Podcast Interview, 7News - The Issue

SUBJECTS: Ukraine-Russia war; Defence budget; AUKUS; Defence relationships with allies

TIM LESTER, HOST: Hello, welcome to The Issue. I’m Tim Lester. As we upload this week’s episode, Defence Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles is in Europe to discuss the Ukraine war and speak at a prominent security conference. He agreed, though, to tackle The Issue this week, and sat down with us before he left. Richard Marles, thank you for speaking with The Issue.

RICHARD MARLES, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: Great to be here, Tim.

LESTER: It’s February, so just couple of weeks to footy season. Are you ready to go around again after your bruising finish last year?

MARLES: Bruising is probably a fair word to describe what happened in September. But, no, hope springs eternal. Great thing about this time of year is nothing’s gone wrong, and so we can completely imagine the very best of September when we’re in the depths of February.

LESTER: Right, so you haven’t lost heart in Geelong, then?

MARLES: Definitely not. No, I mean, I think they’ve been an incredible club over a long time, and they–we’ll be competitive, and you can’t ask for more than that.

LESTER: You’re heading to the Munich Security Conference. Why does it matter?

MARLES: Well, this is really the premiere security and strategic conference in Europe, and so there’ll be a lot of my European counterparts–well, NATO counterparts because US included. And I think what we are increasingly seeing in the world today is that there is deeper connections between the Indo-Pacific on the one hand and the North Atlantic and the other. And, you know, you can see that in the conflict in Ukraine, but you can also have a sense that the rules-based order, there’s not many rules‑based orders, there is one. And when the rules-based order is under pressure in Europe that is relevant to us in the Indo-Pacific. And for that reason we are increasingly seeing both theatres engaging more with each other, and this will be a really important opportunity to engage with my partners there.

LESTER: And it will come at a time where Europe is worried that the Trump administration is giving up on Ukraine. Fair?

MARLES: Well, I think if you look at the main measure which has been put in place right now to support Ukraine, it is around providing largely American equipment to Ukraine. So America is still there very much supporting Ukraine. Our view has been consistent throughout – Russia is the aggressor here. The rules-based order is being placed under pressure by them. And what’s at stake in Ukraine is very much the rules‑based order, which matters to us here. And so it’s very important that we continue to support Ukraine.

LESTER: But does it worry you that the Trump administration will bargain away Ukrainian territory to get a peace deal?

MARLES: I don't–I wouldn't speculate on that. I mean, what matters to us is obviously the resolution of this conflict on Ukraine’s terms. You know, we absolutely see that there is a role for the United States in terms of its global leadership in trying to find a peaceful pathway in respect of the war in Ukraine. Of course we all want to see that. But it is really important that this resolves on Ukraine’s terms and I think that’s, you know, how this is progressing in terms of America’s engagement.

LESTER: And Ukraine’s terms would be surrender no territory.

MARLES: Well, again, that’s a matter for Ukraine. And I wouldn’t seek to impose our view there other than to say what matters is that they want– that the resolution is on their terms. And until that occurs our position is pretty simple, we will be there to support Ukraine.

LESTER: Richard Marles, who’s the minister for the most mountainous project of them all – $368 billion across three decades, all balanced on commitments from three democracies – AUKUS, and its promise of Australian nuclear-powered submarines from the US and UK has umpteen critics. Here’s Malcolm Turnbull.

[Excerpt]

MALCOLM TURNBULL: AUKUS is a terrible deal. It is so unfair to Australia. People say, will Donald Trump like it? Well, of course he’d like it. It’s such a bad deal for us, his only thing in the back of his mind, he’ll be thinking who are these dumb guys that agreed to this deal?

[End excerpt] 

LESTER: Has the Turnbull view had any impact on the minister? As you’ll see, not much. In fact, he tells The Issue Australia can’t be truly sovereign unless we get nuclear-powered subs.

Are you still convinced it is the right course for Australia?

MARLES: Absolutely. I mean, the acquiring of a nuclear-powered submarine capability for Australia is all about making sure that we have a modern, long-range submarine capability which we have always seen as being critical to Australia’s defence. And if you step back and have a look at what we are as a country – you know, an island continent surrounded by oceans – having a long‑range submarine capability is completely fundamental to our defence.

Now, you know, it is a significant amount of money over that period of time and it’s a significant amount of money in the context of the Defence budget. But it’s about .15 per cent of GDP is what we are spending on our submarine program. That’s in the context of a Defence budget which is now measured in NATO terms up around 2.8, 2.9 per cent of GDP. And so this is–it is a part of what we are doing in our Defence budget, but it’s, you know, less than 10 per cent of it. But it is the single most important platform that we have. It is more than any other platform that we have the one which would give any adversary to Australia pause for thought. And it’s fundamentally important that we maintain the relevance of that going forward, and that means having a modern submarine capability and what that will mean in the 2030s and 2040s is to have a nuclear-powered submarine capability.

LESTER: Because a lot of the commentary around AUKUS at the moment is that it and to a lesser extent the Hunter frigates are the monsters that are eating the Defence budget. Is the Defence budget feeling the strain from these big ticket projects?

MARLES: Well, again, that’s obviously not how I would characterise it. I mean, it is a component but a really critical component. If you look at our submarines, the Hunter‑class frigates in turn will be the most capable anti-submarine warfare frigates in the world. And, again, when you look at our geography you see how important that kind of capability is for a country like Australia. But it’s not all that we are doing. I mean, we are–our whole thesis coming out of the Defence Strategic Review in terms of what we must have as a Defence Force is one that can project. And so we’re investing in our northern bases, for example, which will allow our Air Force to fly further. We’re investing in much longer range strike missiles and making sure that we will have relevant war stocks for us going forward. That goes well beyond AUKUS. You know, we’re making sure that we have a more amphibious Army. These are the building blocks of having a Defence Force which does have the capability to project. Submarines is a key part of it, but it’s far from the totality of it. And we are able to progress the full suite of those measures in the context of, you know, acquiring this nuclear-powered submarine capability.

LESTER: The former Director of Nuclear Policy at the UK Ministry of Defence, Rear Admiral Philip Mathias, said in December there is a high probability that the UK element of AUKUS will fail. He says the UK ought to pull out of AUKUS, let alone us. Are you sure he’s wrong?

MARLES: I mean, you get a whole lot of commentary, and there is always commentary–

LESTER: But that’s pretty ugly, right?

MARLES: You get a whole lot of commentary about complex programs. And, you know–but what this actually requires is us staying the course. I mean, we saw this under the former government when it comes to submarines where they were in and out of a deal with Japan and then they were in and out of a deal with France and there was a whole lot of commentary around that. I mean, if you kind of keep moving down that path of being in a deal and then it’s too hard and then we’re out of it, that’s not a decision to get something different; that’s a decision not to do it at all because to build submarines is a multi-decade effort. We must have a successor to the Collins class submarine. We cannot cede having a submarine capability going forward for all the reasons I’ve described, and that means staying the course on AUKUS. Now, I understand that. But, importantly, in all the engagements I have with my US and UK counterparts, they understand that. So I’m actually really confident this will happen.

LESTER: And that’s despite the fact that it’s a multi-decade effort to build the submarines, but we’re in a democracy that changes its clothes every three years, right?

MARLES: Yes, but to take that going forward, each of the three countries have already changed its clothes once. We’re now in a situation where across the UK, the US and Australia we’ve had changes of government, yet AUKUS continues. And the reason it does is because it’s in the strategic interests of all three nations and that’s why it enjoys bipartisan support in all three countries. So, you know, I think we can have confidence about that. A lot of work has been gone into establishing that. People do understand the strategic significance of AUKUS. And, you know, I’m actually really confident we’re going to get this done. That said, like, this is massive challenge. This is the biggest industrial project in our country’s history. It eclipses Snowy Hydro. It is a very, very big program indeed. The production line that we will build in Adelaide at the Osborne Naval Shipyard will be the largest, the most complex, the highest tech production line in any industrial context in our country and, indeed, one of the highest tech in the world. So this is a big thing we’re trying to do. And the outcome of it will be the biggest leap in our military capability really since the establishment of the Navy back in 1913. Now, all of that comes with challenges – tech challenges, workforce challenges – so we’re not sanguine about it–

LESTER: And critics.

MARLES: And lots of critics. But, you know, we have to do it. To not do it and to concede our submarine capability is to greatly diminish Australia’s agency and therefore ultimately it’s sovereignty within the world. And we are all committed to the Australian project as a nation, I mean.

LESTER: Just last month Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney grabbed global attention.

[Excerpt]

MARK CARNEY: We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.

[End excerpt].

LESTER: Arguing middle powers must come together and stand up to prevent great powers exploiting them.

[Excerpt]

MARK CARNEY: You cannot live in the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.

[End excerpt]

LESTER: As well last month the Trump administration released its National Defense Strategy. It spells out a plan for the US to increase burden-sharing with allies and partners.

MARLES: If you place it in context, it’s actually not so new. I mean, this is a point that America has been making for a long time. It’s a discussion it’s had with its allies, and it’s a discussion that clearly we understand. I mean, at our end we feel very much that we make a contribution. We have made a contribution on the one hand by being alongside America in every conflict in which it has fought over a century, and we’re the only country who can make that claim. But even in terms of Defence spending right now, I mean, we are going through the biggest increase in peacetime spending on Defence than our nation has had in its history. And that is a fact which in talking that through with Americans is well understood by them and appreciated. So, you know, we are moving down a path of increasing our Defence spending. We’re a country which not only spends on Defence; you know, we show up as we have over the course of a century. And, you know, we obviously are located in a pretty strategic part of the world as well.

LESTER: You say its record defence expenditure on our part, and yet this National Defense Strategy from Washington says it expects of allies 3.5 per cent of gross domestic product on core military spending and an additional 1.5 on security-related spending – 5 per cent of GDP. Now, even if we take the 2.8 per cent, that’s a mile off, isn’t it?

MARLES: Well, I mean, we’re at 2.8, 2.9 now, and based on the way in which the Americans calculate it, which is the NATO frame. You know, that would put us really in the leading half of NATO on this day.

LESTER: As we are now?

MARLES: As we are now. So, if you look across NATO countries and what they’re spending on defence today, you know, we have a pretty good story to tell measured against that. And if you look at what we have been doing since we have come to office, as I say, you’ve seen the biggest peacetime increase in defence spending in our country’s history. We have put an additional $70 billion over the decade into the defence spend since we’ve come to power. To put that into some kind of context, in the nine years of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government they put about an additional $10 billion over the decade. We’ve done more in the last three and a half years – seven times as much, in fact – as what the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government did in nine years. Now, the way we see this is it is about assessing what is our defence need, what is our strategic threat, the kind of Defence Force we need to meet that and then resource it.

LESTER: On that defence spending, we’re headed to 70 per cent of our defence kit coming from American sources. Are we becoming more reliant on the US just as the Trump administration shows less interest in Australia?

MARLES: Well, I don’t accept the second assertion. But, I mean, we’ve always had a significant amount of our kit come from the United States. That’s the fact of the matter. And there is some sense in that because the United States is the defence force with whom we operate the most. And so having interoperability between our two defence forces is fundamentally important. And there is, you know, at a personnel level we have a significant number of members of the Australian Defence Force who are embedded in the United States defence forces so really, you know, in so many ways our defence forces are very, very close together. That we use American kit therefore makes sense. I mean, it is however you describe it. I mean, the Alliance is fundamentally important to Australia’s national security. And as I said at the outset, all of this is an expression of that, and I would say the Alliance is as important today as it’s ever been.

LESTER: Okay. But the counter argument is that America is not the same solid super power that it was just a few years ago, and our dependence on it is as great as ever. And I could quote to you, of course, Canada’s Prime Minister recently talking about the need for middle power allies like ours to be more independent and co-dependent on middle powers, not self-interested super powers. Does he have a point?

MARLES: Well, the Alliance is fundamentally important to Australia. So, you know, I don’t kind of resile from what I’ve said there. Our Alliance with the United States is as important today as it’s ever been. We do need to build our own capability and our own agency. We need to be a more capable Defence Force on our own terms. Actually, having a nuclear-powered submarine capability is an example of what we are trying to do there, and so we are building that innate capability within our Defence Force. And in terms of engaging with other countries, I mean, you could look at what we’re doing with Japan, what we’re doing with the Philippines, what we’re doing with Indonesia, what we’re –a country like Papua New Guinea, Singapore, India. All of those countries – and I could name more – are at a high watermark in terms of the bilateral relationship but the defence-to-defence relationship. We are doing much, much more with the defence forces of the countries of our region. And that is an important part of our strategy as we see it. And all of us – and that includes the United States – are committed to upholding a rules-based order which has provided peace and stability within the Indo-Pacific, which has been the foundation of economic growth in this region and the foundation of prosperity.

LESTER: So how do things change for Australia with this rupture that Canada’s Mark Carney talks about as opposed to a transition? Critics would say we’re behaving as though nothing’s changed in the world in terms of the United States. But he’s saying you’ve got to get independent. You’ve got to move away from super power reliance.

MARLES: Well, as I say, the Alliance with the United States is fundamentally important to Australia and remains as important if not more important than it has ever been. But if you want to look at this government’s– our government’s behaviour since we’ve come to power, the relationships that we have built with Japan, the relationships that we have built with Indonesia. I mean, the Treaty of Common Security with Indonesia combined with the Defence Cooperation Agreement that we signed in 2024 puts our relationship with that country as one example at a high watermark. And we are doing much more, you know, within that architecture now in terms of defence-to-defence engagement with the Indonesian military. The biggest exercise that we do outside of Australia every second year is now in the Philippines. We’re doing much, much more with the Philippines. Japan, I mean, we would have as close a strategic alignment with Japan as any country in the world. You know, we are doing an increasing amount between our two defence forces. We operate a whole lot of the same kit. You know, we are seeing Japan come and participate in our exercises here, we've doing similar in Japan and doing it together in other parts of the region. So you can see what we are doing in terms of building those relationships. There’s no doubt they’re important. And at the same time we have this massive investment in the Defence Force here to build our own capability. So, you know, you can look at what we are doing in terms of our strategy.

LESTER: On Indonesia, as you raise it, President Prabowo when he came to power made this first two visits China and Russia. That must have worried you a little bit, right? Indonesia, giant neighbour, appearing to get closer to two potential strategic threats to our country?

MARLES: Look, Indonesia has long had a policy of being non-aligned. It was a member of the non-aligned movement for a very long time and that’s at the heart of how they engage with the world. And so, you know, we understand that. But if you look at our relationship – the Australian to Indonesia bilateral relationship – and look at it on its own terms it is in a place unlike it has ever been. The architecture is at a high watermark, but it has been backed up with substance. You know, our two defence forces are engaging more and more. And, indeed, you know, when I visited Indonesia for President Prabowo’s inauguration as the president, you know, the very, very first meeting he did with any country in the world was with us, and I can assure you it was not done in alphabetical order. So it was–and that said something about how Indonesia sees its relationship with Australia.

LESTER: You’re not concerned about relations with Russia in Jakarta?

MARLES: I think countries have their history, and we’re talking about a country which has been part of the non-aligned movement. But I think when you look at the bilateral relationship that we have with Indonesia, it has never been in better order. And we are doing more and more with Indonesia, and that is a great thing in terms of Australia’s security.

LESTER: It’s been more than 11 years since our soldiers left Afghanistan and more than five since the release of the Brereton report that found evidence of unlawful killings by Australian special forces. The legal investigations from that continue.                                               

Do you have sympathy for the Afghanistan vets who say enough, the Defence Department needs to bring charges against people, pursue charges, or close the book because all Afghanistan vets are suffering from the stain that has been proven against none?

MARLES: Well, the first thing I would say there Tim, is that for the Australians who served in Afghanistan they did so with bravery, with valour, with significant sacrifice in terms of loss of life, but also in terms of injury both physical, emotional, mental. And we owe all of those veterans an enormous debt of gratitude. And they carried our nation’s flag with honour, and I have nothing but the deepest respect and thanks for all that they have done.

In respect of the Brereton report and the incidents that it deals with, it is very important for us as a nation to deal with these. It goes a lot to who we are as a country that we deal with these appropriately. I think the Brereton report was, you know, a profoundly important piece of work. From the perspective of Defence, that is almost complete in terms of following through on the recommendations of the Brereton report. So in large measure that is closed. The process of there being prosecutions, that will always be a matter for – and is really where this is now at – beyond Defence in terms of the Department of Public Prosecutions and whatever may ensue there within our court system. That is really a matter for it to work through that court system.

LESTER: Because Defence tells us that investigations are ongoing.

MARLES: Well, the court system–these are matters which have now been referred effectively to our criminal justice system and they will work through that on their own time. And it’s obviously completely independent of government, the executive government. So, you know, we don’t have a part to play in that. What matters is that, you know, the work of the Brereton report, the recommendations that it has given in respect of what Defence should do have been followed through on. It has been implemented to the fullest possible extent. You know, from our point of view, that’s what we needed to do. It is now a matter for the criminal justice system and the courts to work through their processes, and it will happen independent of government on its own terms. But, you know, to go back to your fundamental point; the sacrifice, the service that has been provided by those who served our nation and wore our nation’s uniform in Afghanistan has been utterly exemplary, and all of us owe all of those veterans are debt of gratitude.

LESTER: I want to close out with one more Defence issue and then a little bit of politics, because you are, after all, still a politician. But on Defence, it does seem that information once was either classified or it wasn’t. We didn’t get to see the classified stuff; we did get to see the stuff that wasn’t. NFP – not for publication – seems to have come up as a very over used acronym in the Defence Department to justify hiding all kinds of information that was once important, for example, some of the parameters used by ANAO to judge whether our biggest Defence projects are actually doing what they need to be doing. Are you worried or do you concede that Defence is becoming more secretive about the taxpayer money it spends, not less?

MARLES: No, I definitely don’t concede that. Nor do I actually concede the binary nature of the way in which you’ve described information. I mean, there have always been categories of information across a kind of a range of confidentiality or classification. That’s actually kind of–when we use the word “classified”, it is literally classifying information into various categories, some of it being more classified than others. I mean, it is the case that we live in a more contested world, that we live in a more strategically complex world, and that inevitably is going to have an impact on the way in which we manage information, and we simply need to do that.

LESTER: You need to manage it more tightly. In other words, with more secrecy?

MARLES: Well, we need to manage it in a context of a much more contested world. And the world is much more contested today than it has been in a very long period of time. And what we see throughout history is that when the world is in a place of much greater contest information is managed in a different way. And so we are seeing a more contested environment now. But, you know, the Defence Force remains very transparent in terms of what our programs are, how we spend our money and what we are fundamentally doing. And, you know, this week you will see a whole lot of that play out as Defence fronts Senate estimates – as it always and regularly does – so, you know, we very much submit ourselves to that scrutiny, as we should.

LESTER: And the politics, Angus Taylor has been your opposite shadow defence minister. Do you see an Angus Taylor-led opposition as more formidable than the Sussan Ley-led opposition?

MARLES: Look, I mean, who knows what we’re going to see there? You know, I think what we’ve seen since the election is deep dysfunction on the Coalition’s side. We’re not up to the anniversary of the Ley leadership of the Liberal Party, and almost from the get-go what we’ve seen is kind of undermining and speculation about her leadership. You know, she’s the first female leader of the Liberal Party–

LESTER: They haven’t given her a go?

MARLES: Well, I mean, that will be a matter for–the country will judge that, let me say that. The country will definitely make a judgement in respect of that. Ultimately this is their business. And, you know, I’ve been around for a while. Politics is not easy. My attention is completely absorbed by looking after our own business on the Labor side of the fence. We have been, you know, very solid and unified through. You know, we’re in, what are we in now? The seventh year of Anthony Albanese’s leadership as the Leader of the Labor Party. And the support for Anthony and the energy behind him as been as strong as I have seen within our party since I’ve been in parliament.

LESTER: Just on that, to close, Angus Taylor did in this last week or so actually own up to the fact that he wants to be leader. He admitted that it was something he wouldn’t mind doing. Many people would look at you and go, well, he’s in the box seat as the next Prime Minister. Certainly the next Labor leader. Now, I know you’re not going to call a challenge on the Prime Minister, but is it an ambition long term?

MARLES: I definitely do not want to get ahead of myself. I am really focused on being the best Defence Minister I can be, the best Deputy Prime Minister I can be and the best deputy to Anthony Albanese that I can be. And I feel actually at this end of my career incredibly fortunate to be working with Anthony who is a person for whom I have the highest regard. I mean, Anthony’s just a fundamentally decent human being, and working with him is really the greatest privilege of my life. And that’s, to be honest, as far as my thoughts go, and doing that in the best way possible.

LESTER: Richard Marles, thank you for taking time to speak with The Issue.

MARLES: Thanks, Tim.

ENDS