Television interview, ABC Afternoon Briefing

SUBJECTS: Middle East Conflict; Indo-Pacific; NATO. 

PATRICIA KARVELAS, HOST: Let's bring in my guest, the Acting Prime Minister, and generally the Deputy Prime Minister, Richard Marles. Welcome.

RICHARD MARLES, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: G' day, PK. How are you?

KARVELAS: Good to have you on the desk. Always the best way to have an interview. Let's talk about Australians affected first before we talk about the broader conflict. How many Australians have now been evacuated from the Middle East because of government assistance?

MARLES: Well, it's a small number who have been evacuated so far. There was literally a handful of people who came across the Israeli border into Jordan, I think in the last 24 hours, and that was facilitated by bus. The ability to get people out by land is limited, but we are looking at options there. Really the sort of more substantial opportunity, given the numbers of people who have registered, opens up when the skies open up and we don't know when that's going to happen. But what we are doing now is doing a lot of work in preparation for us being able to take advantage of that moment if it arises.

KARVELAS: Okay. So, that there are repatriation flights ready to go?

MARLES: Yeah, we're working a number of contingencies or a number of options, both civil and in terms of the use of the ADF to look at ways in which we can assist here. The opportunity is– we really wanted to be ready if there is an opportunity where airspace opens up. I think these numbers are now out there and they’ve probably even grown since we last said them, but about 1,500 Australians in Iran have registered for an assisted departure. About 1,200 in Israel have done the same. So, we've got 2,700 Australians in the region who are looking for assisted departure and obviously, we will act as– if we have an opportunity to do so at that scale.

KARVELAS: In terms of the ADF, have any planes left Australia to be in the region ready and poised for this?

MARLES: Yeah, look, I won't go into the details of that publicly at this point. There's an enormous amount of work which is going on with the ADF specifically. It’s not just the ADF though, we are looking at other civilian options. And it's kind of a pragmatic decision here based on, you know, how you can get clearances to get what kind of plane into whatever spot we're talking about. But what we are is working all the options so that we are ready to go in the event that airspace opens up.

KARVELAS: Does it mean you're talking to Qantas, for instance?

MARLES: Well again, I won't go into the details of that, but we are looking at both civilian aircraft and charters, which would allow us to get aircraft in. We're also working out how we can use our own assets.

KARVELAS: Ok, just on the conflict itself, there's reports in the US media which no doubt you're across, that the President has privately approved attack plans. What's the Australian government's response to that?

MARLES: Well, I'm not going to speculate about what's in the media and obviously you're not asking me, but we are obviously not the spokespeople for America. Our response to this conflict is to seek de‑escalation. We want to see diplomacy and dialogue being pursued at this moment and we are deeply concerned about the risk of escalating even more. Now in saying that, we absolutely acknowledge Israel's right to defend itself and we absolutely acknowledge the threat that the Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile program represents to the peace and stability of the region and the world, and we've been very clear about that.

KARVELAS: Would you describe what Israel's done so far as defending itself?

MARLES: Well again, we say that Israel has a right to defend itself, but what–

KARVELAS: Okay, but has what's happened been just defending Israel's sovereignty? Is that how you would describe it? 

MARLES: Well, I think the important point to make right now, and this is the way in which we're exercising our international voice, is that we want to see a de‑escalation. That's what we– we are very concerned about what's unfolding now in the sense of its potential to give rise to an escalation – an escalation in terms of the breadth of what ends up being targeted, but potentially an escalation beyond that and–

KARVELAS: So if the US gets involved, there's no other way to see it, that's an escalation, isn't it?

MARLES: Well, I'm not about to speculate or comment on–

KARVELAS: But if the US was to get involved, that is an escalation in your estimation?

MARLES: Well, as I say, what we want is to see a de‑escalation, not to see this conflict grow, but to see it de‑escalated and to see a pathway to diplomacy and dialogue. And it's precisely because of the risk of escalation and the consequences that would flow from that that we're exercising our voice in that way. And I'd say that in exercising our voice in that way, we are joining many other countries around the world who are doing the same.

KARVELAS: Why not just say then that you don't think the US should get involved? 

MARLES: Because I don't think it's– we're not about to speculate on reports and what people are saying. Right now, it matters to be commenting on what is actually playing out, where we see– what we think should happen from here and that's why we make the point that we do around de‑escalation.

KARVELAS: Iran's Ambassador to Australia wants your government to condemn Israel's strikes. Will you condemn those strikes?

MARLES: Well, the language we're using is the language we're using and you know, we accept Israel's right to defend itself and more than that, the threat that the Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile program represents to the world and to the region is significant. Now in saying that, we want to see a de‑escalation. I’ve said that a few times. So that's how we see this going forward. We want to see a pursuit of diplomacy and dialogue in this moment. But the Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile program does represent a threat to the peace and stability of the world. Indeed, you know, I was in Singapore a couple of weeks ago at the Shangri‑La Dialogue. President Macron was the keynote speaker there and spoke very eloquently but forcefully about exactly this point and about what that threat represented.

KARVELAS: So, Bridget McKenzie, and we played the grab of her speaking a little earlier, said you have to choose a side. What side would you choose? 

MARLES: Well, I think actually– 

KARVELAS: That's how she described it.

MARLES: I think what matters in these moments is that you articulate the national interest and that's what we need to do. I mean, the side we choose is Australia and the Australian– 

KARVELAS: But in this conflict, that is a binary conflict, whose side are you on?

MARLES: What matters is that we exercise Australia's voice carefully and prudently, which is what we are doing. And that in exercising that voice, we are exercising it in the national interest. And the language that we're using, which is the language I've used in this interview, is the way in which we are exercising Australia’s voice– 

KARVELAS: Which is to be critical of Iran but not of Israel? 

MARLES: Well, it's the language I've used. It is to seek diplomacy and dialogue. It is to seek de‑escalation. It is to clearly articulate what we see as events unfolding out and their risk of escalation.

KARVELAS: And as you see it, out of those nations, who wants the diplomacy right now?

MARLES: Well again, I'm not going to walk down that path–

KARVELAS: It's a good path. I mean, I'm asking a really logical question. You want diplomacy. Is Israel seeking diplomacy? Benjamin Netanyahu doesn't seem to be seeking diplomacy. Do you think Iran's seeking diplomacy?

MARLES: What we think, and what we seek and call for is that the parties engage in diplomacy and dialogue. That is the important point. And in exercising our voice in that way, we are doing so with countries right around the world.

KARVELAS: There are lots of questions about how Australia might be called upon if this escalates. For instance, we might contribute maritime security around the Middle East, that could be one request. Backfilling US capabilities, perhaps closer to Australia to free up US forces. Are these things we'd consider?

MARLES: Well, again, it's probably not going to surprise you to say that I'm not going to speculate about it– 

KARVELAS: But if they were requested, are they things we would consider as a US ally? 

MARLES: Well again, to walk down the path of hypotheticals is not something that I'm about to do in this moment, and nor should I. It is really– words matter in this moment and particularly as expressed from, you know, political leaders and it matters that we do so very carefully and prudently and that's why I've said what I've said. And we are definitely not going to speculate about hypotheticals going forward.

KARVELAS: I just want to ask you about Paul Keating's critique of what you've said around Australia's role if there was obviously a sort of emerging issue between China and America. He says it was a dark moment in Australia's history. What's your response to his criticism about the language you used?

MARLES: Well look, Paul Keating is clearly entitled to his views. One thing that's become clear to me, but I've always known, is that I think when you've become the Prime Minister of Australia, you have the right to articulate your views–

KARVELAS: He doesn't appear to be a great fan of yours, does he?

MARLES: Well, it's ultimately a matter for Paul. But, you know, you're not going to hear a bad word from me in relation to Paul Keating. He's, you know, a former Prime Minister who I will regard with respect.

KARVELAS: But on the substance that it's a dark moment in Australian history, that you have placed Australia at the centre of a potential conflict there.

MARLES: Well, I suppose the one point I would make is that, you know, what I said at that event is not what has been characterized– 

KARVELAS: Was it misreported, do you think?

MARLES: Well, I think it was greatly overstated and certainly the way in which it's being characterised today is not what I said. And the important point to make here in saying that our geography is highly relevant, and it is, is that in all that we do we seek to avoid conflict and we seek to deter conflict, and we work with our partners and allies in relation to that. And that's an important point to make. Now in deterring conflict and in avoiding conflict, our geography is clearly relevant.

KARVELAS: I have to ask you, are you going to NATO next week?

MARLES: Look, we will be represented at NATO in– and you know, we will be making those decisions in the not too distant future–

KARVELAS: Right now you're still going? 

MARLES: Well, whatever happens in terms of what decision is made, Australia will be represented at NATO. Again, it’s a really important forum which has become more important, I think, in terms of Australia's national interest in the last few years than we've perhaps seen it in the past. I represented Australia at the last NATO meeting in July in Washington last year. And it's, you know, the connectedness between the Indo‑Pacific on the one hand and North Atlantic is very significant. 

KARVELAS: That's a good point, particularly at the point of history we're at and the sort of world we're seeing around us. In that context, might it be useful for the Prime Minister to represent Australia there, regardless of any meeting he might have with Donald Trump or not?

MARLES: Well, the Prime Minister has represented us at NATO in a couple of NATO meetings. That's at a higher level than we've ever done it before. I've obviously represented us at the last NATO meeting. In terms of the Prime Minister's time and travel, that's always a balancing question– 

KARVELAS: When will we know?

MARLES: You'll know very soon.

KARVELAS: How soon?

MARLES: Well, the meeting is next week, so very soon.

KARVELAS: Okay, very soon. Sounds like you'd like to go, but you're open to not going.

MARLES: We will be represented. 

KARVELAS: Okay, I’ll leave it there. Thank you so much for joining us. 

MARLES: Thanks, PK. 

ENDS