of them. And it's now clear that the United States can pull out, but it just has to give one year's notice. And, Minister, is it correct that the treaty says, look, one reason that the United States could pull out of this arrangement is if the president decides it's no longer in the US's best defence interests at that point in time. Is that basically what the treaty says?

MARLES: Well, I mean, every government is going to continually assess their national interests, as we will, for time immemorial. And the assessment of our national interest is going to determine what treaties we're in and what we're not. So, I mean, that is how the world works. But again, to be clear – 

BEVAN: But if– because, as you say, that's just the way the world works, but if the president decided to do that, would there be any penalty? Would they have to compensate us just like we had to compensate the French when we tore up that agreement? Would they have to compensate us?

MARLES: Well, I mean, there will be– so, to be clear, this is a treaty level agreement. It's not a commercial arrangement what has been tabled. It is the treaty between the three countries. There are commercial arrangements which are being worked on right now. We announced our strategic build partner as being BAE, which makes sense given that BAE built the Astute class submarines in the United Kingdom and really SSN-AUKUS, as we're calling it, the submarine that will be built in Adelaide is, if you like, the evolution of that and will be a class of submarine jointly operated by ourselves and the United Kingdom. With BAE, there will be commercial agreements with the joint venture that we will end up establishing with BAE. And in those commercial agreements, there will obviously be the normal terms around penalties and compensation in the event that things stop. But again, I come back to the fact that, look at what we're doing. I mean, you can focus on a clause which is entirely standard in any treaty that literally any country ever signs. But actually, the news last week was that this was signed. This is the next step forward in the delivery of AUKUS. If you look at the 20 year shipbuild plan in the United States, it contains within it a build for AUKUS submarines, for an AUKUS Virginia submarine. If you look at what the United Kingdom are now doing in terms of their future planning around their own submarine capabilities, what is embedded in that is that their successor to the Astute class submarine in the UK will be the class of submarine which will jointly be built by the UK and Australia. Just as when you look at our future Navy plans that now forms part of what we're doing. All three countries are now utterly orientated in the direction of where this is going and to turn that around becomes a very difficult thing. In fact, as every year goes by, as we continue to invest more and more in it, when I say we, the three countries collectively, we become, in fact, much more than whatever is in a legal document, we become, in fact, much more embedded and invested in the future that we're building together. And that's what we must do. Because to not do it, and this is the point, to not do it, any other alternative is to concede the idea that Australia would no longer have a long-range, capable submarine. And that is a huge, a huge decision for our country to make and would be a decision which would greatly weaken us in a very difficult and fragile world. Now, that’s not a decision this government is going to make. We are going to walk down the path of acquiring this capability. Of course there is risk. But the risk of not doing it is just so much greater. 

BEVAN: Mr Marles, thanks for your time. 

MARLES: Thanks, David. 

ENDS