Doorstop, Avalon

SUBJECTS: Chinese Naval Vessels off the Coast of Australia; Self Propelled Howitzer Project; Ukraine; Defence Spending; General Purpose Frigates. 

JOURNALIST: Minister, we're still seeing the Chinese Task Group in Australian waters. Is it embarrassing the way this has been handled in recent days? And has it highlighted any inadequacies in the ADF’s capabilities to monitor and track? 

RICHARD MARLES, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: No. It's been an example of how we've been able to surveil this Task Group in an unprecedented way. And we will closely watch the Task Group for as long as they are in the vicinity of Australia. And the purpose of that is so that when this is all said and done, we can analyse where they've gone, analyse their movements, and know exactly what the purpose of this mission has been. And we're very confident we'll be able to determine that. 

JOURNALIST: Would you like to see communication of possible live fires be quicker than what we saw on Friday from the New Zealand military, rather than the Chinese? 

MARLES: Well, to answer two parts, I mean, we have made clear that the notification, in our view, that was provided by China, whilst being compliant with international law was not up to scratch. It's not what we would do. It gave rise to the very disconcerting circumstance for the commercial pilots on Friday of having to divert their planes mid-flight. And that's really not acceptable. I mean, it is completely possible to give enough notice so that before a plane takes off, it's able to plan a flight path around whatever the area is. And that's the way we operate. We give 12‑24, in some cases, 48 hours’ notice, so that any approaching commercial aircraft, or for that matter ships, are able to make sure that they're well away from whatever we're doing. And that's the point that we've made to the Chinese. We've done that in Canberra, in Beijing, we've done that through our Foreign Minister. And to this point, to be honest, we've not had a satisfactory answer from China in relation to that. 

In respect of the communication between New Zealand and Australia, were totally happy with that. And I think we need to be clear about what's happening here. What mattered is that those people who were on task, on station, which in this instance was HMNZS Te Kaha, were in a position to do what they needed to do, which in this instance was to provide surveillance of the Task Group. And they were able to do that. That there is information, however long that takes to get to Canberra, I don't think there's any tardiness in relation to that. They were able to perform their job, and we will be able to get the information, have got the information in a way which enables us to analyse this going forward. 

JOURNALIST: If there are further deployments, as the Defence Chief warned yesterday, and more frequent, larger deployments is the Australian Defence Force up to being able to handle that, say if there's a task group on both coasts?

MARLES: We are confident about the capabilities of the Australian Defence Force. But let me make a couple of points about that, we all know that capability is not something you magic in an instant, capability is something which is developed over years, in instances, over decades.

I would prefer that when we came to government, there was greater capability. We had a lost decade under the Coalition government. When you're looking at what capability we bring to bear in 2025 that has a lot to do with the decisions that were being made in 2015. And to be frank, what we had was a government which gave us a lost decade, gave us a capability gap in relation to submarines, and its last few years was actually cutting the defence budget rather than expanding it. Right now, what we are doing is one of the most significant increases in the Australian defence budget in our peacetime history. In the last completed financial year, we have had the biggest expenditure in Defence acquisition ever, and this financial year is projected to be more. So we are building capability going forward. But I would make this point as well, what we have today is a capable Defence Force, and I am confident that we are able to manage events of this kind. 

The final point I want to make is this, it's really important that we take a deep breath here. Our touchstone has to be international law. The Chinese Task Group, as I'm advised, is complying with international law. And why that matters is because there's actually a greater frequency of Australian Navy vessels closer to China than there are Chinese vessels closer to Australia, and we rely heavily on our rights under international law to be there, and it matters that we're there, because that's where our trade routes are. And so we've got to use international law as our touchstone and, you know, China is complying with it. That said, we have rights under international law here as well, and they are to surveil, and we are doing an unprecedented level of surveillance. 

JOURNALIST: Final one from me, has the Prime Minister misled the public with his initial statement? 

MARLES: No, he hasn't. I mean, the Prime Minister referenced the fact that there was a broadcast from the Chinese Task Group, which is what happened. We made the point, and the Prime Minister made the point at the time, that the notice that was being given by the Chinese was not up to the standards that we would have in place, and that we were making representations to the Chinese government in respect of that. And we referenced the fact– I mean, fundamentally, the issue on Friday was that planes in the air, commercial planes in the air had the very disconcerting experience of hearing this broadcast and needing to make a decision to alter course mid-flight. That is a point that we were making on Friday. That's the point that we've been making from the get go. So when people are trying to understand what is this all about? That's what it's all about, and that is the point that we're making on Friday. And the Prime Minister was up front in relation to all of that. 

JOURNALIST: I’ve got a couple from me, one actually about Huntsman, since we're here. Look, the western world can't get enough self-propelled howitzers, Ukraine are showing how useful they are. The DSR cancelled the second tranche. Are you still comfortable with that decision?

MARLES: I am still comfortable with that decision. We have made clear that what we need is a mobile Army. We need– difficult decisions have to be made if what you want to do is build the capability of the Defence Force around your strategic objective, and our strategic objective is all about projection. So when we think about what are the capabilities in the Army, we are intrinsically thinking about what capabilities we can move, we can transport. If we are only talking about a capability that will only ever exist on the Australian continent, you have to have a question about that. And so that's what has driven our decision making in relation to the capabilities that we're acquiring, in relation to Huntsman, and in fact, in relation to Redback as well. And I'm very comfortable with that, because what we are doing is aligning our procurement of this fantastic capability with our ability to transport it.

JOURNALIST: Second one, on Ukraine, we've just seen the United States side with Russia in voting against the resolution condemning the invasion. We've seen the US throw Ukraine and Europe pretty much under a bus. Why wouldn't Australia be somehow exempt from that trend?

MARLES: Well, I think the only way I can answer this is firstly to articulate our view in relation to Ukraine, which is consistent. Russia is the aggressor here. We stand with Ukraine. That's why we've given a billion and a half dollars’ worth of support to Ukraine. That's why we've got Australians training recruits into the Ukrainian Armed Forces as we speak. And we will continue to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes for them to resolve this conflict on their terms. And whilst we all welcome efforts to bring about a peace to what has been a hugely damaging conflict, it can't be peace on any terms, it has to be peace which empowers Ukraine and allows this conflict to be resolved on Ukraine's terms. So our position in respect of that has not changed. That is what we are going to do in respect of Ukraine. In terms of Australia, I had a really good meeting in my first one-on-one meeting with– or in‑person meeting, I should say, with Secretary Hegseth and I feel very confident about the commitment of the United States to the alliance with Australia, but more broadly to the region. What's in Australia's interest is to have an ongoing American presence in the Indo‑Pacific. And everything I have heard from Secretary of Defense Hegseth only affirms my sense of confidence about the fact that that's what we will see under the Trump Administration.

JOURNALIST: So if an Albanese Government is re-elected, will it pledge to increase defence spending beyond the current levels? 

MARLES: Well, we have engaged in, as I said, arguably the biggest increase in defence spending in the history of peacetime Australia, certainly since the war, since the Second World War. It's $50 billion over the decade, more than what we committed actually at the last election, more than what we inherited from the Liberals. And to this moment, the Liberals have refused to add their voice to that commitment. And as they stand here talking about cutting the budget by $350 billion whilst they have stubbornly refused to support the $50 billion increase in defence spending, you can only conclude that that spending is on the chopping block in terms of what a future Liberal government would represent. As we go forward into the future, I've often said that defence spending in a rational world, is a function of strategic threat, and we are rational people. And so we will continue to assess the landscape, the strategic environment in which Australia lives, and we'll make our decisions accordingly.

JOURNALIST: Finally, Minister, yesterday in estimates, both the Deputy Secretary and the First Assistant Secretary indicated that a government decision on SEA3000 won't be made till next year. Have you counselled those bureaucrats on those comments? And will we see more than three built overseas?

MARLES: So we want to see a decision made this year, so let me be clear about that. And we want to see the quickest transition from an overseas build to an Australian build at Henderson in Western Australia. Our number one objective here is speed into service. What came out of the Surface Fleet Review was really a need to get more surface combatants into service in the Royal Australian Navy as quickly as possible. So that is our number one driving need, which is, of course, why general purpose frigates’ build will initially happen overseas. That's what gets it into service quicker. But we do want to see as rapid a transition as possible from an overseas build to a domestic build, and we're hopeful that that can happen within the numbers that we've described. 

ENDS