Podcast Interview, Latika Takes

SUBJECTS: Munich Security Conference; Indo‑Pacific; Australia­‑Japan Relationship; Ukraine-Russia War; Australian Political Landscape. 

LATIKA BOURKE, HOST: Deputy Prime Minister, welcome to the podcast. 

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

BOURKE: Why are you at Munich?

MARLES: Well, we are living in a world which is much more connected, and what's happening in Europe is increasingly relevant to us in the Indo‑Pacific. I mean, the war in Ukraine is the obvious point there. How the war in Ukraine resolves is completely relevant to Australia's national interest and being here gives us a good sense of that. But I think also, you know, this is a convening on a global level and there are people from all around the world here. So it's actually been a unique opportunity to meet counterparts, not just from Europe, but from the Indo‑Pacific as well.

BOURKE: The war’s been raging, we're approaching the fourth anniversary, this is the first time you've come here. Why this year particularly?

MARLES: Well, it's good question. I mean, I've been a frequent visit to Shangri‑La. I think having done the last two NATO meetings on behalf of Australia, in Washington, then The Hague, you know, they really highlighted for me how connected the regions are and it seemed to me that this is an important gathering and gives us a sense of how things are progressing in Ukraine but also, you know, America's position in the world. We heard that from Marco Rubio today. So it felt like it was timely, and actually, having gone through the experience of being here, I think it's been hugely valuable. And I would imagine that this is a conference that we will be at going forward. 

BOURKE: What was so valuable for you?

MARLES: I think to firsthand see the way in which the American‑European relationship is occurring. That was really important. I mean, obviously we all have seen the various speeches. You see it from a distance, but it's quite different to be here and to be able to, in real time, talk to people and get their reaction. For example, in relation to Secretary Rubio’s speech, I think there was a very positive reaction in the room as he spoke, but to speak to people afterwards you've got that sense, so that's really important to understand that. I think it's also been– I mean, clearly, I've been asking a lot about how people see the war in Ukraine progressing, where that's going. So to be able to get a first‑hand feel in relation to that has been being critical. And in that, I was at the Ukraine Defence Contact Group on Thursday in Brussels, and that was a very important meeting as well.

BOURKE: Okay, we'll come to Ukraine in a second but I want to stay on the Transatlantic Alliance for a minute. Do you think that the US is in damage control?

MARLES: Look, I think– I mean, I've been to a number of, as I said, a number of events now in Europe– I was at The Hague last year. We are watching America have a conversation with its allies around burden sharing. We're seeing that in Europe, but we're also seeing it in the Indo-Pacific. But I think what’s really clear in all the conversations that I'm having with people – and that's certainly how we would feel as a country – everyone values the American relationship. Everyone wants this relationship to work. And I think what we heard from Secretary Rubio today was America very much values the relationship with Europe, and we're very confident it values the relationship with Australia and the Indo-Pacific. So in all that has been said and is being worked through, what underlies this is a motivation to make it work. And so I think we're seeing that play through and I think today was obviously a positive step forward in respect of that.

BOURKE: We all value our alliances with the United States, because we have to. They're the dominant partner in our Alliance.

MARLES: Well, yeah, but I wouldn't characterise it like that. I mean, there are shared values. There is choice here. You know, we are liberal democracies which value the rule of law, which value freedom of speech, which have democracy. I mean, all of those things actually are foundational. So we choose to align ourselves, to ally ourselves to countries which have those values, and that's where America is at. So it's not– I wouldn't describe it as having to do that, it's an active choice to do that.

BOURKE: You raised this in terms of burden sharing. But some of these methods and conversations have gone further than burden sharing. For example, the threat to invade Greenland that was not about burden sharing, necessarily. And then the subsequent remarks questioning whether allies would be there for NATO and that allies who did go to Afghanistan didn't do the bleeding and the dying, that's not burden sharing.

MARLES: Look, I mean, those comments are not about burden sharing. I will let the relationship play out between America and Europe, but our position in respect of both of those issues has been clear and we've been public about this. Clearly, Greenland is a matter for the people of Greenland and the people of Denmark. That's very much our position, and that remains clear and unequivocal, and we've expressed that. And I had the opportunity to express that today to my Danish counterpart. It's also the case that as a country which served in Afghanistan and where we had loss of life in Afghanistan, tens of thousands of people who served, they served with distinction, they served with valor and honor, and we very much respect their service and pay homage to those who made the ultimate sacrifice. And we do that in respect of our own, but we do that in respect of those in Europe, and, of course, those in America who did the same – right across the board – in terms of those who contributed to the effort in Afghanistan. And to appropriately acknowledge that is profoundly important for all of us.

BOURKE: That was an interesting week in the Transatlantic Alliance, because we saw Europe actually stand up a bit and push back against some of these methods from the Trump administration. When those comments came through, and they were a bit latent in Australia, I think because it was a weekend, it was overnight, how did you register that? And how did our system register that? Because obviously, and listeners of this podcast know I care deeply about national security, and we can all appreciate that governments like you are in a very difficult position of having to speak to the public about when lines are crossed, but at the same time not infuriate or provoke an administration that is very easily provoked and can do very damaging things.

MARLES: I mean, ultimately we're motivated by speaking to our national interest, it all comes back to that. And so our interest lies in a rules‑based order, and we do talk about that. And I think rules–

BOURKE: Hang on, I was just at a panel where Elbridge Colby said, thank God when I was in Brussels, I only heard rules‑based order mentioned once. That wasn't an advertisement for a rules‑based order.

MARLES: And on the same panel you heard me say, literally in my first answer, that I think rules matter. Rules give middle powers like Australia agency, they're hugely important as compared to a world that is simply governed by power and might. So we are very invested in the rules‑based order. And we stick by those rules and by those principles. And in respect of Greenland and its sovereignty, which is fundamentally a matter for it and for Denmark, we respect that, we very clearly articulated that.

BOURKE: Did you have a private conversation to the Americans? I mean, it's obviously in Australia's interest that Europe and America have a strong alliance, right?

MARLES: It is, and– I mean, I don't think we need to mediate the relationship between America and Europe. I mean, it's important that we make it clear where we stand, and we did. And in respect of the comments around the country's contributions to the war in Afghanistan, again, that's very clear as well. And we made very clear our position in respect of those Australians who had served, honouring both them and all the service men and women of other nations who served alongside with us. I mean, that's really clear. 

BOURKE: Were you offended by that? 

MARLES: Well, it's– I mean, I think it is– clearly we need to be utterly cognisant of all of the sacrifice that has occurred. And it is not appropriate to, in any way, be questioning that. And that is really simple. And in a sense, it's the most basic thing as we acknowledge the service, which we do, for example, every Anzac Day of those who have fought wearing our nation's uniform in all conflicts. To in any way diminish that is highly inappropriate, and it's highly inappropriate in respect of those who we've served alongside.

BOURKE: And do you think it makes any difference– if you're defence minister still, in a matter of years, there is a hypothetical conflict where the Americans are involved and they ring us up, we've always been there side by side with the Americans. Do you think those comments make any difference to future military deployments? Or do you think this is something that we just absorb in as part of the shock and awe of this administration?

MARLES: Well firstly, I’m obviously not going to engage in speculation about future other than say this, whatever we would do in the future will be a matter of what is in our national interest at that time. That's always going to be the case. We express our view in relation to the comments that have been made. I think we move forward, and that's really what we're all trying to do in terms of managing all the relationships that we have.

BOURKE: So moving forward to Ukraine, what was the message that you heard about how this war might end and when?

MARLES: Good question. There is uncertainty about that, but what is clear is that we need to be prepared– have in our mind preparing to stay the course which is not measured in days or weeks or months, but years. Now, we hope that there's a resolution to this far sooner than that, but at the same time, we actually have to be preparing for the fact that we need to be standing with Ukraine over a period that is measured in years. And that's where our heads are at– it's again, very hard to tell. There are some who are optimistic that maybe there is a peace in the not too distant future, but no one can guarantee that. And it's also completely possible that this war is still protracted from where we stand today. And given that, really, the message that I take away is how important it is to continue to be supporting Ukraine. What I said earlier is right, the way in which this conflict resolves is going to be relevant to Australia. Lessons learnt from Ukraine will be learnt in the Indo‑Pacific. And so it is highly relevant to us exactly how this plays out, and therefore we need to be doing everything we can to make sure that we're standing with Ukraine for the duration.

BOURKE: Okay, let's go to standing with Ukraine and what that might mean. I've been critical of some of this government's ways of delivering support to Ukraine, also the quality of it. I thought the last one you did through PURL was great. Well done. But if we're going to be in this for years now, I think one of the reasons that a lot of our contributions were so ad hoc and a bit weird sometimes, is because we weren't really sure the duration of this war. But if you're telling me actually here in Europe, in year four of this war, we might be in this for years, what does that mean about how we now have to maybe re‑approach funding to Ukraine?

MARLES: Yeah, I think it's a really good question, and I think it's fair in terms of the way in which we have been providing contributions up until now. I mean, we have consistently been providing contributions. But you wouldn't say it's been on a predictable basis. We've been doing it as we can. But I think as we look forward, and needing to really be prepared to stand with Ukraine over a period of years, but just as importantly, to send the message to Russia that we will be standing with Ukraine over a period of years, it does really ask the question about moving forward on a more predictable basis, and exactly how we do that is something that we're working through. It was part of the conversation that I had with Secretary General Rutte today, and I've also spoken with, you know, the other leading countries in relation to this. But I think it is right– and of course, Ukraine itself. But I think there is a legitimate point to make now that we need to be thinking about how we make the contributions that we make regular and predictable.

BOURKE: So are you telling me that's something that we would be able to factor in in a budgetary sense, and I'm guessing, continuing through PURL?

MARLES: Well firstly I think PURL is very important. We’ve expressed that by being, along with New Zealand, the first non NATO countries to contribute to PURL. And all of the indications that we're getting from the likes of NATO, but also the UK, for example, and the US– and Ukraine itself I should say– PURL is really important in terms of a way in which we can make a contribution – not the only way, but a critical way. I mean, we will work through how we do this and we'll have more to say in the not too distant future about it. But I think to take up the point in your original question, we need to plan for the long term here, or a longer term. And that does, really, I think, ask the question about how we can do that in a more predictable way.

BOURKE: And I'm guessing that's not Australia, because obviously I'm the biggest supporter of Ukraine, but I appreciate Australia's budget is finite and our focus is the Indo‑Pacific. What you're saying must therefore apply to NATO and how Europe funds Ukraine.

MARLES: I think that's right. I mean, I think that Ukraine needs to have a sense of predictability here and we need– I think very much NATO is crying out for that. All of us who are supporting Ukraine need to be doing so in a way which absolutely makes it clear to Russia that we mean to stay the course. And clearly, you know, it is putting demands on all of us. But this is a profoundly significant moment, and it does require us to dig deep and to make sure that we are thinking through how we can do this in a way which is predictable and sustainable over a longer term.

BOURKE: The last one on Ukraine, are we undermining our efforts here by accepting these third country refined oil ships that operate from Russia? Should we be tougher on this? Because Europe and even the US is really starting to crack down on that.

MARLES: Well, we're in a conversation with both the US and Europe about how we can have the toughest sanctions regime possible. And that's obviously our intent, and that's what we will do. I mean, we will work with them around that. This has been a challenge for them as well in terms of tracking the transshipment of oil in different countries, in third countries but as they are working through ways of tracking that, I mean, we will absolutely be keeping up with that and making sure that we can have the maximum possible sanctions.

BOURKE: And do you have a goal that you would like to set for yourself about when we might be able to say we proudly don't accept oil from Russia regardless of where it's been refined?

MARLES: We want effective sanctions on Russia, and we want to stop Russian oil exports, and we want to close loopholes. We will be working with our partners, meaning Europe and the US, around how we can do that, and as they become more attuned to how to make those sanctions as effective as possible, we'll clearly be very interested in that. 

BOURKE: You said on a panel today that China is not providing reassurance, I think it was strategic reassurance, please correct me if I've accidentally verballed you. 

MARLES: No, that's– strategic reassurance is the phrase. 

BOURKE: I was taking notes, but I don't have them in front of me. And you talked about that in terms of China undertaking the largest military build‑up. If they're not providing strategic reassurance in your view, or in Australia’s view, what is China building up for?

MARLES: Well, I mean– firstly, it's a point I've made on a number of occasions, a point I've made at Shangri‑La. We totally acknowledge the right of any country to increase its military capability. We're doing that ourselves. The issue here is the doing so in a way which does provide reassurance to neighbours and indeed all countries of the world as to what your intent is in building up that capability. Now, for example, when we have walked down the path of AUKUS and acquiring a nuclear‑powered submarine capability, we have been at pains to speak to countries in the region and indeed the world, about why we are doing this. What is our intent?

BOURKE: Hang on, I'm going to stop you there. Lay out for me what our reassurance is in terms of AUKUS compared to the void that you identified with China?

MARLES: Well, I mean China hasn't given an explanation for why it's engaging in the biggest conventional military build‑up that we've seen since the Second World War. And that's the point that we're making. And without that explanation, it becomes a matter of disquiet for its neighbours and for countries around the world. Military build ups require resources and effort and are done for reasons. It is important that countries are transparent about what those reasons are. In relation to AUKUS, I mean, what we've said is that through the Defence Strategic Review –and again there's a public version of that which we've taken all of our neighbours and other countries around the world through – we see that the point of us having a Defence Force, what we are about as a country in terms of providing for our defence, is providing for the collective security of the region in which we live. We've been really clear that it's hard to conceive of the defence of Australia without a peaceful and stable Southeast Asia, for example, but Northeast Indian Ocean, Pacific, Northeast Asia. All of–seeing those parts of the world peaceful and stable is utterly central to our own national security. Having a highly capable, long‑range submarine is absolutely about making our contribution to that collective security. We've also made it clear that it is about giving pause for thought for any adversary which might seek to coerce Australia, but that's its point. There's not an aggressive intent. We’re not seeking to impose ourselves on any other country. It comes from the perspective of defending Australia, but understanding in an intelligent way that the defence of Australia lies very much in the peace and security of the region in which we live. And so we're making that contribution. Now, as we have articulated all of that to the countries of Southeast Asia, Northeast Indian Ocean, Northeast Asia, Pacific and more broadly, we have seen an acceptance grow, and actually a support grow for what we're doing in terms of acquiring this capability. That's what strategic reassurance looks like. Strategic reassurance, in fact, coupled with an increase in defence spending, which is what we're doing here. What we've not seen from China is an explanation for why they are doing their very significant increases in their capability and that's the point that we've raised. We've raised it directly with China. We speak about this publicly. 

BOURKE: And is there any assurance they could give that we would trust?

MARLES: Well, I mean– it's hard to answer that question without having seen an explanation offered, and there hasn't been. That military build‑up remains a fundamental fact in why our strategic circumstances are so complicated, and not just ours, obviously countries in our region and in the world. And so obviously we would want to see that strategic reassurance given, but in the absence of it what we are seeing is countries in the region significantly increase their defence spending to seek to protect their own interest and we now find ourselves in the position that we are.

BOURKE: We had several questions on one of your panels because Elbridge Colby was on it, asking about the language in the US National Defense Strategy and the National Security Strategy about Taiwan and this particular reference to the first island chain. And actually one of the questions from the Japanese reporter was that actually, China is operating already beyond the first island chain. What is your assessment, or the Australian government's assessment, about what that means in terms of security for Taiwan, or not?

MARLES: Well, I mean, we've been very consistent about our position on Taiwan and indeed, Elbridge Colby was very consistent in his answers today. And his answers were fundamentally right, and ours are going to be the same. I mean, it is a very sensitive matter. We do not want to see a unilateral alteration to the status quo across the Taiwan Straits. That is fundamentally where Australia lies. And it is very important we see going forward in terms of the peace and security of the region in which we live, that the status quo is maintained. You know, we, I guess, continue to express that. The countries of the region continue to express that–

BOURKE: But what about – what is your interpretation of where America is landed at? Do you see it as any sort of retreat?

MARLES:  I don't, no. I think Elbridge Colby was very clear today that their position remains consistent.

BOURKE: Yeah. Personally, I agree, but it’s good to hear you say it.

MARLES: Well, I mean, he was directly asked that and in fact, I think what I heard him say, was grounding his position by reference to what has been the historic position in the United States in relation to this.

BOURKE: An election you may have been watching quite closely was the victory of Takaichi in Japan. What was your take out about what China's coercive behavior can do in terms of domestic politics there?

MARLES: Look, I mean, I wouldn't consider myself, you know, an expert in Japanese politics. What I do know is that, you know, there’s multiple factors in any given election and no doubt they will pour over that result, and their election strategists will come to an understanding as to what they feel has happened. I mean, clearly I can congratulate the government for its re‑election. We've worked very well with their government and their defence minister, Shin Koizumi, is a person I've known a long time and have worked very closely with as I have his predecessors. Really, we look forward now to continuing to work with Japan in circumstances where our strategic alignment with Japan would be as close as it is with any country really and there is a deep trust between us, and that relationship is profoundly important to us, and we are investing heavily in it and doing more and–

BOURKE: And you went running with, was it the defence minister? 

MARLES: I went running this morning. 

BOURKE: He was there today, yes. Oh wait, you went running with him today?

MARLES: I went running with the defence minister this morning. 

BOURKE: In Munich?

MARLES: Yes, in Munich. 

BOURKE: Okay, I didn't know this. I saw you go running with him in Japan. 

MARLES: I did that too. 

BOURKE: So you're running buddies now?! I genuinely did not know this before asking this question.

MARLES: Shin and I have been– we went on our first run together, I think in 2022. So I've known Shin for quite a while. 

BOURKE: I hope you've got a picture and you're going to let me publish it.

MARLES: There are pictures around. But perhaps to lean into this theme, when I was there in December, there are always gift exchanges–

BOURKE: You’re a collector of snow globes. Did he give you one, or he’s already given you one?

MARLES: I don't know whether– he might have given me one, but what he gave me in December was a pair of Japanese running shoes, Mizuno, which I am now proudly wearing and he's very happy.

BOURKE: What did you give him? 

MARLES: Well, now that's a very embarrassing question. 

BOURKE: Australian diplomacy fail.

MARLES: I need to take that on notice. It was an excellent gift. It was a really–

BOURKE: Sure, sure, sure. Sure, sure, sure. Do you think that China's military build‑up that you were talking about and that lack of strategic assurance, do you think that's the greatest threat facing Australia?

MARLES: I think the size of the Chinese conventional military build‑up is hugely significant, and clearly changes the strategic landscape of our region and the world. You know, it is impossible not to, as a result, engage our interests because as we seek to kind of react to the strategic landscape that we face, this is a key part of it. You know, the world is– and to be clear, I mean, it's not, you know– we want to have the most productive relationship that we can have with China. And we repeatedly say that. China is complex. China are our largest trading partner, and we want to see that trade continue. And we definitely seek to engage with China, to convey these issues with China. We seek to engage with China in defence and we have since the very first meeting that I had with my then Chinese counterpart back in 2022, which was the first ministerial meeting between our two countries I think in three years. What we asked for in that meeting was a recommencement of the defence dialog between our two countries, which is not about resolving all our issues but it is having a much better understanding of how our militaries operate in a way which can avoid unintended consequences. And to be fair, since then, the defence dialog has worked its way through and increased in seniority, such that our Chief of Defence Force went to China last year for the first time in many years. So there has definitely been progress in that regard. So we work hard on the relationship but it is very clear that China gives rise to a security anxiety, and at the heart of that is their very significant conventional military build‑up, as I say, without a sense of strategic reassurance.

BOURKE: So it is our greatest threat?

MARLES: I mean– 

BOURKE: Well let me ask the other way. What is greater than that? 

MARLES: I'm not going to go into a kind of an assessment of ranking these things, but I've spoken about its significance and it is very much a part of the landscape that we face.

BOURKE: Do you think we're facing a rupture in the world order, or is that a bit overstated?

MARLES: I mean, we talk about facing the most complex strategic circumstances and in many ways, the most threatening strategic circumstances since the end of the Second World War. We've been saying that now for– really the moment that we came to government back in 2022. So it is a very significant moment. My hesitancy in engaging in that language is simply that the rules‑based order does matter and we think it is really important that we not cede the existence and the significance of the rules‑based order lightly. We are living in a world where power, hard power, is much more a part of the way in which the globe is relating to each other, but rules continue to be a part of this. There's always been a relationship between the rules‑based order and the fundamental power which is underpinning it. It's not like you have one without the other. And it's important to understand that connection as well. And there are going to be moments where power is playing a bigger role and I think that we are in one of those moments now. But the agency which rules give to a middle power like Australia is really important, so we’re going to continue to talk about that and highlight its significance. But I also think that actually, the rules‑based order operates at a much deeper level than people appreciate. I used the example today in the panel; if you fly over the borders between Australia and Indonesia in the Arafura Sea you can literally see the maritime border between our two countries because it's marked out by where Indonesian fishing vessels go. Like they won’t go beyond it. You can literally see a line as these fishing vessels are lined up against the end of the extremity of the Indonesian maritime zone. Now, you know, the people in those boats are not international lawyers, they come from fishing villages in Indonesia, and what they're engaging in is fishing. But they know what the rules are. This is actually the rules‑based order right there. And to me, it's actually a really powerful demonstration of how deeply this goes. That's not– you know, in so many ways that we don't even think about we live by those rules, and it's really important that we're acknowledging it, and that we don't walk down paths which inadvertently cede the significance of that. Yes, power is a much bigger part of what's going on right now, but rules are still there and they really matter and we proudly stand up in support of them.

BOURKE: This, I think, circles back nicely to where we began. By that logic, and I love that anecdote, by the way. By that logic isn't – when America, our ally, is choosing to break the rules quite brutally and sometimes in really ugly ways – isn't that harmful to us?

MARLES: Well, I mean, obviously we want everyone to adhere to the rules. And a lot of what we do in terms of our the operations of our Navy, for example, is asserting the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, freedom of navigation in parts of the world, in bodies of water where our trading routes are, because our trading routes are fundamental to our national prosperity. That makes sense. So we are for the rules‑based order. And we see, for example, in relation to what's going on in Ukraine that in many ways the rules‑based order is at stake there. I think the inspiring defence of its own country that's been going on by Ukraine is fundamentally about defending Ukraine, there's no doubt about that – and I'm not suggesting that this is in people's minds who are the soldiers on the ground – but in a larger sense, actually, you know they are fighting for the rules‑based order there as well.

BOURKE: Oh, and I think that is in the mind of them, by the way. Every Ukrainian I talk to knows they're fighting for Europe and by extension, global order or safety or whatever language you want to use these days.

MARLES: Well, you know– I mean, well they have our gratitude, you know, because that's certainly how we see it. And it is something that is very much about the defence of Ukraine, but it's something bigger than that. Look what I heard in Secretary Rubio's speech today, you know, in the midst of making it clear that strength is a really important part of the resolving of issues in the world today, and it clearly is – power does matter, and it has always mattered – but he did also say that the organisations that have been built up and the rules that come from them are important and shouldn't be thrown away. That was a part of the comments that he made today. And I think it, you know, both go hand in hand and it is just important that we don't get into a situation where we are kind of lightly looking at the significance of rules. They matter.

BOURKE: Final question. Now, you may have been on a plane when all this happened. I'm trying to calculate in my mind, but I'm not very good at maths being a journalist. The opposition in Australia has just changed its opposition leader from Sussan Ley, first female leader, she lasted nine months. Angus Taylor is now the leader. Regardless of all this change, what is clearly evident before us in the Australian domestic context is that you're potentially on the verge of eliminating a Liberal Party opposition. What comes next may be One Nation which is a populist far right anti‑immigration grouping, very, very similar to some of these movements in Western Europe, obviously we've seen in the United States. I don't know if you picked this up in Munich, but this has been a constant conversation over the last few months in Europe that this is starting to look like a national security threat, or it can be seen through this lens. Are you prepared, ready and able, as a center left Labor government, to take populism in Australia head on and defeat it? And how?

MARLES: So you're right, I was on a plane when that news happened. I mean, what is playing out in conservative politics is ultimately a matter for the conservatives, and in a sense any advice I'm going to give there would be gratuitous. From the government's point of view and from the Labor Party's point of view, we are very much focused on the issues that are facing Australians day‑in‑day out, focusing on cost of living, more accessible healthcare as a result, more accessible medicines, all the issues that we speak about, tax cuts and the like, but being very grounded in terms of the experience that Australians are having, and how we as a government can assist them. And we clearly do bring to bear the values that we have as a Labor Party, but we are very much focused on that. We're also focused on the idea that the vast majority of Australians live in the center, in the political center… and that we need to be contesting that and focused on it, which is really to say that we do need to be focused on the bulk of Australians, the issues that face them, and doing what we can as a government to assist them. It's for others, I guess, to judge about how successful we have been in relation to that. But that is our intent. And in doing that, and in kind of being laser-like focused on the issues that face Australians and how we can best assist and help as a government. I also think it goes to then the question you asked about populism. Populism doesn't have answers to those questions. Populism doesn't solve people's issues day‑to‑day. If we are a government which is focused on that, and which can make a difference, and I have absolute faith in the fact that come people's attendance at a ballot box they understand what government has or has not done for them. You know, that's how we can best operate as a government. That's how we can best serve the Australian people. And in the process, that's how we can best in a sense, take on populism.

BOURKE: I get all that and I hear it, but I guess what I'm really asking is, aren't you concerned about the collapse of center right politics in Australia, for the health of our overall politics? Just put aside the Labor MP hat for a minute and just put on the hat that we're conducting this conversation on. Because, you know, domestic politics is really, really important to a lot of these questions.

MARLES: Yeah– politics changes fast. I'm not about– the last thing I'm about to do is proclaim what you've just said. I mean, I think– I've watched our opponents go through difficult times, I've watched them come out of it relatively quickly. We've been through difficult times, we've been able to resolve things relatively quickly. Some things do persist, but I mean, a week is a long time in politics. What that truism is about is that things can change really quickly. And so I don't presume that what we're seeing on this day is what we will see in six months or at the next election. And the last thing you're going to hear from me is kind of in any hubristic way suggesting that our opponents have collapsed. They're going to work through their issues and they're going to be highly motivated in the way they do it. I still think we're going to have a contest of ideas in Australia, and we are just focused on making sure that as we contest those ideas from our perspective we're doing that to the best of our ability with a focus on the Australian people. And that's genuinely where I come from. And my fundamental presumption is that ultimately our opponents will get their act together, because there's a whole lot of humans there who are trying to do that. So I don't– who knows how this is going to turn out, is perhaps what I'm saying. And I think it's a bit– well, it's not for me to kind of cast the final judgment on conservative politics in Australia. But I also think people tend to rush to these conclusions very quickly and prematurely.

BOURKE: What was the most interesting snippet of information that you learned in a bilat? 

MARLES: That I did in a bilat? I mean, there is something in my mind, but I can't talk about it. 

BOURKE: Oh come on! Can you tell me at least who? Was it Rubio? 

MARLES: I've had a number of really interesting conversations, but I definitely can't talk about them. 

BOURKE: Then you shouldn't tease, it’s unfair.

MARLES: Okay, I mean a really interesting– the global reach of this conference is something I wasn't expecting. So today at the defence ministers’ lunch I found myself in a conversation with defence ministers from Ethiopia, from Rwanda and from Madagascar. I pointed out to my Madagascan counterpart that we are effectively neighbors, there's only water between our two countries and to speak to my Rwandan counterpart, for example, about the incredible transformation of that country over the last two decades is genuinely amazing. 

BOURKE: We did an interview in Rwanda, at CHOGM.

MARLES: We have both been there together. And it was really interesting to learn, I think, about the East African Brigade that they contribute to, which is headquartered in Nairobi and the degree of the countries that participate in that have defence ministers meetings every quarter. There's a whole lot of organisation in that African defence ministers meet every year. You know, the level of organisation amongst the defence community within Africa is genuinely extraordinary and kind of optimistic. Well, genuinely optimistic. Africa is reducing its conflicts, actually, by historic levels and that's why we're seeing Africa being the fastest economic growing continent in the world, which is a great thing in terms of lifting humanity out of poverty. I wasn't expecting to be thinking about any of those issues in coming from Munich, but I was over lunch today.

BOURKE: Well, I wasn't expecting that answer when I asked the question, but I'm very glad I did because it was a very interesting answer. And I think that might be my favorite interview that I've done with you. So Richard Marles, Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister of Australia, thank you so much for joining the podcast. 

MARLES: Thanks Latika, that was fun. 

ENDS