Radio Interview, ABC AM

SUBJECTS: AUKUS export reforms; Middle East conflict.

DAVID LIPSON, HOST: Strict requirements governing the export of American weapons to Australia will be lifted from next month, in a move the government says will unlock billions of dollars of defence investment among our AUKUS partners – the US and the UK. The Defence Minister and Deputy Prime Minister spoke to me a short time ago. Richard Marles, thanks for joining us. How significant is this move for defence trade with the United States?

RICHARD MARLES, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: Well, what's occurred overnight is a very significant step. It really is the final step in establishing effectively a defence free trade zone between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. This follows on from the legislative package which went through the United States Congress at the end of last year, and the reciprocal legislation which went through our Parliament in March of this year. And what it means is that for Australian defence industry companies, they are now able to export into both the US and the UK licence-free. To give you some context there, we do about $9 billion worth of defence industry exports every year. $5 billion of that nine goes to the US or the UK. So, this is most of our defence exports. Perhaps as significantly what it also means is that technology coming out of the US and the UK can now come to Australia licence-free. And this is really important in terms of our ability to build our future submarines, but also to pursue that AUKUS Pillar II agenda of those new innovative technologies. So, this will see a much easier flow of technology and information between our three countries.

LIPSON: Some critics say Australia effectively binding itself to the US export system could hurt this country's exports of locally produced systems like the Ghost Bat aircraft, which is developed here and so far exempt from US restrictions. Have any measures been taken to ensure that doesn't happen?

MARLES: Well, actually, I think it's the reverse of that. I mean, the way to think about this is that when we are talking about exports into the US and the UK, this now happens much more freely without licences. So, the ability to engage with those countries, and that's what we're thinking about in terms of Ghost Bat, for example, is now much more easily done. Part of what we did in legislation that we put through our Parliament at the beginning of this year was to add a number of offences in relation to trading on defence controlled items beyond the three countries. But the big win here is the ability to be working with the US and the UK licence free. And that's actually why defence industry, and indeed academia, have been so supportive of what we've done.

LIPSON: Peter Dutton's call this week for a ban on all arrivals from Gaza has certainly upset a few people. Do you believe his language alone could have real world consequences here in Australia?

MARLES: Well, we've had the head of ASIO, Mike Burgess, make really clear that in the face of lifting up the alert level, that those of us who are engaged in public discourse, the words that we use, the language that we engage in, does have a real world effect and that we are seeing an increase in tensions, an increase in security risk in this country right now. And we all need to be mindful of that. And to be frank, I think what we seen in the Parliament over the last 48 hours has been a disgrace from the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal Party. I think we can look at those words and know what the Leader of the Opposition is doing here. We all know that the security assessment process is utterly unchanged to that which was applying when Peter Dutton himself was the Minister for Home Affairs and responsible for immigration. Those checks are rigorous and they remain in place. And so that's what's applying to anyone who is coming from Gaza.

LIPSON: He does point out there are some differences from when he was in government and people were brought from, for example, Syria, and they were taken to a third country, biometrically tested and the like, before coming to Australia. And I think at the core of what he's claiming is that the vetting of arrivals just isn't strong enough now. The Coalition is calling for a parliamentary committee to investigate the definition of what constitutes support for a terrorist organisation. Would Labor support that to, kind of, put any doubts to rest?

MARLES: Well, I don't think there are any doubts and I don't think, to be honest, Peter Dutton has any doubts. I mean, I think he actually knows what the situation is here and he knows that the processes that are in place are unchanged.

LIPSON: Would you support the inquiry?

MARLES: Well, again, the system in relation to listed terrorist organisations is utterly clear and that very much includes Hamas. And we have been very robust in the way in which we have condemned the actions of Hamas and condemned those who are associated with Hamas. And what our processes that we have in place do is ensure that people who are associated with Hamas do not pass a security check. And Peter Dutton knows that. So, again, this, I think, is about trying to create doubt and sow seeds of division, which is, in fact, the last thing that we should be doing here. I mean, we need to be bringing the country together in this moment to reassure people that the very robust systems that we have to protect Australians do work and do keep Australians safe. And the other point I'd make is that when Peter Dutton was the minister, we took rightly and it was a good moment for this country, 12,000 people from northern Iraq and Syria. It was a war zone. This was an area which at the time was controlled by ISIS. It was in the face of that that we reached out to, made an offering, if you like, to that cohort to come to this country. That was as it should be. It enjoyed the support of Labor in opposition. Indeed, we were calling for a measure of that kind at the time. This was from a war zone. Those people would come to Australia and are now making a contribution, and I really don't see why that principle is changed here.

LIPSON: Richard Marles. We'll have to leave it there. Thanks for your time.

MARLES: Thanks, David.

ENDS