Television Interview, Sky News

SUBJECTS: Chinese Navy Vessels off the coast of Australia; Defence Spending; Hassan Nasrallah’s Funeral; Peter Dutton's Register of Interests.

KIERAN GILBERT, HOST: Welcome back to Newsday. Joining me live now is the Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles. Thanks for your time, Deputy Prime Minister. Did the PM mislead the Australian public by saying we received notification of the Chinese warships when there was no heads up given prior to those live fire exercises?

RICHARD MARLES, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: Well, we need to be careful here. I mean, the answer to your question is no, the Prime Minister did nothing of the kind. The Prime Minister made clear that there was a notification from the Chinese, but in the same breath made clear that that notification was inadequate and whilst it complied with international law, it did not comply with the standards that we bring to bear here. When Australia engages in live fire exercises, we would typically give 12-24, sometimes 48 hours’ notice. But the point is, we give enough notice such that planes, before they take off, were able to plan a route around the exercise that we're undertaking. I mean, really what's at issue here is that on Friday the notice was so small that you had planes, commercial planes, in the air which were required to make a decision mid flight about diverting around the area that had been notified. That was obviously very disconcerting for those planes. That was a point the Prime Minister was making. It was off the back of that that we then spoke to the Chinese here in their embassy in Canberra, but in Beijing through our embassy there, and indeed from our Foreign Minister to the Chinese Foreign Minister on the sidelines of the G20. So, we made the representations to China about our concerns here. And that's what the Prime Minister was talking about on Friday.

GILBERT: The PM said– but just to point out one of the things that he said was that we got the same notification with the ADF at the same time that the Virgin pilot did, but it was an hour, over an hour later.

MARLES: Well, again, we're getting into the details here. There was a broadcast that was done by the Chinese that was picked up by the commercial aircraft. It was also picked up by the New Zealand frigate that was working closely with a joint Australian, New Zealand effort here to surveil the Task Group. And what's really important to understand is that the New Zealand frigate was aware of the circumstances. They were the ones on station. They were the ones that needed to make decisions about what to do, which in this instance was about conducting the surveillance of what the Task Group was doing and they did that. The information ultimately came to Defence through both channels. Yes, it came from the airlines and through Airservices Australia first, but not much turns on that. What matters is that the Defence Force personnel, in this instance, those on board HMNZS Te Kaha were able to act in the moment and they did.

GILBERT: When the PM has said, though, that there were notifications given, you know, that does imply prior warning. There was no prior warning here. As you've said, we give 12-24 hours’ notice. This is not the act of a friend, is it?

MARLES: Well, we have made representations about the inadequacy of the notice that was provided. So, we completely agree. And it was the point that the Prime Minister was making on Friday. It's why we made representations to the Chinese in Canberra, why we did the same in Beijing and why we did this at the level of our Foreign Minister. And yes, they have complied with international law and it is important to acknowledge that, but this does not meet the same standards that we would bring to bear. And obviously, whilst there was never a point of planes being in danger, it was obviously very disconcerting for a commercial pilot flying across the Tasman to hear this warning and needing to make a decision to divert mid flight. And really that's what we would want to have had avoided here. So it was inadequate in our view, and we've made those representations to China.

GILBERT: I spoke to you at the time when you announced that this group was offshore and you told our viewers at the time that you were going to put in surveillance. I'm wondering, did you make a conscious decision, though, not to send our vessels to shadow this group? As you said, there was a New Zealand frigate, but did you not want to provoke confrontation with the Chinese navy by sending our own ships? Was that a conscious move?

MARLES: Well, to be clear, we've had Australian ships shadowing the Task Group through most of its journey. There's an Australian ship shadowing it as we speak right now, and that's HMAS Stuart. What we do though, is work closely with our allies in the region and we spoke with New Zealand from the get go, because obviously we didn't know exactly where this Task Group would go, but it was possible that it might go in the direction of New Zealand and we work closely with New Zealand in terms of how we jointly give effect to the surveillance. So, you know, we are very interoperable, almost integrated in terms of what we do with the New Zealand Defence Force. The level of coordination and communication between our two–

GILBERT: They should have told us sooner then, shouldn't they?

MARLES: I don't actually accept that. I mean, what mattered is that they were able to make decisions in the moment. It was the ship itself which needed to do the surveillance and they were able to do that. What matters is the information that comes from that surveillance being provided to Australia. And that is being provided. What we know about the configuration of those vessels, about the Chinese Task Group on the Friday, what we know about the live firing which occurred on the Saturday, we know from HMNZS Te Kaha. And so New Zealand has been completely prompt in terms of engaging with us. In the exact moment, the people who needed to know what was going on and needed to act were those on board Te Kaha, and they did know and they did act.

GILBERT: Can I ask you two related questions? Is this group circumnavigating Australia? Is this what we're seeing here? And would you describe it as Andrew Hastie has described it, as gunboat diplomacy?

MARLES: Well, in answer to the first question, it is quite possible that's what's happening. I mean, we need to see what ultimately eventuates. But the Task Group is now on the edge of our Exclusive Economic Zone, about 500 kilometres west of Hobart. And so it's completely possible that they– given where they are now, that they do end up circumnavigating the continent. But again, in respect of that, what we will do is surveil them, firstly to ascertain that they are acting in accordance with international law, and to this point in time they have, a very important point to understand, even in the context of the live firing. But then secondly, and in a sense, in an ongoing sense, the most important thing is for us to be able to observe all their movements, all their formations, so that at the end of the day we can reach an assessment about what is being sought to be achieved by this mission on the part of the Chinese. In relation to Andrew Hastie, I mean, the Shadow Minister really needs to be careful in terms of the language that he's using. I mean, at the end of the day, what matters here is that international law is our touchstone. That matters because much more frequently there are Australian Navy vessels in the proximity of China than there are Chinese Navy vessels in the proximity of Australia, and we rely heavily on international law to do that work. And that work is not gratuitous. We do that work because that's where our trading routes are and that's where we need to assert the international rules based order, freedom of navigation. And so what, you know, the language of Andrew Hastie really reminds us of what was going on with the Abbott Turnbull Morrison government, where essentially they stood there yelling at the world. That doesn't make Australia safer. And at the same time they are actually effectively cutting funds to Defence. That actually makes us less safe. So, you know, words are one thing, actions are what matter. And when ships from the Chinese Navy were coming to Australia when the previous government was in power, you didn't see the level of surveillance that is now being undertaken by this government. And that's been very much instructed by me. So, I'm not so interested in being out there beating my chest and yelling at the world. I'm much more interested in having sober, careful, calm language, which is what defence ministers should do. I'm certainly not there about to try and make jokes in respect of New Zealand as what we've seen Andrew Hastie go out and do, which does nothing other than undermine our relationship with a key ally. And what really matters is action here. And when the Liberals were in power, action is where they failed.

GILBERT: Are you concerned there was a Chinese nuclear powered submarine as well, or a Chinese nuclear sub as part of this, this group? And do we have any Collins class in service at the moment? Are they playing any role in the surveillance?

MARLES: Well, firstly, I'm not going to comment on the activities of the Collins class submarines because for obvious reasons and we in terms of the availability of Collins work to what came out of the Coles Review more than 15 years ago, which is around the availability of two, and that's what we seek to maintain. In terms of a Chinese submarine, I've seen speculation on this. Again, it is the nature of a submarine that you only know you've detected a submarine if you see one. You can't definitively say a submarine is not there if you haven't detected one. That is the nature of what submarines are. So, we are aware of the three surface vessels. The speculation around the existence of a submarine, really all that highlights is how important submarine capabilities are and why we are moving down the path of making sure that we have an enduring long range submarine capability for our nation.

GILBERT: Yeah. Does it also though prompt two things? One, a discussion like the British have had, Keir Starmer has boosted their defence spend and this all in the context of Donald Trump sort of pulling back into frontier America. He's upping their spend to 2.6% of GDP for defence. Is that where Australia needs to head? And do we need a space surveillance capacity that we can use in situations like we have incursions in our, in our territory or near our territory.

MARLES: Well, so in answer to the last question, we have multi-domain capabilities that are available to us right now. In respect of defence spending, we are increasing our defence spending. I mean, we've seen an additional $50 billion over the decade being put into Defence that's in the budget. This is the biggest increase in defence spending in peacetime Australia since the Second World War–

GILBERT: Are you willing to go further?

MARLES: It far exceeds what– Well, I guess the answer to that question is in a rational world, defence spending is a function of strategic threat. And I've often said we are rational people and that is a circumstance that we will continue to evaluate. But we have seen significant increases in defence spending over the last three years, at a historic level. But what's worrying is that that spending has not been backed in by the alternative party of government. I mean, the Liberals are not committing to that spending. In fact, they stubbornly refused to go there, talking about they will do defence spending within the envelope which they took to the last election, which would be $50 billion less than what we are spending now. And when they're out there, as they are talking about cutting the budget by $350 billion, it is hard to see how they would achieve that without going to Defence. And so, you know, what you've got is the Liberals whose record–

GILBERT: Just on your plan, is 2.3% enough in your mind? 2.3% of GDP, given the context we find ourselves in, given what your friend Keir Starmer has done in the UK, and given the events we're seeing almost on a daily basis with the US and Donald Trump's approach to America first.

MARLES: Well, again, what, what I say is we have made really clear that we face a very difficult strategic environment, as complex and as threatening as at any point since the end of the Second World War. And that has occasioned a historic increase in our defence spending. And you can only increase from where you start. And that's what we have done. But I've also made clear we will continually assess this, and in a rational world, defence spending is a function of strategic threat, and that is something that we will continue to assess going forward. But you know, what's really important is to actually have the alternative party of government out there supporting what the government is doing in respect of defence spending, which they are not. They have been the party of Defence cuts right now. They go to this election as cutting defence spending going into the future and that is completely the wrong direction for our nation.

GILBERT: I very much appreciate your time. I want to just get through a few more and touch on a couple of other issues, but on this one, are our American allies concerned about the behaviour of the Chinese vessels? What have you picked up from your discussions with the United States in recent days?

MARLES: Well, again in the here and now, it is important to understand that the Chinese vessels are engaging in accordance with international law. And that is really the most important observation to make here. And so are we, in terms of surveilling what this task group is doing.  More broadly, as I think I've said to you, Kieran, we are very encouraged by the focus that the Trump Administration is giving in terms of its strategic thinking to the Indo Pacific. From an Australian point of view, we want to see more of America in this region. And there is an utter focus, it seems to me, from the Trump Administration, certainly from Secretary Hegseth, in respect of the need to for America to be present in the Indo Pacific so that together we can play our part in asserting the rules based order within the Indo Pacific. A rules based order which is currently under a lot of pressure.

GILBERT: And on a couple of issues, we're almost out of time, I know, but we've had reports, my colleague Sharri Markson reporting that Australians, a number have been monitored and travelled to Lebanon for the funeral of Hezbollah leader Nasrallah. Are you worried about that? And if so, what is the Government doing in response?

MARLES: Look, I've seen those reports, Kieran, and I've also seen the comments of the Director-General of ASIO, who I think was asked about this as well. And for obvious reasons I'm reluctant to answer that without being fully aware of all the specifics in relation to the individuals. Obviously in terms of any legal prosecutions or questions of that kind, they are very much a matter for our legal authorities and again, they need to work through that.

GILBERT: Alright. And finally, this issue around Peter Dutton, his shares, your colleague Andrew Charlton admitted last night that he was told by the Prime Minister's office about this information more than a week ago. Is this just a typical pre election sort of smear job?

MARLES: No, I think there's a question that needs to be answered by Peter Dutton around what he knew at the time that he purchased those shares. They were an unusual purchase at a time when Australians were doing it really tough. And by virtue of that purchase of bank shares, Peter Dutton did very well. And there were opposition briefings at the time around what the government was then doing, and I think it's incumbent on a person who is seeking to be the Prime Minister of Australia to be completely up front with the Australian people about exactly what he knew when he purchased those shares.

GILBERT: We appreciate your time, Deputy Prime Minister. Thanks for our discussion across a range of issues. We'll talk to you soon.

MARLES: Thanks, Kieran.

ENDS