Doorstop Interview: Singapore

SUBJECTS: Shangri-La Dialogue; Australia-United State Relationship; Middle East; AUKUS; Defence spending; China’s response to the US; Australia-China defence relationship

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER, RICHARD MARLES: Well, it's fantastic to be here in Singapore. This is my fourth Shangri-La Dialogue, and it's been a really successful Dialogue, as always. For me, it has been an opportunity to renew my relationship with US Secretary of Defense, Peter Hegseth, we did our bilateral meeting on Friday, but yesterday, we also did a trilateral meeting with Japan and then a multilateral meeting with Japan and the Philippines. And indeed, those last two groupings have become increasingly important parts of Australia's engagement with the region. What characterizes both that trilateral and the meeting of the four is that they are very much about operational action. It's not about the form, it's actually about the function, as we said, and making sure that we have an agenda moving forward, of cooperatively working together. But it really was a great opportunity to spend an extended time with Secretary Hegseth. I think he's actually had a really significant impact on the Shangri-La Dialogue. Certainly from Australia's point of view, it was a great opportunity to advance the very significant equities that we have within the relationship with the United States, our alliance with the United States, which of course, is the cornerstone of our strategic and our foreign policy. The other observation I would make about this Dialogue is that while Europeans have always been present at the Shangri-La Dialogue, I think at this Dialogue specifically, there has been a real intent in the way in which European countries have engaged. It reflects the sense of connection, interconnectedness that people see, that we see exists between the Indo Pacific on the one hand and the North Atlantic on the other. And that was really very eloquently articulated by President Macron and his keynote address on Friday night, but it has very much underpin the bilateral meetings, the engagements that we've had with our European partners. And so as we finish the Shangri-La Dialogue today, we do so with a real sense of momentum and optimism about our relationships with Europe, with the EU but and with NATO, of course, but with individual European countries around defence industry, but also around ways in which we can operationally work together with our two defence forces. And of course, what puts that into sharp relief is the war in Ukraine, and we continue to very much provide our support to the Ukrainian people in their resistance against the illegal and immoral invasion by Russia of their territory. 

Finally, I'd just like to really acknowledge IISS, they are a remarkable organisation, and this really is an incredible event to have so many Defence Ministers gathered in one spot at one time, to be able to have the meetings that we have- we are very grateful to them. As we are to the government of Singapore. I mean, the hospitality in Singapore is fantastic. It's always a great place to meet, but there is a convening authority that Singapore brings to bear, which really does allow the Shangri-La Dialogue to be able to have the effect that it does. I actually began my day today on a bike ride with my new Singaporean counterpart, Chun Sing Chan. I'm really looking forward to being able to build the relationship with him, as I did with Ng Hen. In fact, if you look at the bilateral relationship between Australia and Singapore, it has never been stronger, and that's particularly the case in terms of our defence relationship. We're doing more together operationally. We're doing more together in terms of training. We're doing more together in terms of logistics and sharing each other's bases. And so it is actually a huge agenda that we have with Singapore, and we are deeply grateful for our relationship with Singapore, and we're obviously very grateful for the way in which Singapore has hosted the Shangri-La Dialogue this year.

JOURNALIST: A lot of the conversations happening at this Dialogue has centred around Ukraine, they've centred around China. Can you tell us also how much of the conversations you've been having have centred around Gaza and the concrete action that countries like Australia and the US can take, or Europe and Asia can take to convince Israel to reduce its aggression there? 

MARLES: Well, I mean, the position of the Australian government has been very clear in relation to the situation in the Middle East. We're obviously deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation which is unfolding in Gaza, and we have made that position very plain to the Israeli government. And that's the way in which we've exercised our international voice, we've done so to try and bring it- to see the cease fire being renewed, so that humanitarian assistance can flow to the people of Gaza. In saying that we acknowledge the act of terrorism which occurred on October 7 that was put in place by Hamas, we condemned it on the day, and we condemn them now in the strongest possible terms. And of course, at the centre of having an enduring cease fire is the return of the hostages, and we have used our voice to advocate for that as well. Now that that position is not new, we've been we've been very clear about that. I would say that in the context of the last couple of days, we have been very focused about how we are building our defence relationship with the countries of the region, and that's really been at the centre of the discussions that we've been having. 

JOURNALIST: Can I ask a question about AUKUS? Secretary Hegseth did not make much mention of or any mention of AUKUS, I think in his speech. He did mention a few collaborations between the US and Australia in terms of the defence angle, but we didn't hear much about AUKUS. And I just wanted to hear your thoughts on the state, the health of this defence pact and what's been done to kind of keep it healthy? 

MARLES: Yeah, well, look, I mean, AUKUS has now been around for some time, and we've spoken about it frequently. In fact, I think Secretary Hegseth did mention it in the Q and A. I don't think any of us feel a need to be continually reiterating it. What it is, is a technology cooperation agreement, which, in respect of submarines, is about Australia acquiring a nuclear powered submarine capability. Look AUKUS is on track, and we are meeting all the timelines that are associated with it. We are very optimistic about how it is progressing in the here and now. What we are seeing- what we had planned to see, and what we are now seeing is more visits from American nuclear powered submarines to Australia. We are very much preparing for the establishment of the Submarine Rotational Force-West in the next couple of years, and that is all on track. And we'll see American Virginia class submarines operating on a rotational basis out of HMAS Stirling, south of Perth. We are very much working on increasing the production and sustainment rate of Virginia class submarines in the United States. We're doing that through our own financial contributions in America, but we're also doing it by having Australian workers working on US Virginia class submarines. That's clearly good for the US industrial base, great for us in terms of the training and experience that they are acquiring in that process. So at every level, this is proceeding at a pace that was very much acknowledged in the conversation that I had with Secretary of Defense Hegseth. And we walk forward with a sense of confidence about the way in which AUKUS is proceeding.

JOURNALIST: What are your thoughts on the 5 per cent defence expenditure expectation that he communicated yesterday?

MARLES: Well, I mean, the Americans have been very clear about wanting to see more from their friends and allies around the world. It's a sentiment that we understand. And as I've repeatedly said, that's a conversation we are totally up for in terms of the way in which we engage with the United States. And as I said, I think on Friday, in our bilateral meeting Secretary Hegseth did raise the question of increased defence expenditure on the Australian side. Of course, we have already engaged in the last couple of years in the single biggest peace time increase in defence expenditure in Australia's history. So we are beginning this journey. We've got runs on the board. And indeed, if we look at AUKUS, I mean, AUKUS is something which is seeing our defence expenditure increase- as it should, and so we actually are taking steps down this path. We will continue to have the conversation with the United States, and we understand and we’re up for it.

JOURNALIST: The Chinese side has responded to Secretary Hegseth’s speech. They've said the United States is the biggest factor undermining peace and stability in the South China Sea, that they're turning the Asia Pacific region into a powder keg. What's your response to that, given the work closely with them?

MARLES: Yeah, look, I don't accept that. I mean, we work with the United States, have worked with the United States and other countries in the region over a long period of time to uphold the global rules based order, to see that the way in which countries engage with each other is not based on a question of might and power, but rather on the basis of law and rules. And obviously, a world which operates in accordance with rules and law is a world which gives agency to countries like Australia, countries the size of Australia, and so that is very much in our national interest. And all the work that we do in terms of, for example, the maritime cooperation activities that we do with the Philippines, but we've done them jointly with the Philippines, with the United States, with Japan. All of those are about asserting international law. In that instance, asserting UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, freedom of navigation on the high seas, that the way in which we understand the rules of the road on the sea, if I can put it that way, is respected. Now that is what we are about. What we have seen from China is the single biggest increase in military capability and build up in a conventional sense, by any country since the end of the Second World War. That is one of the key features of the complexity of the strategic landscape, which all of us face within the region and which is faced around the world. And it's not just the size of the military build-up, it's the fact that it is happening without strategic reassurance. It's happening without a clear strategic intent on the part of China. Now we've been very frank about that, and frank at this Shangri-La Dialogue, but we've been frank in the past about that. We want to see is strategic transparency and strategic reassurance be provided by China, and an understanding of why it is needed to have such an extraordinary military build-up that China is engaging in. So we see that as the fundamental issue which is shaping the strategic landscape that we are working upon. We come to that with the United States, but with countries like Japan and the Philippines and Korea and a whole lot of other countries in the region, simply from the perspective of trying to see that the global rules based order is what rules and what is adhered to. 

JOURNALIST: What is that strategic transparency look like in practice? China is notoriously secretive about its defence spending and its build up. It has had lines of communication with the US in the past, but a lot of them have been closed since Trump got in. What in practicality, does that look like for you, and how achievable is it?

MARLES: A big question, but a good question. There's perhaps a macro and a micro answer to that. I mean, the way I'd answer it at the highest level is, in a sense, how we go about our work. And we are engaging, as I said earlier, in our biggest peace time increase in defence expenditure since the end of the Second World War. But we've been really clear about what why we're doing that. I mean, we've done a- we did the Defence Strategic Review, which we made public. We've followed that up by a National Defence Strategy, which we will now update every two years again, which we've made public. We have made it utterly clear that the reason that we are increasing our defence capability is firstly, of course, for the defence of Australia, but it is to make our contribution to the collective security of the region in which we live. That's what we are about. So there is total strategic clarity and assurance that is being provided by Australia to our neighbours, to the region, to the world. That's what we would like to see. And so, at the most sort of macro level, that's what we would want to see from any country, and that includes from China. At a more micro level, you know, what we have- when we were here three years ago and we had our first meeting with China at a ministerial level, our ask at that point was to reinstitute the defence dialogue, which does, at a very kind of granular level, enable us to be able to talk to China about our strategic intent and about what we're doing. That doesn't solve problems, but it does give a much greater understanding, and there is value and sense in that. We would like to see that continue and evolve, and I guess ultimately, get back to the state that was in five, ten years ago.

JOURNALIST: On that note, you know, Chinese vessels have kind of patrolled off Aussie shores- it's been a couple of months since then. You're talking about the dialogue mechanism. How can you just update us? What- how has that gone, just on the specific incident?

MARLES: Well, as we said at the time, we noted that exercise that China has undertaken. We were very clear from the outset that China was acting in accordance with international law. Now that's important, and at no point have we suggested that anything else was occurring here. And it's important that we not overreact to this, because ultimately China was acting in accordance with international law. That would be true even in respect of the live firing exercise that China undertook, although we did make the point that greater notice of that event would have avoided some of the disruption that we saw to commercial airlines, and we did make that point to China itself, while acknowledging it wasn't breaking any international law, it was, in the end, disruptive. And we believe that could have been done in a better way, and we've made that point directly to China. Of course, it's our right to observe what China was doing and what those exercises were. And so in an unprecedented way, we surveilled the Chinese task group as it made its way around Australia. Indeed, from the very moment that came within the vicinity of Australia, there was an unprecedented level of surveillance that was being provided by Australia- and to a degree, in combination with New Zealand- we had Australian navy vessels and aircraft surveilling all that was being done, so we are very clear about the exercises that China were undertaking, and we have a complete understanding of what was happening here. That's what's occurred. And you know, the guiding light, the bedrock here, needs to be compliance with international law. That's what we keep talking about, is the rules based order. We don't make any complaint about a breach of that in relation to that specific exercise. Of course, we do an enormous amount of work to our north in terms of the use of our Navy and of our aircraft to assert the global rules based order in areas like the South China Sea and the East China Sea. And we do that because that is where most of Australia's trade goes. It is fundamentally important to our national interests. And we do that in accordance with international law as well, and we expect that all the interactions that we have with the Chinese Defence Force as we do that is done in a safe and professional way. Thank you.

ENDS