Radio Interview, ABC AM

SUBJECTS: Henderson Defence Precinct; Defence Spending; PNG; Electorate offices.

SABRA LANE, HOST: The Defence and Deputy Prime Minister joined me earlier. Richard Marles, thanks for joining AM. Donald Trump has been pressuring allies to spend 3.5 per cent of their GDP on defence. Yesterday you were unwilling to say what Australia's figure now is, why are you reluctant to give that figure?

MARLES: Well, we are giving figures which is that we committed an additional $12 billion yesterday, and what that means is that through the time that we've been in government, that represents an almost $70 billion increase in our defence spending over the decade. And that is the biggest peacetime increase in defence spending in Australia's history-

LANE: Sorry, as a percentage of GDP?

MARLES: Well, I mean anyone can go off and do those sums. I mean what we are spending-

LANE: But why won't you say it?

MARLES: Well, because the number that we focus on is the dollar number. I mean, there are a whole lot of ways in which people can calculate percentages of GDP, and what you see, for example, is that, you know, by reference to how NATO calculates its GDP figure, before yesterday's announcement, we'd be on 2.8 per cent of GDP. So, what actually matters here is the ultimate dollar figure that you're spending. We've been completely transparent about that. And anyone can go off and calculate whatever sums they want off the basis of that. What matters is the dollars that we're spending on defence. And we are crystal clear about that. And it represents the biggest peacetime increase in Australia's defence spending in our history.

LANE: Donald Trump's not talking in dollar terms, he's talking in terms of percentage of GDP. David Shoebridge, a respected defence analyst, says 12 billion over 10 years does nothing to lift defence spending when measured by that metric. Do you care to comment on that?

MARLES: Well, since we've come to office, we've done successive announcements around increasing our defence spending. And you can look at any individual announcement and make whatever observation, but when you tally them together, what we have done is increase defence spending by $70 billion, almost $70 billion over the decade. That most definitely moves the needle and that absolutely changes the trajectory of our defence spending, so much so that it represents the biggest peacetime increase in our defence spending in our country's history. And we've done that-

LANE: Not David Shoebridge's comments saying it does nothing?

MARLES: Well, I just reject that. I mean, it's obviously silly in terms of picking one announcement in relation to defence spending without aggregating it with all the others that we have done. And so in that sense, you know, it's a kind of self-serving analysis. The point here is that when you look at all the defence spending announcements that we've done, it does represent the biggest peacetime increase in defence spending in our country's history. That's not a contestable fact. That is what we have been doing and we've not been doing it by reference to really anything other than our own assessment of what our strategic landscape is, what our strategic challenge is, the kind of defence force we need to meet that challenge and then going off and resourcing it. And we'll continue to do that process as we move into next year's National Defence Strategy and next year's Integrated Investment Plan.

LANE: The federal government will formally sign what's being described as a mutual defence treaty with PNG today, enabling a full integration practically. How will that work?

MARLES: Well, we are very excited about the agreement that we'll sign over the next few days in PNG. I should say that this began really in January of this year as an intention to refresh an old Status of Forces Agreement that we had with PNG dating back to 1977. And both countries have brought to this a completely different level of ambition such that we are indeed signing something much more significant than that. It does reflect the fact that we are doing much more together in terms of exercises, in terms of operations. We are doing an enormous amount of training of the PNG Defence Force. We have people from the PNG Defence Force embedded and seconded into the ADF now. We're working with each other's capabilities, with each other's equipment and kit. And that is greatly increasing the ability of both our defence forces to do our work. And we genuinely are more than some of the parts.

LANE: The PNG Defence Minister says his nation has come under external pressure over this treaty. Are you aware of that pressure?

MARLES: Not specifically, but that said, it doesn't surprise me. I mean we-

Speaker A. So, they haven't shared details with you about this yet?

MARLES: Well, I haven't had a specific conversation with my counterpart about that. But the point I'd make is that we are living in a much more geostrategically contested world and that's something that we speak a lot about. It forms part of the strategic landscape that we describe. And we are seeing a growth in the way in which we are engaging at a security and defence level with our partners, well, actually around the region, but very much in the Pacific and very much with PNG.

LANE: Mr. Albanese has closed his electoral office. His landlord wants him to move on because there's been so much disruption by protesters. Sussan Ley, the Opposition Leader, says this is political intimidation. What do you think it is?

MARLES: Look, I think it's very sad. I think the kind of protests that we've seen outside of the Prime Minister's electoral office over the last couple of years have been a complete disgrace. It does nothing to advance the arguments associated with any of these issues. It really, I think, ends up being much more about the protesters than the cause that they pretend to espouse-

LANE: Is it intimidation?

MARLES: Well, I mean, it is certainly- it is certainly denying the constituents of Grayndler being able to go to their local member and the office of their local member and receive basic services- I mean, I think there is an intimatory degree to what's been going on here, but it is appalling behaviour that it has resulted in this moment. And I think it's very sad. And, you know, those who have been responsible for these sort of protests and those who have been responsible for the kind of rhetoric which leads to these kind of protests, and I think the Greens political party have a lot to answer for here, you know, need to have a look at themselves, because this is not about the issues that they pretend to espouse. That the office in Grayndler has, the Prime Minister's office in Grayndler has closed, does nothing to support one single person in Gaza. What it does is deny the opportunity of the people of Grayndler to get basic services from their local member. And this is an absolute disgrace. And it's the kind of engagement in politics which really is very eroding of our own political culture and I think doesn't have any place in Australia.

LANE: Well, do you worry about that? So many democracies, including our own, are under challenge from within, whether it be violent protests or sovereign citizens and interference. Why do you think these things are the case? Why are people- and, you know, polls show us too- that younger people in particular are turning away from embracing democracy?

MARLES: I wouldn't necessarily go to that last point. I don't think that's- I think younger people embraced democracy at the last election in Australia. But the broader point, in terms of the, the way the political discourse occurs in Australia. I do worry about that and I think there is a volume, if you like, to the rhetoric which is really unhelpful. We've actually got a peaceful, reasoned political culture in Australia, by and large, and that's something that we should treasure and that we should nurture and that we should not take for granted. But I think this kind of method of engaging in the political discourse, feeling that you need to engage in some kind of, you know, property destruction or that you need to do some kind of stunt which gets you onto social media or onto TV actually does nothing to advance the cause that you might be speaking about. As I say, I think it's much more about the protesters. But what it actually does is undermine what I think has been a peaceful, reasoned political culture which by and large has characterised our country. And that's been a very good thing.

LANE: Richard Marles, thanks for joining AM.

MARLES: Thanks, Sara.

END