Radio Interview, ABC RN Breakfast

SUBJECT/S: Chinese Naval Vessels off the Coast of Australia.

SALLY SARA, HOST: Who knew what and when? They're the questions being asked in Canberra this week after Defence officials confirmed they only learned about China's live firing in the Tasman Sea 40 minutes after the firing window opened, via an alert from a Virgin Airlines pilot. The confirmation appears to contradict earlier suggestions from the Prime Minister that China gave notice, albeit very little. The Opposition now accuses the Government of downplaying the incident and says a more strident response is warranted. Defence Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles is my guest. Mr Marles, welcome back to Radio National Breakfast.

RICHARD MARLES, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: Good morning, Sally. How are you?

SARA: Very well, thank you. You said on Saturday that there was only very short notice given before these drills began. So, when were you given this notice?

MARLES: Well, notice was given at the time that has been said in Senate Estimates. We've made really clear that that notice was inadequate. It notified a window which, according to the evidence in Senate Estimates, would appear to have begun before the notice was given. But it's also unclear whether or not live firing took place. But in any event, I think the point is this; whilst what China has done, in terms of the advice that's been given to me, is in accordance with international law, it was very clear to us at the time that this notice was inadequate. That was a point that we made publicly. That was a point that the Prime Minister made. And it was on the basis of that we made representations both to China through their embassy in Canberra and through our embassy in Beijing, and indeed between our two Foreign Ministers. And while it does comply with international law, it's not the standard that we operate by. I mean, at the end of the day, we would, in a live firing event, be giving 12–24, sometimes 48 hours’ notice. But the point is giving enough notice such that a plane that has not yet taken off is able to have a plan to fly around the exercise that we're conducting. Now what occurred on Friday morning was that there were planes in the air that was receiving this information while they were flying. That would have been deeply disconcerting, a point that we made on Friday, and they had to divert accordingly.

SARA: So, just so I'm clear on the timeline, when you said on Saturday there was only very short notice are given before these drills began. In fact, the notice which was given to the Virgin pilot in the air was after the window for the live fire had begun, is that correct?

MARLES: Well, that's the evidence that's been given at Senate Estimates and I'm not about to contradict that. It's also the case though that it's not clear on Friday whether any live firing took place. That is to say that the New Zealand frigate which we were working closely with, which was the frigate that was observing the Task Group at the time, didn't observe any live firing on that day. And so that needs to be understood as well. But we're not suggesting here for a moment that what occurred was adequate and we can get into a question of, you know, who said what when and a question of minutes and the like. At the end of the day, what was clear on Friday was that the broadcast that China issued was such that there were planes in the air that needed to divert mid-flight. That in our view was unacceptable. And because of that, and by virtue of that, we made representations to China about that on the day. Now, we also do need to be mindful that the best advice right now, with all that has been given to Senate Estimates yesterday, is that China is complying with international law and international law has to be our touchstone here. Now, we operate to a standard above that. China has not operated to that standard, the point that we were making on Friday, and they could have, in our view, given much greater notice, which wouldn't have been disconcerting or as disconcerting to those airlines that were flying. And it's precisely because of that that we made the representations to China that we did.

SARA: Minister, the interest in the timeline is not only about when China gave notice, it's also the timeline of the response from Australia and New Zealand. This timeline was clarified in estimates yesterday when Liberal Senator James Paterson was questioning the Defence Chief, David Johnston. Let's have a listen to that.

JAMES PATERSON, LIBERAL SENATOR: The Government's been very clear that the notification was not timely, that it should have been earlier. But you're now telling me that notification was not received, at least, by Defence, by Australia, until after it commenced. That's not any notification at all, is it?

ADMIRAL DAVID JOHNSTON, CHIEF OF THE DEFENCE FORCE: No.

PATERSON: Had it not been the case that a Virgin commercial airliner had been in the area, picked up that radio report and referred it to Airservices Australia, how long would it have taken for us to know that this live firing exercise was taking place? 

ADMIRAL JOHNSTON: The advice through the New Zealand vessel on station, through its national reporting, we received it at 11:01 of the morning. That is approximately 50 minutes or somewhat less than an hour since that advice came to us from Airservices.

PATERSON: But 90 minutes after the window commenced for the live firing exercise?

ADMIRAL JOHNSTON: That we here knew. But of course, the important notification is to vessels and aircraft operating in the proximity of the activity.

SARA: That’s some of the audio yesterday from Senate Estimates. It was more than an hour and a half after the window for this Chinese firing was open that New Zealand notified Australia. Are there issues to be resolved in how long it took the ADF to find out through official channels, had that Virgin pilot not passed on the information?

MARLES: I don't think so. And I think the Chief of the Defence Force in the answer that he just gave there was really clear. I mean, what matters is that the personnel who were on station at the time, and in this instance it was HMNZS Te Kaha, were aware at the time. Now, you know, they were the ones who needed to take the immediate action, which in this instance is fundamentally the surveillance of what occurred. And what we know of what occurred both on the Friday and the Saturday comes from Te Kaha. I mean, they effectively did surveil to the best possible terms. And we have the information that we have about what occurred by virtue of Te Kaha. I think trying to make something of when that information ultimately makes its way to Canberra is not the pertinent point here. The pertinent point is– 

SARA: But surely if this were a real incident that was unfolding, if it takes an hour and a half for the ADF to be notified by one of its closest allies, isn't that too slow?

MARLES: Well, firstly, it wasn't a real incident and there's, you know– what we have been doing from the beginning, and this is the really critical point, is to firstly, observe whether or not the Chinese vessels are complying with international law. And the best advice that I have is that at all moments in time they have. I think we really do need to bear that in mind here in terms of all the commentary that is being undertaken. And secondly, that we are in a position to learn exactly what the Task Group is doing so that whenever this Task Group’s mission is complete, we can properly assess exactly what they were trying to achieve by virtue of the mission. Now all of that activity is being conducted, it's being conducted efficiently, principally by Australian assets, but in combination with our allies. And given the location of where this occurred on the Friday, it was a New Zealand frigate that we were working with that was on station. I mean, all of that is occurring as we have planned it and that continues to be the case for as long as these ships are in the vicinity of Australia.

SARA: So, if Australia is under threat down the track and it takes New Zealand an hour and a half to let us know what they have seen, that would be ok?

MARLES: Well, I mean, you're conflating two different circumstances. I mean, no one is suggesting that that is what is occurring here. And so to equate what is going on with the observation of a Chinese exercise with, you know, with a real threat is not fair in terms of what is going on right now versus the kind of response that we would have if there was a real live threat. What's going on here is there is a Task Group which is undertaking an exercise, and we are surveilling that exercise. And that is a very different circumstance to the country being under threat. But the other point I would make is that when there is action in any context, what matters is that the people on station are in a position to act promptly and effectively. And that occurred in this instance as well. And you could run a ruler over, you know, when various actions have had happened in the field and responses that have occurred in the here and now and when the information about that ends up back in Canberra. But what ultimately matters is that you've got mechanisms in place, training in place, procedures and command in place which allow the responses to occur on station and that occurred in this instance.

SARA: Minister, just briefly, do you know where the flotilla is now and if it is accompanied by a nuclear submarine or not?

MARLES: Well, we do. The flotilla is about just over 500 kilometres west of Hobart. It is on the edge of Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone. In terms of the question of a submarine, and I note that there is been commentary on that. We don't know whether there is the presence of a submarine and that in part speaks to the nature of submarines. That's why submarines matter. That's why we're investing heavily in our long‑range submarines. So, we can't answer that question definitively. Which is precisely why it's important that Australia has long‑range submarine capability. But we are observing closely the Task Group and we will continue to do so for as long as this Task Group is in Australian waters. And I think it really is important, Sally, to understand that we keep referring to international law as being our touchstone because we do activities north of Australia. The reality is that it is much more common for Australian vessels to be in the vicinity of China than for Chinese vessels to be in the vicinity of Australia. Now, that is for good reason, because we have trade routes which go through places like the South China Sea, which is why we are active there. But we rely heavily on our rights under international law to do the important work that we engage in in that part of the world. And what is therefore really important is that we keep referencing the bedrock of international law when we're dealing with a Task Group here. Now, what is within our power under international law is to engage in the surveillance of this Task Group. And what we are doing is an unprecedented level of surveillance in relation to this particular Chinese mission, much more than what we saw under the former government. So, while we've got, you know, a whole lot of people out there–

SARA: But we had to rely on the New Zealand Defence Force and also, in the initial case, a Virgin pilot, to know what was going on?

MARLES: Well, we are absolutely working with the New Zealand Defence Force and we do that unashamedly. They are a close partner and ally. And as this Task Group came into Australia, well, near Australia, to the north of Australia, and we thought about what were its possible pathways and obviously we didn't know what it would do then. We at that point started working with New Zealand and other partners in the region to make sure that we were able together to surveil this Task Group and that’s exactly what we've done. And the information, the fundamental information about what this Task Group is doing does come from the combined Defence assets of ourselves and our allies. Now, I come back to the point, you will hear the Opposition out there talking a big game. It's less about what you say, it's much more about what you do. And when they were in government, they were not doing anything like the surveillance that we're doing now. And being in a position where, you know, essentially what you do is yell at the world, which is really, was their M.O. when they were last in government, does not make Australia safe. In fact, it's quite the opposite. What we need to be doing is actually making sure that we are taking the decisions necessary to put in place proper surveillance in this instance. But to be sober in the way in which we look at this and to be have international law as our benchmark. 

SARA: Minister, we'll need to leave it there. Thank you for your time this morning.

MARLES: Pleasure, Sally.

ENDS