Television Interview, ABC - Insiders

SUBJECTS: Middle East conflict; Ukraine; Australia-US relationship; AUKUS; Australian Defence Force recruitment; Defence spending; Australia-PNG Defence relationship; Economic Reform Roundtable

DAVID SPEERS, HOST: Richard Marles, welcome to the program.

RICHARD MARLES, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: Good morning, David.

SPEERS: Do you agree these announcements to recognise a Palestinian state encouraged Hamas to abandon ceasefire talks?

MARLES: Well, the question of recognition ultimately sits under what has been a bipartisan position in Australia, but in many countries around the world, in support of a two-state solution. And ultimately, if you support a two-state solution, what that means is that you support the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to a state, but also you understand that the only enduring pathway to peace is to have two states living side-by-side, with each’s security mutually assured as a result of there being a two-state solution. Now, I think recognition conversations are happening in that context.

SPEERS: But Marco Rubio’s point we just heard there was that France announces it’s going to recognise a Palestinian state, Hamas then says no to the ceasefire talks. It’s encouraged. Do you agree with Marco Rubio or not?

MARLES: Well, all I can say is that from an Australian point of view, we have consistently said that Hamas can have no role in any future Palestinian state. And more than that, from October 7 onwards, we have condemned all the actions of Hamas. We have made clear that the actions of Hamas have actually undermined the prospects of there being a recognition of a Palestinian state, of the establishment of a two-state solution, and that the role of Hamas is fundamentally negative in relation to all of this – and that what Hamas must do is end its hostilities in respect of all of this and see a return of the hostages to Israel. We’ve been very clear about our position on Hamas.

SPEERS: I’m just wondering if you’d be clear on this though. Do you agree or disagree with Marco Rubio that recognition encourages Hamas?

MARLES: Well, I think recognition is a separate question. I mean, what we say in relation to recognition – and it is important to talk about the factors that are part of recognition. And we have articulated, as we have discussed this question, that there can be no role for Hamas in a future Palestinian state. So, there’s no encouragement to Hamas in any of the conversations that we have been having in relation to recognition. But when you look at the way in which different countries around the world have taken this step, they have done so in a way consistent with what we’ve done in saying that Hamas can have no role in a future Palestinian state. I think when you look at what countries have done in respect of recognition, it really is about saying that in the future there can be no enduring peace unless there are two states side-by-side. And to that end, that is the way in which this matter is being considered, and the way in which Australia is considering this matter.

SPEERS: What difference would Australia joining others in announcing recognition — what difference would that make?

[TECHNICAL INTERRUPTION]

SPEERS: Alright, we have now re-established that line. Apologies, Richard Marles, for that technical snafu.

MARLES: That’s alright.

SPEERS: Let’s just move on. The Prime Minister – we heard him there – he’s also overnight, well, yesterday in Queenstown, said that any attempt by Israel to take control of Gaza City would risk violating international law. Can you explain how this would violate international law?

MARLES: Well, firstly, let me make clear that we are opposed to this decision and we urge Israel not to take this step. Fundamentally, David, we need to see an end to hostilities and we need to see that now. We’ve got a humanitarian catastrophe playing out in Gaza. We need to see humanitarian assistance flow to the people in Gaza, and we obviously need to see a return of the hostages from Hamas that are being held in Gaza – and a return of those hostages to their families in Israel. And all of that is best advanced, in terms of the return of hostages but also in terms of the flow of humanitarian assistance, if hostilities cease. Now, the blocking of food, the blocking of humanitarian assistance, is a breach of international law and we are obviously deeply concerned about Israel’s role in that. And it’s why we are really clearly calling for an end to hostilities right now, and adding our voice to that of the international community along for exactly that call.

SPEERS: If food and aid is flowing though, but Israel is occupying Gaza City, is that a breach of international law?

MARLES: Well, we are worried about whether that represents a breach of international law, but our fundamental point here is that food and aid being prevented is a breach of international law. And we are not seeing that food and aid flowing into Gaza. We are seeing a humanitarian catastrophe play out, but we’re also seeing the hostages continue to be held. And fundamentally what we need to see is an end to hostilities – that’s what we are calling for, that is what the international community is calling for, and we will continue to make those calls as loudly as we possibly can.

SPEERS: If there is a concern on Australia’s part about international law being violated here, I’m just wondering what further steps might be taken. Germany is going to block or suspend arms sales to Israel that could be used in Gaza. What about the armoured steel and the F-35 components that Australia contributes? Would they be blocked?

MARLES: Oh, well, let’s be clear – we don’t supply weapons to Israel.

SPEERS: The armoured steel and the F-35 components is what I’m asking about.

MARLES: Well, we’re an F-35 country and we have been that for a couple of decades. And that is a multilateral arrangement with supply chains organised by Lockheed Martin in the United States, and has multiple suppliers in respect of all of those supply chains. So, really, that is a very different question. And we are a part of that process.

SPEERS: What about the armoured steel?

MARLES: We are not supplying weapons to Israel. We are an F-35 country, as I say, but that really is a separate issue and this is about having an impact on Israel. We have made it really clear that we need to see a cessation of hostilities, and that is the fundamental point that needs to be made.

SPEERS: I understand that, but what about selling armoured steel for armoured vehicles?

MARLES: Well, we are not supplying weapons to Israel.

SPEERS: Are armoured vehicles OK?

MARLES: We are not contributing to that, David. And so let’s be clear about that. We’ve seen a lot of misinformation in relation to what Australia is doing here. The fundamental point is that we are not supplying weapons to Israel and there is no step that we could take equivalent to that of Germany which would have any impact in relation –

SPEERS: Certainly not on the same scale. But are you saying that that armoured steel from Bisalloy that goes to Rafael Advanced Defense Systems is not being used in armoured vehicles?

MARLES: What I’m saying is that there is no step that we can take here which has any impact in relation to the activities of Israel. And it is a very different question to what is being talked about in relation to Germany, which obviously has a significant supply into Israel. We want to do everything we can to see an end to the hostilities that are occurring in Gaza. The most important thing that we can do is use our international voice here, and that’s what we’ve been doing.

SPEERS: Just moving on. Donald Trump says a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine could involve some swapping of territories. Ukraine is saying no way. Where does Australia stand on this?

MARLES: Well, we’ve been very clear in standing with Ukraine throughout their conflict with Russia. It is Russian aggression, it is a Russian breach of international law – their invasion of Ukraine – which is at issue here, and really the rules-based order is what’s on trial in the conflict in Ukraine. And it’s why we stand side-by-side with Ukraine. And we have consistently said that this conflict needs to be resolved on Ukraine’s terms now.

SPEERS: So, they shouldn’t have territory?

MARLES: Well, this needs to be resolved on Ukraine’s terms – and that is the point that we’ve been making very clearly. Now, in saying that, we obviously welcome any steps that are being taken to bring this war to an end. I mean, there is a human tragedy unfolding – and has been unfolding over the years – of this conflict in Ukraine. And we recognise the role of the United States in supporting Ukraine throughout its conflict, but also in seeking to put pressure on Russia to bring this war to an end. And indeed, in the last 12 hours we’ve seen Vice President Vance and the UK Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, convene a forum in the UK which is about supporting Ukraine, but also supporting a pathway to peace, and Australia supports those efforts.

SPEERS: Let me ask you about the Australia-US relationship. The Secretary of State and Defence Secretary are both meant to be coming to Australia for the annual AUSMIN talks this year. Is that still going to happen?

MARLES: Well, we’re talking with the United States around when AUSMIN will occur this year, and that conversation is in process. But we’re confident that that will happen.

SPEERS: They’ll come here?

MARLES: Well, one way or another there’ll be an AUSMIN. I mean, we’re flexible about how that AUSMIN occurs, and we always are. It’s how AUSMIN has occurred in years gone past.

SPEERS: You might go there by the sound of it?

MARLES: Well, let’s see how it unfolds. But the kind of conversations that we do are always pretty pragmatic about how best to have this meeting occur – wherever it’s best for it to occur.

SPEERS: The US wants Australia to lift Defence spending to 3.5% of GDP. Pete Hegseth, the Defence Secretary, told you that directly when you last met. The Prime Minister, however, is opposed to setting these sort of arbitrary spending targets. Are you?

MARLES: Well, I’m in lockstep with the Prime Minister is the short answer to that question. But the Prime Minister is right that the way in which we should think about, and the way in which we have been thinking about, the way you fund Defence is firstly to assess what our strategic threat is and therefore what is our strategic need, and then resource it. And that’s what we’ve been doing. And that process has in fact yielded the biggest peacetime increase in Australia’s defence spending in our history.

SPEERS: But people like Angus Houston and Dennis Richardson and others have all said you need to get to 3% of GDP.

MARLES: Well, the focus is on what our capability requirements are and then resourcing them. As I said, relative to what we inherited when we came to office from the Morrison government, it’s an additional $57 billion over the decade, an additional $10 billion over the forward estimates. And in the last two financial years we’ve spent more on Defence procurement than ever. So, we are in the process of increasing our spending on Defence and we are doing that by virtue of looking at what our need is and then resourcing it. Now, part of how we’ve gone about this — before I just finish this – is to have a drumbeat now of having a National Defence Strategy every two years. This was actually the recommendation of Angus Houston. The next one of those is due next year in the lead-up to next year’s budget, and we will consider our needs in the context of that and we will resource them.

SPEERS: The Pentagon’s AUKUS review is dragging on. It seems Elbridge Colby is indicating it could continue through to November. This does look more than just a new administration running the ruler over the thing. Is this concerning you – the length of this review?

MARLES: No. I mean, the length of the review is pretty similar to the length of our review – the Defence Strategic Review – which in fact took longer, or the length of the UK’s review, which again would have taken longer. And we welcome this review, and it is a pretty natural step for an incoming government to run the rule over such a major defence initiative – to work out how best to advance it.

SPEERS: Have you spoken to Elbridge Colby?

MARLES: Well, I’ve spoken to Elbridge Colby’s boss on a number of occasions, and that’s the Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, and I speak to my counterpart. And we have an ongoing dialogue, and there is support in the United States for AUKUS. You can see that in all the comments that have been made. It is fundamentally in the strategic interests of the United States, and of course it’s in Australia’s strategic interest.

SPEERS: So Pete Hegseth has told you it’s fine, it’s all ok?

MARLES: Well, Pete Hegseth is on the record in relation to AUKUS. And I’ve made it clear that the review is something that we welcome. We will contribute to the review and we’re in constant conversation with the United States about doing that, and about the way in which the review is unfolding. But we welcome it. It’s an opportunity to make sure that everything is on track and to have the American government as attuned and refined as possible in the pursuit of AUKUS.

SPEERS: The former Prime Minister Scott Morrison has suggested that turning the Henderson shipyards in WA into a joint naval base for Australia and the US would help get the US over the line, or keep them on board for AUKUS. Is that something you’re open to?

MARLES: Well, we just need to be a bit careful about how we describe these matters. What we have at HMAS Stirling, south of Henderson, is the proposed Submarine Rotational Force – West, which will operate from 2027. Henderson is an industrial precinct, and Premier Cook and I announced the establishment of the Henderson Defence Precinct, which will see the contingency and depot-level maintenance of submarines, but will also be the place where we are constructing the landing craft medium, the landing craft heavy for the Australian Army, but in time, also the construction of our general purpose frigate – the Mogami-class frigate that we announced during the course of the week.

SPEERS: The idea of a joint base, either at Henderson or Stirling – is that something you’re open to?

MARLES: Well, we’ve made clear that part of the optimal pathway is to have the Submarine Rotational Force – West at HMAS Stirling.

SPEERS: But not as a base?

MARLES: Well, we don’t talk about – we don’t have foreign bases in Australia. We do have American force posture in Australia. We have the marine rotation in Darwin. We will now have, from 2027, the submarine rotation at HMAS Stirling. And in fact we are seeing American force posture grow in Australia, but it’s not through the establishment of bases, which have not occurred under governments of either persuasion in Australia. But to talk about Henderson specifically – it’s an industrial precinct, and one which is really important as a sovereign asset for our country.

SPEERS: Understood. Just with these rotational forces in the Top End, in WA as well, wherever it is, does the US have permission to launch strike missions from Australian soil?

MARLES: What we have is full knowledge and concurrence arrangements in respect of all the American presence in Australia. And what that means is that any activity that occurs now or in the future has to occur with the concurrence of the Australian government at the time.

SPEERS: That’s not approval though. Would there have to be approval?

MARLES: Yes, absolutely. That’s what full knowledge and concurrence represents. Any new activity or any different activity that is undertaken by American forces that have a presence in Australia – or for that matter, any other foreign forces which have a presence in Australia (and there are others; Singapore, for example, has a very significant presence in Australia) – all of those activities need to be done with the concurrence, with the approval, of the Australian government of the day.

SPEERS: OK, you’re off to Papua New Guinea tomorrow. Australia and PNG are still negotiating a Defence treaty. Will PNG troops be allowed to join the Australian Defence Force? Is that being looked at?

MARLES: It is being looked at, and it’s being looked at in the context of the announcement that we’ve made around expanding engagement in, or participation in, the Australian Defence Force. As you know, we’ve now expanded that – firstly New Zealand citizens, and now Five Eyes citizens. But at the time of making that announcement we said that we would have an eye to the Pacific, and PNG is at the front and centre in relation to that. So, that is a path that we are exploring. There’s work to be done before we can get to that point, but it is definitely a path that we are looking at. It’s something that PNG is very keen to see happen. As I say, there are a number of steps that we need to iron out before we get there. But that is part of how we are seeing the growing of the Australian Defence Force going forward.

SPEERS: And final one, Richard Marles, away from your portfolio. The Reform Roundtable that’s coming up – do you agree with the Treasurer that more tax reform needs to be considered, or are you with the Prime Minister that you should only do what you took to the election on tax?

MARLES: Well, I’m with both of them, David. I mean, they’re on the same page. Nice try in terms of that question.

SPEERS: Well, to be fair, the Treasurer says no sensible progress can be made without more tax reform. The PM says the only tax policy we’re implementing is what we took to the election.

MARLES: The tax policies that we have are what we took to the election. But we need to be lifting productivity in this country. And over the longer term we need to have a clear eye as to how best to do that. And we’re not seeking to constrain the ideas that are put forward at the roundtable next week. It is a really important gathering and an important opportunity to look at all the steps that might be taken in the medium and in the longer term. What we took to the election is our policy, and both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer acknowledge that

SPEERS: Alright, Defence Minister and Acting Prime Minister Richard Marles, thanks for joining us.

MARLES: Thanks

ENDS