Speaker 1: From the Australian. Here's what's on the front. I'm kristin amiot.
Speaker 1: It's Thursday, March sixth, twenty twenty five. Brisbane residents will
Speaker 1: bear the branch of cyclone Alfred's one hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: five kilometer per hour winds, rain and flooding on Friday,
Speaker 1: when the storm is expected to lash the Queensland capital
Speaker 1: for twelve hours. For all the latest on the Category
Speaker 1: two storm, visit the Australian dot com dot AU. Defense
Speaker 1: Minister Richard Miles says he's absolutely confident US President Donald
Speaker 1: Trump will follow through on his support of the historic
Speaker 1: August Defense Pact between Australia, the United States and the
Speaker 1: United Kingdom. Bard South Australian Premier Peter Malanowskis says questions
Speaker 1: about the White House's commitment are starting to wear thin.
Speaker 1: In a wide ranging conversation at the Defending Australia conference
Speaker 1: in Adelaide on Wednesday, co hosted by The Australian and
Speaker 1: our colleagues The Advertiser, the Defense Minister fielded questions about
Speaker 1: aucust defense spending and those warships of the Australian coast.
Speaker 1: In today's episode we're bringing you parts of that fascinating
Speaker 1: conversation with Richard Miles and Shadow Minister for Defense Andrew Hasty.
Speaker 2: Minister is going to ask do you trust Donald Trump
Speaker 2: when it comes for his support for aucas.
Speaker 1: That's The Australian's chief international correspondent Cameron Stewart chatting with
Speaker 1: Defense Minister Richard Miles in Adelaide on Wednesday.
Speaker 3: I do, and I actually have a sense of confidence
Speaker 3: about where we can take the alliance under the Trump
Speaker 3: administration and the alignment of effort in terms of the
Speaker 3: focus that we're bringing to peer in terms of our
Speaker 3: own security, but what the United States is doing in
Speaker 3: terms of its focus on the hopes.
Speaker 1: South Australian Premier Peter malinowskis, who'd broken ground on a
Speaker 1: new shipbuilding academy that'll produce the graduates who'll build August
Speaker 1: submarines earlier on Wednesday, alongside the Defense Minister, jumped in,
Speaker 1: can I ask a question?
Speaker 4: I was thinking about this today after our press conference.
Speaker 5: Every single time Richard or I have stood up announcing
Speaker 5: some progress milestone in terms of UCUS or any other
Speaker 5: time on radio and South Australia, an event has occurred
Speaker 5: where aucust becomes a tom of conversation.
Speaker 4: I get asked that question.
Speaker 5: I'm not too sure what more needs to be done
Speaker 5: before those questions stop. All three countries have gone through
Speaker 5: a change in administration or government from one political party
Speaker 5: to the other, and not one word has been added
Speaker 5: by any Prime minister, any defense minister, or a defense secretary,
Speaker 5: or the US president of either political persuasion that has
Speaker 5: actually said anything on the record that would suggest that
Speaker 5: ORCUS is in.
Speaker 4: An ongoing commitment.
Speaker 5: And yet, while I can understand there's a desire to
Speaker 5: ask the question given that things can change quickly, evidently,
Speaker 5: nonetheless there's been no suggestion that this is going to
Speaker 5: be an issue.
Speaker 4: Sure.
Speaker 2: Premier Kolby today spoke about the fact that he thought
Speaker 2: it was great to sell Virginia class submarines to Australia,
Speaker 2: but he said if the production of those submarines is
Speaker 2: not fast enough, that might be a problem for the US.
Speaker 2: That comes to a central question to trust in future
Speaker 2: administrations to actually sell those submarines if their Virginia roll
Speaker 2: out is not fast enough.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I can understand those comments, but in a sense, let's
Speaker 3: think that through it is really I think the beauty
Speaker 3: of the Optimal Pathway that we announced in March of
Speaker 3: twenty three, that there really is something in it for
Speaker 3: all three countries. We are playing a very significant role
Speaker 3: now in increasing the production rate and the sustainment rate
Speaker 3: of Virginia class submarines in America. For America, that's something
Speaker 3: that they acknowledge. That is something which is utterly different
Speaker 3: to any other relationship they have with literally any other
Speaker 3: country when it comes to their bilateral defense relationships. The
Speaker 3: strategic benefit to the United States of ORCUS is really
Speaker 3: understood by the United States. And if the production rates
Speaker 3: don't increase in relation to Virginia's, as both Pete and
Speaker 3: I were saying to each other, there's a whole lot
Speaker 3: of issues that America faces in that moment, But what
Speaker 3: ORCUS is about is ensuring that we jointly succeed on
Speaker 3: that effort. It is in Australia's interest that America has
Speaker 3: a greater availability of Virginia class submarines. We need America
Speaker 3: to be the most capable they can be, and America
Speaker 3: needs us to be the most capable we can be.
Speaker 3: And they're fundamentally I think you use the word trust,
Speaker 3: trust is actually at the heart of the relationship. And
Speaker 3: to Pelee's point, I mean we do keep getting asked
Speaker 3: those questions. I get that we will get those questions.
Speaker 3: It is a lot of money, it goes over a
Speaker 3: long period of time. But what I'm really confident about
Speaker 3: is we'll answer those questions.
Speaker 4: That means something.
Speaker 3: What means much more is the actions that we put
Speaker 3: into place, and that is what's occurring.
Speaker 1: In the hours before his defense Minister sat down to
Speaker 1: chat with cam Stewart, Anthony Albanizi was moving to reassure Australians.
Speaker 1: The Royal Australian Navy was keeping close tabs on a
Speaker 1: flotilla of Chinese warships currently off the coast of Wa.
Speaker 5: The Chinese vessels are currently, as of a very short
Speaker 5: while ago, five.
Speaker 2: Hundred and ninety three kilometers southwest of Adelaide.
Speaker 1: The trio of ships entered international waters between Australia and
Speaker 1: New Zealand on Friday, where they conducted a series of
Speaker 1: live fire exercises that sent air traffic control into disarray.
Speaker 6: It, of course, last Friday, caused chaos in the air
Speaker 6: between New Zealand and Australia, forcing the diversion of forty
Speaker 6: nine flights when it began a live fire exercise.
Speaker 1: The Chinese vessels have been circumnavigating Australia in the day since,
Speaker 1: shadowed by Australian Navy ships.
Speaker 7: In seas never previously sailed by the Chinese Navy. The
Speaker 7: warships are being shadowed by HMAS Stewart, a New Zealand
Speaker 7: frigate to Kaha. The federal government believes China not only
Speaker 7: wants to show its military reach, but normalize its presence
Speaker 7: in the region.
Speaker 1: The appearance of the ships called the readiness of Australia's
Speaker 1: defense force into question and prompted a diplomatic war of words,
Speaker 1: with leaders from Australia and New Zealand claiming China should
Speaker 1: have given both nations a heads up before commencing the exercise.
Speaker 1: In Adelaide on Wednesday.
Speaker 4: It was the question on everybody's lips, how often have
Speaker 4: we seen that before?
Speaker 3: We've seen Chinese warships in the vicinity of Australia before.
Speaker 3: I would describe it as an unusual event. It's not
Speaker 3: a completely unprecedented event, though. When it became clear that
Speaker 3: a task group was coming to Australia, we in an
Speaker 3: unprecedented way made a decision and it was very much
Speaker 3: a direction of mine to make sure that we were
Speaker 3: surveiling this to the greatest possible extent. We did that,
Speaker 3: and I did that because it appeared to me at
Speaker 3: the outset that there was the prospect of this Task
Speaker 3: Group being in the vicinity of Australia for some time.
Speaker 3: We needed to do two things, which is what we
Speaker 3: have done. The first was to ensure that the Task
Speaker 3: Group complied with international law at all times, and I'm
Speaker 3: advised that they have and that is important to understand.
Speaker 3: And secondly, to get a clear understanding of what the
Speaker 3: Task Group is trying to achieve in its mission by
Speaker 3: looking at exactly where it goes, it's configurations, the training
Speaker 3: and the activities that it's undertaken. And we've had a
Speaker 3: close eye on all of that, which of course is
Speaker 3: our right. I'd make this point as well, though international
Speaker 3: law has to be our touchstone here. It has to
Speaker 3: be our touchstone because there is much more often Australian
Speaker 3: Navy ships in the vicinity of China than there are
Speaker 3: Chinese Navy ships in the vicinity of it. We do
Speaker 3: live firing exercises that we do live firing exercises on
Speaker 3: the high seas, which is what China did. But we
Speaker 3: also were not happy about the notice that was given
Speaker 3: by the Chinese Navy in that particular event, and we
Speaker 3: made it our concerns known to China, both in Canberra
Speaker 3: and Beijing and at the level of our foreign ministers.
Speaker 3: But I come back to the point. We are much
Speaker 3: more present in the vicinity of China than China is
Speaker 3: in the vicinity of Austina, and that's not gratuitous. That's
Speaker 3: for a reason because that's where our trading routes are
Speaker 3: and it's really important that we are in a position
Speaker 3: to continue to assert freedm of navigation in and around
Speaker 3: our trading routes.
Speaker 4: For that to occur.
Speaker 3: To continue, international law has to be our touchstone and
Speaker 3: our bed rock. We're taking this very seriously. We've surveilled
Speaker 3: this in a way that was not done previously under
Speaker 3: the former government. But equally, we're not breathlessly trying to
Speaker 3: hand this up either. And it's really important that we
Speaker 3: observe the fact that they have been maintaining their obligations
Speaker 3: in respect of the international law, and that's relevant in
Speaker 3: the context of what we seek to do in the
Speaker 3: proximity of China.
Speaker 4: And that's fair enough.
Speaker 2: Sure, but you've seen what they were doing, and I
Speaker 2: think you said a couple of days ago, you're trying
Speaker 2: to find out a bit more about exactly what they
Speaker 2: were doing. But is it cricket? Are they trying to
Speaker 2: send a message? Is this just bogs navy drills?
Speaker 4: Look, I'm not saying that.
Speaker 3: I think it is really important to conduct this surveillance
Speaker 3: to properly understand exactly what they were doing, what they
Speaker 3: were practicing, and I think from there to understand what message,
Speaker 3: if any, is being sent to us. And I'm not
Speaker 3: going to leap into that and speculate about that before
Speaker 3: we get the proper assessments coming through in respect of
Speaker 3: what we have observed, not for a moment, And I
Speaker 3: don't want to be seen in suggesting that this is standard.
Speaker 3: That is not my position. It is the case that
Speaker 3: they've complied with international law. We're not going to fall
Speaker 3: into the trap of breathlessly complaining about activities which are
Speaker 3: in compliance with international law, which would lead us to
Speaker 3: being in a compromised position in terms of what we
Speaker 3: seek to do within the vicinity of China. That said,
Speaker 3: we are clearly going to observe this really carefully, which
Speaker 3: we have been doing to understand exactly what's going on
Speaker 3: and to understand exactly what was being practiced and what
Speaker 3: messages are being sent. And I'm not all sanguine about
Speaker 3: all that.
Speaker 1: In a surprise statement on Tuesday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanizi
Speaker 1: said he's open to sending Australian troops to Ukraine in
Speaker 1: a peacekeeping capacity. It followed a fiery White House exchange
Speaker 1: between Ukrainian President Voladimir Zelenski and US Vice President jd
Speaker 1: Vance that flipped everyone's understanding of the Russia Ukraine War
Speaker 1: on its head.
Speaker 4: What kind of diplomacy? Ggus became aboved.
Speaker 7: What do you mean?
Speaker 8: I'm talking about the kind of diplomacy that's going to
Speaker 8: end the destruction of your country as but President, mister president,
Speaker 8: with respect, I think it's disrespectful for you to come
Speaker 8: to the Oval Office to try to litigate this in
Speaker 8: front of the American.
Speaker 1: Media right now, you guys in Adelaide on Wednesday, Defense
Speaker 1: Minister Richard Miles said, comparing Australia's reluctance to send boats
Speaker 1: to the Red Sea during a period of heightened attacks
Speaker 1: on commercial shipping vessels in late twenty twenty three. Isn't
Speaker 1: exactly comparing apples with apples.
Speaker 3: I think we need to be clear about exactly what
Speaker 3: America asked. We are folk and it is part of
Speaker 3: what comes out of the Defense Strategic Review and is
Speaker 3: now in the national defense strategy. We are very much
Speaker 3: focused on the Indo Pacific. We are focused on our
Speaker 3: strategic task, and that is to build a defense force
Speaker 3: which can resist coercion from any potential adversary. Now we
Speaker 3: see that what is happening in Ukraine is relevant to that.
Speaker 3: It's relevant to that because the global rules based order
Speaker 3: that is so central to our national interests as an
Speaker 3: island trading nation where there's a physical manifestation and that's
Speaker 3: our sea lines of communication, freedom navigation goes directly to
Speaker 3: our national prosperity where all of that is under pressure
Speaker 3: in our region and all of that is on trial
Speaker 3: in Ukraine.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 3: We have been supporting Ukraine from the get go and
Speaker 3: we will continue to support Ukraine. Right now, there are
Speaker 3: Australian personnel in Britain who are involved in the training
Speaker 3: of new recruits to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. So we
Speaker 3: actually have Australian men and women committed right now. The
Speaker 3: only point we've made is that as we listen to
Speaker 3: our partners, which over the last three years has been
Speaker 3: the United States, but our partners in Europe, including the
Speaker 3: United Kingdom, including Ukraine itself, when they have asked for support,
Speaker 3: we have considered that and worked out how we can
Speaker 3: do it. And if there is a request of this kind,
Speaker 3: we'll do the same. We'll consider it and work out
Speaker 3: if we can make a contribution.
Speaker 2: And on that line, if the US military aid to
Speaker 2: Ukraine continues to be frozen, would that be a reason
Speaker 2: for Australia to consider an increase of military aid to Ukraine.
Speaker 3: I think the fundamental answer here is we will continue
Speaker 3: to support Ukraine for as long as it takes for
Speaker 3: Ukraine to resolve this conflict on its terms. And again,
Speaker 3: it's an understandable question that's been consistently asked of me
Speaker 3: during the last three years, and we have consistently been
Speaker 3: announcing packages of support for Ukraine. Will continue to go
Speaker 3: down this path, and as requests are made of us
Speaker 3: by Ukraine itself, by our partners who are supporting Ukraine,
Speaker 3: will consider them.
Speaker 1: Coming up, Shadow Minister for Defense Andrew Hasty sits down
Speaker 1: with The Australian's Foreign Affairs and Defense correspondent Ben Packham
Speaker 1: on Wednesday. Donald Trump's pick for a top job at
Speaker 1: the US Department of Defense put the pressure on Australia
Speaker 1: to ratchet up defense spending. Elbridge Colby noted Australia is
Speaker 1: currently well below the three percent level of GDP advocated
Speaker 1: for by NATO, despite our relative proximity to China. Defense
Speaker 1: Minister Richard Miles said Labor is, if re elected, willing
Speaker 1: to engage with the US on defense spending.
Speaker 3: Firstly, we have increased defense spending, as you said, Cam,
Speaker 3: under our government. It's an additional fifty billion dollars over
Speaker 3: the decade, which is now actually in the budget. And
Speaker 3: to contextualize, that's the big increase in defense spending in
Speaker 3: our peacetime history. So I understand very much the position
Speaker 3: that America is taking. I think it is completely reasonable
Speaker 3: that America is asking its friends and allies around.
Speaker 4: The world to do more. We're totally willing.
Speaker 3: To engage in that conversation with the United States, which
Speaker 3: we've already started.
Speaker 1: Males opposition counterpart Andrew Hasty told Ben Packham the coalition
Speaker 1: will pony up if they're elected.
Speaker 9: Look, we've already indicated very publicly that we will increase
Speaker 9: defense expenditure. We gave a hint of that over the
Speaker 9: weekend with the additional three billion dollars committed towards the
Speaker 9: acquisition of the fourth squadron of F thirty five's but
Speaker 9: will announce our full costings and our budgetary plan in
Speaker 9: Duke Horse closer to the election.
Speaker 10: A whole one percent. That's quite a big leap. Where
Speaker 10: does the money come from? Do you think to get
Speaker 10: the defense budget up to that sort of a level.
Speaker 9: That's a good question, and I'm sure the Deputy Prime
Speaker 9: minister's working that through as well, because it's a message
Speaker 9: to Australia from Bridge Colby, who's going to take a
Speaker 9: very central part in the Trump administration.
Speaker 4: So we've got our plan. We're going to.
Speaker 9: Announce that in due course and you won't be getting
Speaker 9: a scoop here, Ben, Sorry to say.
Speaker 10: The personnel crisis the defense is facing, it's one of
Speaker 10: the biggest challenges facing the ADF and it could seriously
Speaker 10: limit our capability ambitions. This isn't a new thing. It
Speaker 10: was a problem under the former government too. What would
Speaker 10: the Coalition do differently to get more Australians into uniform.
Speaker 10: Is it about offering more money, lowering standards? What's the plan?
Speaker 4: I think there's a range of things.
Speaker 9: We are having a recruiting crisis and last year ninety
Speaker 9: percent of ADF applicants withdrew their application from defense. I
Speaker 9: think we need to challenge this generation of Australians to
Speaker 9: service fairly old school values of serving your country, defending
Speaker 9: your country, being part of this great Anzac tradition which
Speaker 9: has been handed down to us.
Speaker 4: I think that's really important.
Speaker 9: And the point I'm making is political leadership matters here
Speaker 9: and if we're not getting a signal from the government
Speaker 9: that service in the is important. It's a really great
Speaker 9: opportunity to grow as a person, and of course there
Speaker 9: are benefits as well. But whenever he ad is about
Speaker 9: self actualization rather than service, if it's not a challenge
Speaker 9: given to these young people, they're not going to take
Speaker 9: it up. I also think there's big problems within recruiting itself.
Speaker 9: Administrative bungles, people being basically eliminated because of previous medical records,
Speaker 9: which I think are quite trivial. So there's a risk
Speaker 9: aversion within the actual contractors who run recruiting, and I
Speaker 9: think we should have more uniforms against that problem, just
Speaker 9: like the Marine Corps do. They put their best officers
Speaker 9: and they're best enlisted against the problem. They give them
Speaker 9: targets and it's a part of progression for them in
Speaker 9: their careers.
Speaker 10: You've been quite direct in your attacks on Anthony Albanezi
Speaker 10: and Richard Miles, accusing them of weak leadership. You said
Speaker 10: it recently in relation to the Chinese warships. How do
Speaker 10: you think the government has been weak and what would
Speaker 10: do you do differently on defense?
Speaker 9: I think the Prime Minister failed to stand up for
Speaker 9: the national interest and he failed to insist on mutual respect. Now,
Speaker 9: the Deputy Prime Minister said that we often do patrols
Speaker 9: up in waters that are contested under international law as
Speaker 9: part of multilateral formations or groupings, and my understanding is
Speaker 9: whenever we've done live fire in that context, it's always
Speaker 9: been deconflicted, controlled and as part of a wider coalition.
Speaker 9: For example, went not off the coast of China, disrupting
Speaker 9: their commercial flight path, and so the issue was that
Speaker 9: we didn't get notice and it disrupted our commercial flight path,
Speaker 9: and I think the message is quite clear from the
Speaker 9: Chinese government. They're now a global power with a bluewater navy.
Speaker 9: They're projecting deep into our waters. And this happened at
Speaker 9: the same time, of course, that Donald Trump was resetting
Speaker 9: relationships in Europe with NATO, and I think it was
Speaker 9: a test for US. There's a reason why they sailed
Speaker 9: past the Philippines through the Arafuracy, the coral Seed, down
Speaker 9: past Sydney, and they've circumnavigated the country as well.
Speaker 4: So I think there's a.
Speaker 9: Message there, and I think the average person on the
Speaker 9: street with a PhD in Life got the message pretty
Speaker 9: and clear.
Speaker 10: Is it strange to you that Anthony ALBINIZI would be
Speaker 10: open to sending troops to Ukraine but not Peter Dutton.
Speaker 10: Why shouldn't we back our support for Kiev with boots
Speaker 10: on the ground.
Speaker 9: Look, I think there's been no formal request as I
Speaker 9: understand it, and this would be a decision for the
Speaker 9: Prime Minister and the National Security Committee of Cabinet, and
Speaker 9: so there's a lot to play out yet in the negotiations,
Speaker 9: which reached an inflection point on the weekend in the
Speaker 9: White House. And so I think this is a decision
Speaker 9: for a government of the day when a request comes forward.
Speaker 4: That's not ruling it in or ruling it out. But
Speaker 4: I just don't think we should rush. I just don't
Speaker 4: think we should rush to.
Speaker 9: Commit young Australians to a conflict without a request. And
Speaker 9: so I think Peter and I are very closely aligned
Speaker 9: on this.
Speaker 4: On Orcus.
Speaker 10: We've seen Donald Trump cozy up to Russia, call Vladimir
Speaker 10: Zelinsky a dictator and whaka twenty five percent tariff on
Speaker 10: Canada and Mexico. Do you trust Donald Trump to do
Speaker 10: what he says? And in your view, is UCAS a
Speaker 10: lock under his leadership?
Speaker 4: Look, I think UCUS is a lock under his leadership.
Speaker 9: But I think Donald Trump as a president studies your
Speaker 9: hand very closely. And I think it's incumbent upon the
Speaker 9: Prime Minister to demonstrate the strong hand in future negotiations.
Speaker 4: And I think Prime Minister is flat flooded.
Speaker 9: He's not agile, and he should have gone already to
Speaker 9: meet with Donald Trump and to.
Speaker 4: Establish that relationship. We've got a great hand.
Speaker 9: We've got strategic depth here, which is what we're going
Speaker 9: to deliver through Aucus. We're already delivering it through Darwin
Speaker 9: and Alice Springs and the joint facilities that we have there.
Speaker 4: And of course we have an abundance of.
Speaker 9: Rare earths and critical minerals which will be essential for
Speaker 9: military and space applications going forward.
Speaker 10: So we need to hume bearing gifts, really.
Speaker 9: Not come bearing gifts, stake our position and argue it
Speaker 9: a bit.
Speaker 4: A hip and shoulder in the Oval Office.
Speaker 9: I think in any sort of negotiation you need strength.
Speaker 1: Ben Packham is the Australian's Foreign Affairs and Defense correspondent
Speaker 1: and Cameron Stewart is our chief international correspondent. You can
Speaker 1: read all our teams reporting and analysis right now at
Speaker 1: the Australian dot com dot au