Television Interview, ABC News Afternoon Briefing

SUBJECTS: UK defence minister resignation; Defence spending; AUKUS

SARA TOMEVSKA, HOST: For the Government's view I want to now bring in Pat Conroy, the Defence Industry Minister. Pat Conroy, welcome to Afternoon Briefing.

PAT CONROY: Thanks for having me.

TOMEVSKA: There were some scathing comments from David Shoebridge, but does he have a point?

CONROY: Well, Senator Shoebridge has got no credibility in Defence and if he ever had any, it evaporated in his train wreck of an interview on ABC Insiders on Sunday morning. He's making jokes about the resignation of a very serious person in Secretary Healey who's made a great contribution to UK politics and to the Australia-UK relationship. And I want to thank John for all that he's done. But this doesn't impact AUKUS at all. This was a decision based on the resignation letter that's been publicised about his views about where the UK defence budget should go as a whole. That doesn't affect the commitment to AUKUS at all from the UK Government.

TOMEVSKA: Doesn't it? I mean if he's, if the Defence Secretary isn't sure if enough money is being spent on defence, doesn't that cast doubts about the future of the pact?

CONROY: Not at all. Because in the UK system the funding for the nuclear systems, the nuclear deterrent and the nuclear attack submarines is ring fenced from the rest of the defence budget. And Senator Shoebridge should have known that when he made his ill informed and quite frankly juvenile comments. The nuclear budget is ring fenced from the rest of the defence budget, so the discussion and debate in the UK right now is how much to increase the other parts of the defence budget, unrelated to what they're spending on submarines.

TOMEVSKA: Okay, but Defence Secretary John Healey resigning hours before he's supposed to meet with Richard Marles, it's not a great look, is it?

CONROY: Well, he did meet with Richard the day before at the annual AUKMIN two-plus-two discussions between Richard and Penny and their counterparts in the UK system. I think the timing is coincidental. I think there's an element of sort of tall poppy syndrome or cultural cringe here where we think everything's about Australia. This has got nothing to do with Australia. This is about the UK Government and their decisions around how they fund their defence budget. I think we shouldn't look at Australian angles for everything that's announced overseas, quite frankly.

TOMEVSKA: Do you think the UK's defence budget is adequate?

CONROY: Well, that's a question for the UK Government. I'm not going to go on your show or any other show and lecture them about what their funding should be. What I can say to you is we're increasing our defence budget. We've increased it over the last two National Defence Strategies by $117 billion. Our defence budget is as a share of GDP, using a NATO measurement to compare apples with apples, already higher than UK, already higher than every single European nation other than Poland and the Nordic countries. Higher than Japan, higher than Korea. It is a very significant contribution to the defence of our country, and peace and stability in our region.

TOMEVSKA: But John Healey is saying that 3.5% by 2035 is not high enough. Australia's commitment is 3% of GDP by 2033. Angus Taylor has called on the Albanese Government to increase defence spending. Should you look at that again?

CONROY: Well, again, I go back to my point. We have increased defence spending. We've increased our $117 billion over the last two planning cycles, over the last two years of NDSs. Secondly, the 3.5%, in the UK context is while spending an enormous amount of money on the nuclear deterrent - building and maintaining nuclear ballistic missile submarines, which is not part of our policy, not part of our plans. So, we're already spending more than the UK and we're spending much more than the UK on conventional weapons, once you take out of the UK spend, they're spending on nuclear ballistic missiles and nuclear ballistic missile submarines. So, we're spending a good amount. But Angus Taylor's got zero credibility on defence. He was part of a government that cut $20 billion from the defence budget when they were in power. He's part of a party that just plucks figures out of the air with no plans on what they'll spend the money on. He was part of a government that had six defence ministers in nine years. So, taking lessons from Angus Taylor on this is like taking lessons from Angus Taylor, quite frankly, and anything else to do with government because he's that incompetent.

TOMEVSKA: How vital is the UK to the AUKUS alliance? Could AUKUS survive without the UK?

CONROY: Well, you're asking me to engage in a hypothetical, but the critical fact is that AUKUS is a trilateral technology sharing pact. It's an agreement between Australia, United Kingdom and Australia to share technology for us to produce nuclear powered but conventionally armed submarines in Adelaide, creating 20,000 jobs and to have a common design with the UK. That’s one design but two build yards, one in the UK, one in Australia. So, the UK is obviously a vital partner in that endeavour, but there's nothing to question their commitment to this endeavour. I visited the UK, including as recently as February, where I saw the first parts of the two reactors going into our first two submarines being made. So, I think I've seen parts of our first two submarines being made right now in the UK. It is in the UK’s interest for AUKUS to continue just as it is ours.

TOMEVSKA: But we are now in a situation where Government figures in both the UK and US are raising serious concerns about their ability to deliver both the Virginia class submarines and eventually SSN AUKUS submarines. So, at what point does the Federal Government say, we do need to think of a contingency plan in case there is a capability gap?

CONROY: Well, first I'd say who are these figures? I've seen this resignation leader from Secretary Healey. It doesn't mention AUKUS at all. His public statements the day before was that AUKUS --

TOMEVSKA: But the US has raised concerns about its industrial base. That's also a concern in the UK. If the Virginias don't arrive by the end of the 2030s into the 2040s, there's a capability gap, isn't there?

CONROY: Well, we're extending the life of the Collins class submarines and we're hitting every major milestone with AUKUS. And I've got no reason to believe that the first Virginia submarine will not be delivered in the early 2030s as currently planned. We're talking to the United States now about identifying which is the submarine that makes most sense to be transferred over. The US administration reaffirmed their commitment to AUKUS only two weeks ago when released the new statement.

TOMEVSKA: But what happens once the Collins class submarines lifespan perishes? You seriously not planning for contingencies in case there's a submarine gap?

CONROY: Well, we'll have Virginias being delivered from the early 2030s and the first SSN-AUKUS, the first submarine manufactured in this country, will be delivered in the early 2040s. The first Collins class will retire around 2040. So, we'll be having Virginias delivered before then and then the first Australian-made nuclear-powered submarine delivered in the early 2040s. We're in this situation because the last government chopped and changed for a decade. First they were going to build submarines in Adelaide, then they're going to buy submarines off the Japanese, then buy submarines off the French, then they cancelled that and joined up the AUKUS. We've dealt with that capability gap by extending the life of the Collins and negotiating to acquire three in-service Virginia submarines. And that's our plan and we're hitting every major milestone. Point to an example of where a milestone has not been met. So far they've all been met.

TOMEVSKA: I just want to go through some of the criticism on AUKUS coming within Labor. Former Foreign Minister Gareth Evans said AUKUS will prove to be one of the worst defence and foreign policy decisions ever made by an Australian government. There have also been concerns raised within the Labor rank and file. ACTU boss Sally McManus said she expects that AUKUS will be debated at the national conference next month. Will you allow free debate on this issue?

CONROY: Well, conference delegates are free to move motions from the conference floor in accordance with the rules and procedures of the Labor Party. So, of course a free and willing debate is always allowed and always encouraged. But this was ventilated both in shadow cabinet and caucus and in cabinet and received agreement. It was discussed in detail at the 2023 National Conference where over 80% of delegates supported it, which is an overwhelming endorsement in terms of the nature of these debates. So, this has been well and truly debated.

TOMEVSKA: The debate back in the 2023 conference was quite tightly managed. I mean you must acknowledge there's still significant concerns about this within the Labor membership and rank and file, isn't there?

CONROY: Well the National Conference is the ultimate decision making body for the Labor Party and over 80% of delegates voted to support it. So, that's an overwhelming endorsement. I'm confident that if it gets debated again this year we'll receive a similar level of support for it. You'll always find some people opposed to any given policy. But I put to you and people running this line, where is the evidence of this groundswell of support for changing the Labor Party's position?

TOMEVSKA: It’s an understatement that there's people that are unhappy about this.

CONROY: Well we've just seen delegate elections for example in NSW where Labor Party rank and file members got to elect a delegate from every single electorate and not a single person aligned with that position got elected. Not a single person got elected who identified with that position. So, I'm citing evidence, I'm citing branch members actually issuing their votes and casting their votes based on this issue and other issues. The other side can, can put up lines, but where are the delegates who are getting elected and saying, I will vote this way?

TOMEVSKA: Point taken. Just on another matter, Pat Conroy, Donald Trump is confident the war in Iran could end this weekend, but there's still going to be a long tail and lingering impacts to global fuel prices. Given anger in the electorate and the rise of one nation, the government's not really going to have much option but to extend the fuel excise beyond the end of the month, won't it?

CONROY: Well, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about that sort of discussion. What I can say to you is we want the conflict to deescalate. We want peace in the Middle East, we want the Strait of Hormuz open so fuel and other resources can flow freely --

TOMEVSKA: Sure, but it runs out in a few weeks

CONROY: We've been incredibly active in securing additional shiploads of fuel through our diplomacy in the region and we're continuing to do that and we've been focused on that. Obviously, the cut in the fuel excise was an important announcement and measure that has helped with dealing with the impact of the Middle East, but I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals.

TOMEVSKA: Well, the Treasurer says the door might be open. Pat Conroy, we might have to leave it there. Thank you for your time.

CONROY: Thanks for having me. 

ENDS