Subjects: PM’s weak response on PLA warships, defence budget, foreign aid, Ukraine
E&OE…
Patricia Karvelas: Let’s go to the Shadow Foreign Minister, David Coleman. David Coleman, welcome to the program.
David Coleman: Afternoon, Patricia.
Patricia Karvelas: The Albanese Government has lodged a diplomatic protest with Beijing over the drills, complaining about the lack of advanced notice. What more do you think they should do?
David Coleman: Oh, there’s a lot of issues here, Patricia. So let’s address the issue of the notice first. So the Prime Minister said that notice was given. He did say that there were concerns about the amount of notice. But what we learned today is that notice was given after the event had commenced. Plainly, notice isn’t particularly useful if it occurs after the event has begun. Now, with the Prime Minister, there’s two scenarios here. One is, the Prime Minister has misled the public. The other is simply, he doesn’t know what’s going on. And neither of them are reassuring, Patricia. So plainly, there was a very significant issue around the notice of this exercise, and plainly the Prime Minister’s statements have been false.
Patricia Karvelas: Okay. But he referred to, at the same time for the notice, so he didn’t dispute that the Virgin had told Air Services. What specifically is wrong with the statement?
David Coleman: Well, he said that notice was given and what we’ve learnt today is that the notice, which was provided via Virgin to Australian Defence Forces, occurred after the incident started, because they said that it started at 9:30 and the notice was provided after that. Now I don’t think you have to be a great analysis, a great analyst of the English language, Patricia, to think that notice should be provided before something happens, not after. And so the Prime Minister, it’s not a defensible position for him to say, well, notice was provided because plainly it wasn’t. So either he’s misleading people or he’s asleep at the wheel. I suspect it’s the latter, but he is the Prime Minister of the country, and he’s supposed to know what’s going on.
Patricia Karvelas: China says the People’s Liberation Army had issued repeated safety alerts ahead of the drills, and that his, the country, their spokesperson said was strongly dissatisfied with Australia’s response because Australia has put in, of course, a complaint. So given there is quite an obvious disagreement, what should the Government do now? What would you like the Prime Minister to do to pursue this?
David Coleman: Yeah, I think the key point here Patricia is the Government needs to be honest about what’s happened here. So there is this dispute about notice, and it’s clear that notice wasn’t provided. But more broadly, the Government needs to be frank about what’s occurred because effectively, the Government is saying absent the issue of notice, there’s nothing to see here. But plainly there is something to see here. And I think it’s really only the Prime Minister who’s suggesting otherwise. This isn’t something we’ve seen in our waters before. It is concerning, very concerning. And the Prime Minister should level with the Australian people rather than effectively saying there’s no issue here. So that’s point one. And point two is our Government should be raising issues related, not only to the notification, but also the substance of these incidents with their counterparts and expressing in a calm and mature but a firm way Australia’s serious concerns.
Patricia Karvelas: Yeah, in terms of the notice, your point is very clear on that. But in terms of the substance, don’t we do the same sorts of things in the South China Sea?
David Coleman: They’re quite different actually, Patricia. So we participate in exercises in the South China Sea with other nations in waters that are often disputed territories and it’s important that we do that. And as the testimony the Senate estimates was today that we don’t perform firing exercises on civilian aircraft routes or typical shipping routes. And plainly, this incident has occurred in the middle of some very busy commercial aircraft routes and busy shipping routes. And so, it’s entirely appropriate for Australia to express concerns about that. We should be measured, we should be calm, but we shouldn’t be weak. And this Government is very weak, and this incident is another example of that.
Patricia Karvelas: I just want to pick you up on the words ‘measured’ and ‘we should be calm’. Do you think in the past, obviously not this specific scenario hasn’t played out, but we have had in your previous Government, the Morrison Government had issues with the Chinese Government. They wouldn’t answer the phone, we had the trade sanctions. Do you think you failed to be measured and calm during that period?
David Coleman: Oh, no, I wouldn’t say that, Patricia. I mean, obviously there were numerous issues back then and the Coalition took strong action in relation to protecting critical infrastructure, our telecommunications networks and that wasn’t popular with the CCP at that time, but that was entirely appropriate. I think the broad point is that you don’t advance by being weak. You need to be strong. You need to be firm. We saw when the PLA fired sonar towards Navy divers, our Prime Minister had an opportunity to raise that with President Xi, a direct opportunity where something had been done which was quite dangerous and potentially could have injured our people representing us at sea. He didn’t do so, and that was wrong. And we don’t progress and frankly neither nation progresses, without honest dialogue and the Government should be honest about our concerns here.
Patricia Karvelas: Obviously, the relationship with China is an obviously difficult relationship. We have wanted to restore the trade relationship. We had wanted to use kind of different language, but at the same time take a tough line when it comes to these issues. Isn’t bipartisanship important here?
David Coleman: Well, I think that we all want to see a successful relationship with China, and we welcome the resumption by China of normal trading actions. We want to increase trade with China. It’s a great thing for Australia. But of course, Patricia, if we have a situation where there’s an incident like this, the Prime Minister is frankly all over the shop saying that notification has been given where it appears that it hasn’t, refusing to acknowledge the actual substance of the incident and basically saying there’s nothing to see here. We’re a great nation, we’re a mature democracy and we need to be able to talk about these things. And it’s in the interest of both Australia and, frankly, of China for us to have honest conversations and that’s what we should do.
Patricia Karvelas: I just want to move to a couple of other issues, if I can David Coleman. One of them is a really interesting announcement from the United Kingdom, obviously, a Labor Government there now. But Keir Starmer has pledged to increase defence spending in the UK, but also to cut foreign aid in the process. Is that a model Australia would follow under a Coalition Government?
David Coleman: Oh look Patricia, we’ve already said that we want to increase defence spending. And to be frank, President Trump has been criticised for calling on other nations to step up, frankly in relation to defense matters. But I think much of what he’s saying there is quite reasonable. We did increase defense expenditure significantly when in Government. Under the previous Labor Government, it got to the lowest level since World War II as a proportion of GDP. But we think there’s more to be done.
Patricia Karvelas: Okay let me pick you up on that because the Defence Minister, Richard Marles, released, of course, the National Defence Strategy, which aims to put Australia’s total defence spending at 2.4% of GDP within ten years. So will you commit to a higher percentage than that 2.4%?
David Coleman: Well, I think firstly on that release by the Deputy Prime Minister, Patricia, what perhaps was less prominent in the press release was that very little happens over the next 4 or 5 years, and those increases occur later. We need increased investment now. We need, we live in a increasingly complex world, and it’s important that we invest in our nation’s defence. Now, in terms of the specifics on Coalition defence expenditure, obviously we’ll have more to say about that prior to the election.
Patricia Karvelas: But I can’t help but try to pin you down. David, I can’t help myself. 2.4% or do you want it to be higher than 2.4%?
David Coleman: You are merely doing your job, Patricia, for which I have great respect. But you would understand my response equally, that we’ll have more to say about the specifics of defence expenditure prior to the election.
Patricia Karvelas: Okay. Let me ask you on aid. We’ve seen cuts to aid by the president in his budget, US aid and now Keir Starmer cutting back on aid. Do you think the Australian aid budget should be cut?
David Coleman: Oh, well look I think our aid budget is very important. There’s a lot of really important programs, particularly in the Pacific. We spend about $5 billion a year on aid. It’s a substantial investment. And again, in terms of any specifics around Coalition future plans in relation to aid spending, we will have more to say on that, as we will with all policy.
Patricia Karvelas: But on the principle, do you disagree with what we’re seeing in the US, in the UK, do you think aid should be quarantined from cuts?
David Coleman: Oh, Patricia again, look, I would simply say that our aid policy, as with all other policies, will be announced in advance of the election.
Patricia Karvelas: Just one more time, just for the fun of it. The aid budget, you mentioned $5 billion. Do you think all that $5 billion should be protected?
David Coleman: Well Patricia again, I’m simply going to restate the position as I’d say, to be frank, if you asked about any expenditure item, which is that we will have more to say about all of our expenditures closer to the election. And as unfortunate though it may be, we’re not going to announce them on Afternoon Briefing today.
Patricia Karvelas: That’s outrageous! That is outrageous! Look, I understand you don’t want to make announcements, but I think, as the new Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, aid obviously, particularly in our region, has been so key to repairing some of the relationships with the Pacific nations because of course, of the muscular role that China is playing in the region. Philosophically, is aid something that deserves protection. I’m asking you philosophically because you’re not going to give me a figure, but is that something you’d fought for?
David Coleman: Look Patricia, I would say that philosophically, aid has a very important role. There are many examples of really important humanitarian programs that Australia participates in that we should be proud of. And in terms of any specifics around aid expenditure, we’ll have more to say before the election.
Patricia Karvelas: Just final question on what we’re saying with Ukraine and the United States, a deal being done obviously, on access to critical minerals. But the US has twice sided with Russia in votes at the United Nations to mark the third anniversary of the Russian invasion on Ukraine. That’s quite alarming, isn’t it, David Coleman?
David Coleman: Oh, look Patricia, we support the position that the Australian Government took in relation to that UN vote. But look, what really matters here is securing a just peace, securing a peace that respects the security of Ukraine, the sovereignty of Ukraine, and a peace that Ukraine plainly must be a party to. We’ve had the third anniversary commemorations of the start of the war. I attended one in Sydney this week, and just, it was a very emotional night. The people of Ukraine have been heroic. We need to back them, and we need to ensure that any peace that is secured is a peace that is in the interests of Ukraine.
Patricia Karvelas: Thank you so much for joining us, David.
David Coleman: Thanks, Patricia.