Radio Interview, ABC - Radio National Breakfast

SUBJECTS: Australia-PNG Defence Treaty; Australia-Pacific relationships; Iron ore exports; Defence exports

BARBARA MILLER, HOST: Richard Marles is the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence. He joined me earlier. Welcome back to Radio National Breakfast.

RICHARD MARLES, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: Good morning, Barbara. How are you?

MILLER: Great, thank you. This Pukpuk Treaty with PNG – is it definitely going to be signed next week?

MARLES: Well, we expect to sign it very soon, as we said when both Prime Ministers signed the communiqué on the 17th of September. And obviously the news of the approval of the treaty by the PNG Cabinet is very welcome, but it’s also completely expected. I mean, we’ve been working on this now for some time and it really is a very historic agreement. It’s a historic agreement from Papua New Guinea’s point of view, but it very much is from ours. This will be our third alliance after the United States and New Zealand. And that’s the first alliance that we will have entered into since 1951, which was when we signed the ANZUS Treaty. So, this is a very significant moment in Australia’s national security.

MILLER: PNG PM James Marape will be in Australia over the weekend for the Grand Finals. Would it be an embarrassment if there was a further delay and it was not signed during that visit?

MARLES: Well, look, I’m not about to speculate on all of that. I mean, we’ve seen the decision that Papua New Guinea have made. It’s completely in accordance with what we have been expecting as both of our countries are working towards this historic agreement.

MILLER: But it would make sense for him to sign it when he’s here, would it not? Is that not firm?

MARLES: Again, let’s see how it all unfolds. I just don’t want to pre-empt all of that. You know, I think that this is going to happen imminently and it is a very significant treaty that we are about to enter into with Papua New Guinea.

MILLER: After the Prime Minister left PNG last month, the PNG Defence Minister was due to visit China. Do you know if that trip went ahead and if so, what have you been told about it?

MARLES: Look, my understanding is that did not go ahead, but ultimately that’s a matter for Papua New Guinea and for the Defence Minister of Papua New Guinea. Billy Joseph, who is the Defence Minister, is a person with whom we’ve been working very closely on negotiating this treaty. And I’ve spoken to Billy in the last couple of days, and we are in contact pretty frequently. So, I mean, these are matters for PNG. We very much respect their sovereignty, but we are very much focused on the relationship that we’re building between our two countries. And as this treaty demonstrates, it’s at a level which is historically unprecedented but completely appropriate given our two countries.

MILLER: China was not happy about the pact, expressing concerns and saying it shouldn’t be exclusive. Is the treaty exclusive?

MARLES: Well, what the treaty reflects is that Australia and PNG see their security lying in each other, and that from PNG’s point of view, Australia is the natural security partner of choice. And history, geography, affinity all make that manifestly plain. I mean, there is no world in which we would see any kind of attack on PNG as doing anything other than engaging our national interest. In fact, that is our history when that has happened.

MILLER: What about a situation when the PNG Defence Force was deployed to civil unrest, as has happened as recently as last year?

MARLES: Well, this is really seeing that an attack on either of our countries engages each other’s national interests, that we see that as a security threat to the other nation. So, that’s really the sense in which the defence mutual obligation applies. Of course, we work very closely with PNG in terms of police support, for example, enabling them to increase their capabilities to deal with the maintenance of their own law and order. So, in the broader relationship that we have with Papua New Guinea, we certainly provide assistance in respect of police, but the mutual obligation in respect of defence, which is really what defines the alliance relationship, goes to any external threat on either country.

MILLER: On Radio National Breakfast, you’re hearing from the Deputy Prime Minister, Richard Marles. Richard Marles, you’re joining us from Fiji. How important is it to firm up agreements with Fiji and Vanuatu soon?

MARLES: Well, Fiji is a very important country. I think, you know, for your listeners, it’s worth understanding that most countries in the Pacific do not have defence forces. But beyond New Zealand, there are three, which are Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Tonga. And so the defence relationships that we have with those three countries in particular are very significant. And I’ll be meeting with my counterpart, Pio Tikoduadua, today, the Defence Minister, and we will be looking at how we can take the next steps in terms of our own defence relationship with Fiji. Later this morning, I’ll also be opening the Maritime Essential Services Centre with Prime Minister Rabuka. And that is a really significant piece of infrastructure in terms of Fiji’s maritime capacities, and one which has involved a very significant contribution, $83 million, on the part of the Australian Government. So, we’re working really closely with Fiji to develop their capabilities, to look at ways in which we can work more closely together. And again, just as we’ve seen with PNG, this is a relationship which is going from strength to strength, and we’re very pleased about that. And you mentioned Vanuatu. I mean, we’re working on the Nakamal Agreement with Vanuatu. That too represents a transformative agreement. We’re doing a very significant thing there and it is going to take time to bring that to fruition, but I’m confident that will happen as well. And again, if you take a step back and look at what we’re doing with these three countries, what we’ve done with Nauru, Tuvalu, Solomon Islands – all of this represents a dramatic uplift in terms of the significance that this government is placing on the Pacific in terms of Australia’s worldview – and that is fundamentally important.

MILLER: You reject the word delay in terms of the PNG agreement, but presumably you would concede that there has been a delay in the Vanuatu agreement. Is it ever going to get over the line?

MARLES: Well, again, what we’re trying to do with Vanuatu, with the Nakamal Agreement, is really significant. And, you know, I think that is happening actually at a pace as well. I was with Penny Wong and Pat Conroy in Vanuatu a month and a half ago where we initialled the text of an agreement. When the Prime Minister was there more recently and he met his counterpart, the Prime Minister of Vanuatu, they both expressed the confidence that we would get this done. And that’s where we see this being at. And we are confident that we will ultimately get the Nakamal Agreement done. I mean, these are significant agreements, which genuinely transform relationships. And unsurprisingly, when you take steps of this size, they do take time because it’s important that everyone in both countries engages in a proper scrutiny of this and makes these agreements real.

MILLER: Will it happen this year?

MARLES: Well, again, I’m not going to speculate on that, but I’m confident that it’s going to happen.

MILLER: Just on another couple of issues, there’s been a lot of confusion this week about whether China has banned iron ore imports from BHP. What’s your understanding? Is there a ban?

MARLES: Well, look, some of this is happening in the context of the private sector, but I just reiterate what the Prime Minister has said in respect of this. We want to see and ensure that our trade between our two countries happens in a manner, which is unhindered .Now, processes will play out and we’ll respect those and watch those carefully. But this is a very important source of trade for both Australia and China, and we want to see that happen in a way that is unhindered.

MILLER: Is there a ban?

MARLES: Well, I can’t really say more than what I have. I mean, we will watch the processes play out as they are and we want to make sure that this is happening in a manner which is unhindered.

MILLER: Presumably, though, you’ve sought clarifications to try and establish whether or not there’s a ban.

MARLES: Well, look, we are confident about our trade in this space, but I wouldn’t go further than what the Prime Minister has already said in relation to this matter.

MILLER: You can’t say whether or not there’s a ban?

MARLES: Well, I’m not in a position to. It’s obviously not me who is making those calls. And right now I’m obviously speaking to you from another country. So, you know, I’m not going to go into it further than I have. We want to see that this trade happens in an unhindered way.

MILLER: Just on Gaza, Deputy Prime Minister, the government’s repeatedly said Australia is not supplying arms to Israel, but Australian firms are supplying parts for F-35 fighters. Now, you often cite the Lockheed Martin supply chain, but leaving the legalities aside, is there a point where you’re no longer comfortable with Israel receiving parts as its military campaign continues in Gaza?

MARLES: Look, I mean, again, we’ve made this position clear over a long period of time. We are an F-35 country. We participate in a multilateral process which, as you rightly say, in a procurement sense, is managed by Lockheed Martin out of the United States. And Australian companies, which we have encouraged over decades – it is literally decades, since the early 2000s – to participate in these supply chains because of what it represents in terms of improving and increasing Australia’s defence industry capability. Those companies continue to participate in that, as do all the other countries who are part of the F-35 program. Countries like the UK, countries like Norway, for example, through Europe, Singapore and the United States. So, we are an F-35 country. It’s no secret that Israel is an F-35 country as well, and we continue to be a part of that.

MILLER: Is there a point, though, where legal is no longer right

MARLES: Well, I mean, our participation as an F-35 nation goes to the heart of Australia’s Air Force capability. I mean, F-35s are really the centrepiece of the Royal Australian Air Force – they are our fast jet capability. Now, I mean, we retain a number of Super Hornets and Growlers, but right now the F-35 is the bulk of our fast jet capability. And our number one obligation here is to maintain Australia’s capability. And as I say, we participate in a process which is ultimately managed by Lockheed Martin. So, you know, the Australian companies which are engaged in the F-35 program do so in a manner which is supplying to Lockheed Martin.

MILLER: There’s no chance that the international community could come together to try and stop those parts going to Israel?

MARLES: Well, I mean, we talk to our partners in the F-35 program, but we will continue to be participating in the F-35 program. Let me be really clear about that because, you know, front and centre here is maintaining Australia’s capabilities. And, you know, to do something which would compromise what is the heart of the Royal Australian Air Force is a step that we won’t be taking. It absolutely matters that we are able to maintain a capable Air Force. And we’ve been making really clear the strategic challenges that Australia faces right now. We are not about to take steps which involve a diminution of Australian capability, and to in any way endanger our F-35 capability would obviously do that. And so that’s not a step that we’re going to take.

MILLER: Richard Marles joining us from Fiji. Thank you so much.

MARLES: Thanks, Barbara.

ENDS