Doorstop, Rockingham

SUBJECTS: Middle East Conflict; US Army equipment and materiel in Australia at Albury-Wodonga (Bandiana); AUKUS; AUKMIN; Indo-Pacific; Pauline Hanson; World Cup; Hancock Prospecting

JOURNALIST: How confident are you the Iran peace deal is going to hold, and how long will Australia's Wedgetails be required in the Middle East still to sort of maintain trade?

RICHARD MARLES, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: Well, firstly, we really welcome the announcements that have been made, and the progress here, we've been saying for some time that we want to see a de-escalation, and so the peace deal is obviously very good news. We will continue to monitor all of that. We very much call on all the parties to adhere to the peace deal. It is a really important step forward in terms of not only bringing peace to the region, but restoring formality to the global fuel supply chain, and seeing an opening of the Strait of Hormuz. In terms of the Wedgetail, we will continue to have the Wedgetail in the region for as long as it's useful, is the answer to that question, it has been very useful up until this point in time, in terms of providing for the defence of the countries of the Gulf, and specifically the UAE. We've also made clear that in terms of whatever may ensue with the multinational maritime mission, we have committed an E-7 to that, and so that is also a process which will play out, and we're in close consultation with both the United Kingdom and France, who are leading that.

JOURNALIST: The Bandiana Army base, the US Marine Corps, clearly moving ahead with its plans to move weapons and defence material there. Why do they need that there in the southeast of Australia when their presence is more so in the north?

MARLES: Well, firstly, the Bandiana and America's presence there dates back to a decision that was taken at the 2023 AUSMIN, and successive AUSMINs since then have placed a significance on Bandiana. We are seeing a growing US footprint in Australia, that is important in terms of building our own military capability, but also it's very important for Australia's national security, and clearly a significant part of that will happen right here with the submarine rotational force west. As part of all of that, logistics is critically important, and that's why we are now Bandiana as being a logistics node for US force posture going forward. It has proved really useful as America has participated in an increasing number in exercises, such as Talisman Sabre. As to its location, one level that that kind of speaks to force posture more generally in Australia. Yes, we very much need more capable northern bases, and we are investing in those, but it's really important that we are developing capabilities across our country, which include in the south, which do provide logistics support for our northern presence, but for our posture more generally, and that's why Bandiana is where it is from an Australian point of view, and having an American presence there in terms of their logistics is going to be really advantageous.

JOURNALIST: So, does it have anything to do with keeping their stockpiles out of the PRC's range of conventional [indistinct]?

MARLES: I wouldn't describe it in the context of a particular country. What we're doing is seeing America build its footprint in Australia, which is very good for our national interest and for our national security, and as we see America do more or engage in greater number in exercises like Talisman Sabre, got Pitch Black coming up in a month or so out of Darwin, all of that requires logistics support, and Bandiana is a very useful part of that. An American logistics footprint is part of its overall force posture on the continent, Bandiana is a place which supports logistics support for the Australian Defence Force, and it makes sense that as America seeks to do that, it would do it at the same place.

JOURNALIST: Has Donald Trump been humbled by Iran in respect of the agreement that they've apparently reached?

MARLES: Look, I wouldn't walk down that path—

JOURNALIST: Can you name one success that he's had out of this war since they went to war against Iran four months ago?

MARLES: When the conflict commenced, we made clear that the strategic objective of denying Iran a deployable nuclear weapon was a very important strategic objective. Now—

JOURNALIST: But they don't have agreement on it?

MARLES: Well, in terms of America's own statements, in terms of the extent to which that has been degraded over the last few months, we take that at face value, but what matters here is that we are seeing peace being restored to the Middle East, which is what we've been calling for some time. I mean, we made clear that, in terms of what America itself has been saying around the effect that it has brought to bear through its campaign, that degrading Iran's capability had largely been achieved, that's what America was saying publicly, and on that basis, for some time now, we've been saying it's important to see this de-escalation occur.

JOURNALIST: Has that been achieved at the expense of Donald Trump's reputation?

MARLES: Well, I mean, I take what America has said at face value in terms of what has been achieved in degrading Iran's capabilities in terms of a deployable nuclear device, and that includes the way I use that phrase, that includes the missile program, but what matters now is that we are seeing a de-escalation and a restoration of peace, and really that is the focus here, and that's what needs to be the focus from all the parties to this, and all the parties in the Middle East. What the world must see now is a restoration of the global fuel supply chain, that means an opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and a return to normality.

JOURNALIST: The commander of America's Indo-Pacific Fleet has issued a report overnight warning Congress that more arms are urgently needed and billions more spending to combat the growing threat from China. Does Australia share that view?

MARLES: Well, I mean, what we share is that we have seen a very significant military build up by China over a significant period of time now, but it does represent the largest conventional military build up that the world has seen since the end of the Second World War, but that's not happening with strategic reassurance, and that does fall part the strategic landscape that we face, and it's really why we need to be seeing deterrence put in place, balance put in place, so that we can maintain the peace and stability of the Indo-Pacific, of the region in which we live, and that's very much behind our thinking in terms of why we're increasing our defence expenditure and defence capability in such a significant way, but we are seeing a hugely significant American presence in the Indo-Pacific. The Indo-Pacific Command is the largest combatant command that the United States operates. We welcome the statements that you will find in America's key strategic documents, the National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy, which were released at the end of last year, which placed an emphasis on deterrence in the Indo-Pacific, in terms of being able to maintain that peace and stability in this region.

JOURNALIST: I was just curious, the alert for this morning's event didn't include Minister Papalia, I wondered if you were just a tad nervous that he might do a John Healey on you?

MARLES: How the alerts go out is above my pay grade, to be honest, but all I can say is I have very much enjoyed my partnership with Paul for a very long period of time.

JOURNALIST: So, it’s concluding?

MARLES: That's not what I'm saying. I feel like I should stop speaking, but I really enjoy my partnership with Paul, and it's been critical in terms of delivering AUKUS in Western Australia.

JOURNALIST: Did Secretary Healey give you any warning?

MARLES: Look, in relation to – I really enjoy my partnership with John Healey, I think he's been a really significant Secretary of Defence for the UK. I met John obviously on numerous occasions, but actually recently in terms of AUKMIN last week, but prior to that, just over two weeks ago, we were in Singapore as part of the AUKUS Defence Ministers meeting with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth. This is clearly a decision which John has taken himself, and I'm not going to comment on that, other than to thank John for the partnership that he has shown in working with us, he visited here actually last year and saw the developments at HMAS Stirling. He'd been incredibly complimentary about the work that we're doing in delivering AUKUS and specifically Submarine Rotational Force West. We had earlier this year HMS Anson here, which was, I think, really important in terms of giving a UK character to what's going on at HMAS Stirling between the two of us. We negotiated the Geelong Treaty, which is the critical bilateral treaty between the UK and Australia, which underpins the trilateral arrangement of AUKUS. I very much appreciated my working relationship with John.

JOURNALIST: But isn’t it embarrassing, no-show, you know, for Australia’s closest ally, AUKUS partner, did it leave you in the wind a bit?

MARLES: No, not at all. And again, this is a decision that John's taken, and fundamentally is a matter for him, but I'm very appreciative of the relationship that we've had.

JOURNALIST: How long do you expect Dan Jarvis to hold that job?

MARLES: Well, I'm very much looking forward to my first engagement with Dan Jarvis, and we'll hope to have that in the not too distant future, and I look forward to an equally productive relationship with Dan Jarvis.

JOURNALIST: But his resignation was on funding there. What does that say about the UK's ability to deliver on AUKUS, especially their promise to ring fence defence funding?

MARLES: We feel really confident about the way in which we are proceeding with the UK in respect of the delivery of AUKUS. I understand that I'll kind of be consistently asked questions about AUKUS, as obviously I should be. It's a major public expenditure, which is very important for our defence capability and very important for the national interest. But in terms of its progress, I think we're at the point now when my fundamental answer to it can be looking at the track record over the last few years — AUKUS is happening. Well, there's 1000 people in Australia today who are now employed in delivering AUKUS. Obviously, that number grows significantly. If you go to HMAS Stirling, just here, you'll see a hive of activity as it gets ready for Submarine Rotational Force West, and it is on track for that to happen next year. The presence of HMS Anson earlier this year was a great demonstration of the UK's commitment to AUKUS, and specifically the delivery of HMAS Stirling as the home of Submarine Rotational Force West. In terms of the SSN AUKUS, which is the submarine that we will build, that we will operate jointly with the UK, we're really on track in terms of delivering the construction yard at the Osborne Naval Shipyard. We were in the UK last week, we got an update on how that is all proceeding in terms of design, and again, all on track. So, we feel an enormous sense of confidence that AUKUS is happening, and actually, I think you can now look at the track record of milestones that have been delivered over the last four years to give you a sense of confidence about that as well.

JOURNALIST: If the UK's own Defence Minister resigns over this own funding, well, then that suggests that there's a real problem?

MARLES: Look, I'm not going to go into the specifics of John's decision. I can only tell you that, in terms of our partnership with the UK in respect of AUKUS, it is happening. It is happening on time. We are completely comfortable with the UK's commitment to it, and it's delivering.

JOURNALIST: But he's laid out the specifics of his decision. I mean, that letter made it pretty clear, and this is the Defence Secretary of the UK saying we're not spending enough fast enough. I mean, that's pretty clear cut.

MARLES: Well, I'm not going to get into his decision—

JOURNALIST: But can't you respond to what he said in his letter? I mean, he's right, AUKUS is in trouble.

MARLES: His reasons go well beyond the specifics of AUKUS, which is a program within the UK's defence budget. His letter doesn't specifically go to AUKUS at all, and literally we have just come back from the UK, where we've been engaging with them in detail on specific progress of AUKUS, and it is happening on time, and again you can look at the track record over the last few years to get some comfort from that, but as I look forward on the basis of all the engagement that we had with the UK and all the briefings that we've had, we are very confident that AUKUS is going to be delivered and that the UK is very much playing its part.

JOURNALIST: Pauline Hanson has promised to increase defence spending up to 5% of GDP. What's your reaction to this as a budget?

MARLES: What I think we need to see is not enough of the detail. With anything in this role, it's actually detail that matters. You need to be able to describe what our strategic posture is, what kind of defence force we're seeking to build, what you're going to spend this money on. That's what I would like to hear, not just from Pauline Hanson, but in fact from the opposition, is exactly how they see us growing our defence force and our defence capability. You've had all of that detail from us. I mean, as we launched the National Defence Strategy this year, which comes on the back of the National Defence Strategy that we did two years ago, which in turn comes on the back of the Defence Strategic Review that we did in 2023, you have the clearest articulation of our strategic objective of the Defence Force that we need to build in order to meet the strategic moment and the way in which we are building it, that's the kind of detail that is required to deliver defence policy, and it's that detail which then generates a number rather than the other way around, and throwing out a number and saying you're going to do it, that's not defence policy, and that's all we get from the other side at the moment.

JOURNALIST: Can I just get your reaction to a little bit of Pauline Hanson's speech this morning? She says, quote, "We cannot be a multicultural society, we are a multiracial society, but we must be monocultural. Australians must live under the one culturalist umbrella." What do you make of that?

MARLES: Well, I think Australia at our best has done multiculturalism as well as any country in the world. I think one of the things that's become really clear in terms of our own way in which we express multiculturalism is that the most Australian thing you can do is to express your culture, that's why we see great events like in my hometown, the Pako Street Festa, which are a celebration of the richness of Australian multicultural life, making up what Australia looks like today, but you know what we need to hear, we watch Pauline Hanson walk down these cultural war paths. I think what people are doing like here for Pauline Hanson today as she speaks at the National Press Club is how is she going to help improve the lot of working Australians. What is she going to do for workers in this country? What's she going to do in terms of wages? What's her view on penalty rates? What's her view on the bread and butter issues, which go to the questions of people's household budgets, which enable them to survive over a period where there have been cost-of-living challenges in the aftermath of the pandemic, and obviously what we've seen in relation to what's played out in the Middle East. I think Australians want to know how their governments are going to help them. I think they're much more interested in that than they are in culture wars, and frankly, on the critical issues of how we make life better for Australians, Pauline Hanson has been notably absent, as has the opposition, and that is what we need to hear from the non-government parties.

JOURNALIST: Just on the World Cup, the Americans say that we're a lay-up game. Do you think we have what it takes to win?

MARLES: Well, I think the Americans themselves were very nervous that Turkey might end up topping our group, and we performed admirably in relation to Turkey. I am mindful that somewhere around me is the Chargé d'Affaires, so lest I attract too much of Erika's eye right now, I can say that I am really looking forward to the next game against the United States. Actually, we've been looking forward to this game for months, since we first announced that we will be playing the US in Erika's hometown of Seattle, and maybe Erika has gone, but it is her hometown, so we're really excited about it. I mean, we're so proud of what the Socceroos have done, and we have a great sense of [indistinct] about how they'll progress through the tournament.

JOURNALIST: Minister King, just quickly, Hancock Iron Ore has announced or confirmed pretty big job cuts this morning. What's your reaction to that? And also, you've been sort of accused by the opposition of siding with the unions in the Pilbara dispute with BHP. Have you?

KING: To the Hancock question — obviously, this is a very disappointing turn of events. And first and foremost, my thoughts and the thoughts of the government are with the workers and their families who will be affected by these job losses. It's a deeply stressful time when people's jobs are changed or lost in that fashion, and we would expect that Hancock Prospecting will ensure that those workers do receive, and receive promptly, all the entitlements that they have earned and truly deserve. In relation to other matters to do with other operators in the Pilbara, I would just repeat what I said before, is that workers are entitled to work together to get the conditions that they deserve for the very, very hard work they do.

JOURNALIST: Do you believe the current offer undervalues their work? Do you believe they are underpaid currently?

KING: I'm not part of these negotiations. This is a matter for the workforce and for the companies themselves, but what I do believe is the workers are fully entitled and indeed should seek to get the best conditions they can. What we know is that the work that goes on in the Pilbara is hard and it's extraordinary. People spend a long time away from their family and their friends. They don't always have a choice in what those shifts are, and that's understandable too. It's part of the operations. It is the powerhouse of this nation, but it would not be a powerhouse without those workers.

ENDS