Television Interview, News24 Newsday

SUBJECTS: US execution; Ukraine conflict; Defence Estate Audit; Renewable energy.

KIERAN GILBERT, HOST: Joining me live in the studio is the Assistant Defence Minister, Peter Khalil. So, Barnaby Joyce is very much opposed to the live streaming of that execution, the first military execution in quite a while in the United States; it's coming early December. What's your take on that? 

PETER KHALIL, ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR DEFENCE: Look, Kieran, my view is similar to Barnaby's actually. I think it has a real potential to cause real damage to people if they're watching this, especially children, but adults as well. I think we really want to make sure, as a Parliament, as a Federal Government, that broadcasters fulfil their responsibilities around violent and distressing material as far as the way that they broadcast any of this and make sure that they, I suppose, do the responsible thing under the law. 

GILBERT: So you wouldn't want anyone to be streaming it live? 

KHALIL: I would not want to see it livestreamed at all, and I think the online platforms and this is where they're responsibility comes in, now, you remember this happened with the Christchurch attack where there was that huge controversy around the livestreaming of elements of that or the footage. 

GILBERT: But this is the US Administration saying they want people to see it ‑ Pete Hegseth. So your counterpart…

KHALIL: Well, I don't agree with that; I don't agree with it. I think we have our own view here in Australia. Obviously, we don't have the death penalty; we don't support it in Australia. But that's a separate matter; that's up to them. As far as our responsibility, I don't think people should be watching this online or in a broadcast. 

GILBERT: Okay. And are there ways to get around that, as in terms of obligations of the Government to block it.

KHALIL: Well, the Communications Department has said there are certain laws around responsibilities of broadcasters, like mainstream broadcasters like your station. Online platforms also have obligations that they need to meet, and I think that needs to be monitored really closely. But this goes back to that broader debate when we talk about what kind of content is seen, we have restrictions around that, that's why we have ratings and things like that. 

GILBERT: So under the broadcasters' obligations, the Australian standards would preclude anyone from running that live. But you're worried about online?

KHALIL: Online platforms, so the tech companies have responsibility here as well. There are different standards here, I think, than the broadcasters that you have to meet. I've always had a view, sort of a general public policy point of view that content is content, and if the standards that we need to meet in one form of broadcasting, it should apply broadly. There's always been this debate that somehow online or the Internet is somehow different, or it's the Wild West. I don't agree with that. If something is explicit, if it's violent, if it would cause damage, if it's hate speech, or hate ‑ calling for the killing or hatred towards particular groups, there needs to be some restrictions about that. 

GILBERT: What's your reaction to the Trump-Zelenskyy situation at the moment, Donald Trump buying ‑ doing a deal with Vladimir Putin on diesel. 

KHALIL: Yeah. 

GILBERT: Are you comfortable? Is the Government comfortable with where things are at on that?

KHALIL: Well, I'll tell you now, Kieran, we are not going to change our position, and we have very tight restrictions and sanctions on the purchase of oil from Russia, and other goods, because the basic reason is this: Putin started this war, and he has continued to kill civilians in the conduct of the war; we've seen many civilians being killed, the attacks on the electricity transmission in Ukraine, the attacks on their gas and oil as well. So, I have a view that the international community shares ‑ a lot of the international community shares this – and that is that we need to be continuing to support a peaceful resolution to this war, an end to this war on the terms that maintain Ukraine's territorial integrity. 

GILBERT: So you disagree with the US Administration opinion on that? 

KHALIL: Well, President Zelenskyy welcomed any efforts by the US and support from the US, so that's our position as well. We want the US to be engaged to help support Ukraine and to help end this war. So any moves or overtures toward a peaceful resolution are welcomed, and it would be good news for American consumers around some of the diesel that may be accessible. But at the same time I think it's important that there is a real understanding of the responsibility of this war, and that is with Vladimir Putin. 

GILBERT: Peter Garrett, a former Labor Minister, at the weekend rallying and campaigning against the sell‑off of defence land with 1,000 other people in Sydney said the Albanese Government's guilty of poor politics and laziness in the sell‑off of some of these defence facilities, specifically Hamas Penguin, the partial sale of that site. 

KHALIL: Yeah. 

GILBERT: Near Sydney's Balmoral Beach. What's your reaction to that?

KHALIL: Well, isn't that interesting, because I have great respect for Peter Garrett, someone who's been an activist and a Minister in government in the past. However, a lot of this debate has been somewhat ill‑informed or people who are not fully informed. HMAS penguin is not being divested. In fact I made a decision last year and announced it that it would be retained. The Navy Diving Training Centre, the Clearance Centre that's there is state‑of‑the‑art, it is inherent to that site. This is being kept, the hyperbaric chambers are being kept, because it is operational and integral and it's difficult to move it. 

GILBERT: So why were 1,000 protestors there that think otherwise?  

KHALIL: Well, it's a good question. I think the partial divestment of HMAS Penguin is on top of the hill, it's bushland, it is not the operational centre of the base, that is being retained, that is a clear decision that we made, and that is based on a methodology that we have used looking at the defence sites across the country, the defence estate. This was the Defence Strategic Review, Angus Houston and others who authored it, explicitly recommending that we need to have a defence estate that is fit‑for‑purpose, that meets the operational needs of the current and future DAF force structure.

GILBERT: So that bushland, you'll sell it and turn it into houses or something? 

KHALIL: Well, what happens to disposed‑of sites is determined ‑ that could be ‑ there could be many uses there, and that's based on a number of factors through the due diligence that we do. But the point I wanted to make, Kieran, is that these sites, when we made decisions around these sites, some of them are not being used or under‑used or under‑utilised, some of them are empty, some of them are vacant, we're spending maintenance and sustainment dollars, almost $2 billion over the next decade to maintain and sustain some of these sites, and some sites are historically important, and we are protecting history and heritage. We are actually putting in history and heritage plans to ensure that those features, those buildings, those historical sites are not only protected but opened up to access the Australian people to enjoy our nation’s military history. But they're not operational sites. 

GILBERT: I want to ask you about a few other things. On energy, we're often talking about the Rewiring the Nation and our renewable push here. Chris Uhlmann wrote at the week end an interesting piece where he spoke about the Chinese take‑up of coal. It is the largest renewable take‑up in the world by a long way. 

KHALIL: Yep. 

GILBERT: But still, by 2030 they're saying that wind and solar will only amount to 30 per cent of that country's electricity. 

KHALIL: Of China's? 

GILBERT: Of China's. 

KHALIL: Yep. 

GILBERT: So despite the huge growth in wind and solar, there is still a dwarfing of our coal capacity in China. In 2025 it was four times our eastern coal capacity that they put online in one year. 

KHALIL: Yeah. 

GILBERT: So in terms of our approach to this and I'm asking you this as Assistant Defence Minister, do we need to be much broader in how we think about our energy security here given what China's doing and how pragmatic China is being? 

KHALIL: Well, there's two parts of to your question. I'm going to answer the first ‑ the second part around the defence equities here. So as Assistant Minister, I've been working on ensuring that we mitigate supply chain risk on diesel, for example, by improving renewable energies across our defence bases and infrastructure. For example, we've got solar panels that provide almost 50 per cent of the energy at RAAF Base Darwin and Robertson Barracks up in the Northern Territory. That's reducing emissions, it's lowering the taxpayer energy bill and it's mitigating against supply chain vulnerabilities, particularly around liquid fuels. That's a good thing to do, Defence should be doing that across the board to give us flexibility and contingency to protect against the shocks that we're seeing globally, and it's good for our Defence Forces. The broader question that you raised, Kieran, is a great one, because reducing emissions is a global effort, and you're right, China is responsible for I think 28 per cent of the global emissions the US is 20 and all that kind of thing.

GILBERT: But they're much more pragmatic than we are, aren't they? The way they go about it?

KHALIL: Well, we've got our responsibility to increase our renewable energy, which we're doing with solar and wind and renewable. We're a real energy superpower. We have that commodity, if you like, in spades. So that's a good path to take. 

GILBERT: Okay. Peter Khalil, Assistant Defence Minister, thanks, appreciate your time as always.

ENDS