Television Interview, ABC Briefing

SUBJECTS: Australia Indonesia Treaty, Coalition Net Zero Debate

PATRICIA KARVELAS [HOST]: So, this is quite a significant announcement. Australia has inked this bilateral security treaty. The Prime Minister calling it a watershed moment. Why is it a watershed moment?

PETER KHALIL [ASSISTANT MINISTER]: Look, I think it's really significant, I've got to say, personally, I actually did my constitutional law essay on the original agreement between our nations. This is a very nerdy moment, but it builds on that agreement in 1995, it builds on the Lombok Treaty in 2006, and it builds on the Defence Cooperation Agreement that was signed last year. And the fact that there's going to be regular meetings at the Ministerial level and the leader level is quite significant. But also I think in this particular agreement, this treaty, the fact that both countries will agree to do exercises together or to take on initiatives and programs in the security space together, builds on what we do with disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, other military exercises, it’s quite significant. And the other last bit that I think is quite significant is that if there is a threat to either country that they will consult, we will consult each other about how we can either individually or jointly respond to that threat or that security challenge in the region. So, as the Prime Minister said, this is a watershed moment in the relationship between both countries.

KARVELAS Ok, so is it that agreement that you identify and we undertake mutually beneficial security activities, that's the most significant part? And what might that look like?

KHALIL:: Well, I think all of it. The significance is right across the agreement that may involve different levels of security cooperation, it may involve different exercises that we do together, whether it's naval, whether it's other parts of our military. I think the important part of that is just an alliance and a treaty that brings our countries closer together. The coordination, the cooperation, the work that we do together is significant because it's all about working together to ensure the security and stability of the region. And having Indonesia, which is one of the largest countries in the region, working with us to maintain that stability is really, really important. I think they see the benefit for their own nation to have a secure and stable Indo-Pacific, one where international law is adhered to, whether it's the law of the sea or other security frameworks are adhered to. And that's to their benefit because they're also a trading nation. And frankly, I'd like to see more trade with Indonesia as well. Because that economic relationship is just as important.

KARVELAS: Yeah, I mean, Indonesia is a really important country, obviously in terms of our relationship, but also Indonesia kind of hedges a little in terms of their position in the world. So, what does this mean for that, that usual position they take, which is really not taking sides? I mean, during the election, I want to put something very specific to you. There was a report unverified and of course there was a bit of controversy about it in relation to Russia having potentially a base in Indonesia. Would this agreement help us with consultation if that was to happen?

KHALIL: Well, I think this agreement's good in that context of those types of activities, you're alluding to something quite historical in the sense of the non-aligned movement, which where there were countries in that non-aligned movement, Egypt included where my parents came from, and other African countries, where there was one could say hedging, working with countries right across the spectrum.

KARVELAS Hedging is my word.

KHALIL: Hedging is your word.

KARVELAS: But you can borrow.

KHALIL: People could say transactional as well. My argument has been to the Indonesians as well and my engagement with Indonesia is that it is to Indonesia's medium to long term benefits to work with us and other countries in the region around stabilising the Indo-Pacific, stabilising and propping up and protecting the multilateral architecture, if you like, that benefits all of our countries. Because if trade is where we get our prosperity, making sure that stability is there in the Indo-Pacific is actually critical. I think they can see the long term better the benefits of that in that context. That doesn't mean Indonesia should absolutely have relationships with all countries in the region as we do as well.

KARVELAS: Is this about China then?

KHALIL: Well, as I have said, we have relationships with China.

KARVELAS: It's a trade relationship. Is this security? Because this is a security agreement. Is this more insurance?

KHALIL: Well, I don't think it's that one dimensional and I think the relationship that we have with Indonesia is quite historic. You know, people shouldn't forget that Australia's one of the first countries to support Indonesian independence from the Dutch, we were part of that whole process. They never forget that. There's a strong history there, a strong connection. We're neighbours. So, I think being able to have relationships with countries like China and other countries in the region, but working together to build on that multilateral architecture, that scaffolding that benefits all of us is what this is really about.

KARVELAS: Look, just on a domestic issue that's clearly breaking. The Liberal Party room's about to… well, we think after a very long meeting… They must be very tired. Must need some sugar after such a long meeting. We think they look poised to dump net zero. The reason that matters is Australia will now not have a bipartisan commitment to net zero. That can't be good for stability. Right. Like if they have a different view, what does that actually mean in terms of its implications?

KHALIL: I don't think it's good at all.

KARVELAS But I mean for political stability.

KHALIL: A couple of points on this. First of all, the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again when it doesn't work expect a different result. They have been fighting each other on this for, I don't know how long. I've lost count of the years where they've been unable to actually settle on this policy area and to accept the science and to work out a policy. I think the second point is you need good oppositions in democracy. Like it's a bit unfair for us to be too critical right now because Jane's not here. I know she was supposed to be here, but she's still in the meeting arguing for net…

KARVELAS: …zero to be retained.

KHALIL: Good on her and I'm not going to go on the attack in a partisan sense here without her being here to defend herself. But I'll say you need a good opposition to hold the government to account, to provide alternative policies. We don't have to agree. That's the whole point. But they can't even get this right. Patricia, how many years have they spent squabbling over this? You know, since, since the election we've gone to try and fulfil our commitments for the Australian people that we put to the election. And all they've done is spend the time actually fighting each other. So, that's not good for Australia. It's not good for the long term stability around the policy area. But we will continue to do what we think is right and based on evidence and based on the science and try and develop good policy to implement.

KARVELAS Thank you so much for joining us.

KHALIL: Thanks, Patricia.