September 4, 2023
Monday 4 September 2023
Interview with Tom Connell, News Day
Subjects: US-Australia alliance, AUKUS, Voice referendum
CONNELL: Labor has changed plenty of policy since coming to power, but it has been resolutely supportive of much of the Coalition's existing approach to defence, especially the reliance on the US having peace in the Indo-Pacific as a major priority. Can we rely on that being the case in an ongoing sense? One defence expert believes that proposition is not as assured as the government seem to think it is. Sam Roggeveen says the US interest in our region is waning, nuclear submarines could be a poor use of money if we are left to fend for ourselves. A response on this, I'm joined by Shadow Home Affairs and [Cyber] Security Minister James Paterson. Thanks for your time, I know you've read widely in this area and you're one that's swayed by those sort of arguments. But what did you make of this because the chief contention around the US interest in our region is waning, in a broad sense, seems accurate. And a Trump presidency could change that even more I suppose, it's something we have to be aware of, isn't it?
PATERSON: I should say up front, Tom, I haven't read Sam Roggeveen's full book but I've read the excerpts and so I want to be fair to him in disclosing that. And I also want to say in a liberal democracy, dissenting and contrarian points of view on any public policy issue is a welcome and healthy thing. We should be testing robustly our ideas, but particularly on national security, where these are enormously consequential long-term decisions with a lot of money involved. Having said that, I profoundly and completely disagree with Sam's analysis here, and particularly his contention that essentially Australia doesn't have an interest in being able to project power at distance and over long timescales, and all we should be focussed on is defending our continent and defending Australia. I think that fundamentally misunderstands the national security threats we face in a modern era. You can do enormous harm to a country without coming anywhere near them. I agree the prospect of the Australian mainland being invaded by any foreign forces is extremely remote and therefore to plan your whole defence strategy around that contingency, and not the much more likely ones which is our seaborne trade being threatened, for example, I think would be really, really misguided and we would regret it.
CONNELL: Right. So you think this is talking more about the catastrophic rather than the more likely lower level elements to which nuclear submarines could be more of a factor? How would they play out in that seaborne trade you're talking about, what's the scenario you're talking about?
PATERSON: What AUKUS recognises is that Australia has a very clear national interest in maintaining the peaceful status quo in the Indo-Pacific region, but particularly in the South China Sea, the East China Sea and the Taiwan Straits. By some measures over half of our seaborne trade comes through those ports and that region. And there are a number of really key choke points between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean around the Straits of Malacca and other areas where, for example, about 90% of Australia's refined oil comes, our petrol and diesel. And a power that was able to completely dominate that region to the exclusion of all others, to change that from international waterways to effectively a lake around the People's Republic of China would be able to do enormous harm to our economy and our society without coming anywhere near it, shutting that down would have really profound consequences.
CONNELL: What do you make of the contention, though, that while we're allies, we're not in the same boat at all? Even if China becomes the behemoth, the US isn't actually threatened by it, they're way too big. You know they're a porcupine already, or an echnida as Sam Australianised it. And perhaps we need to have more of a focus on that because if the US loses some focus in our region, it's still going to be fine, we might not be. Is that a fair enough thing to think about?
PATERSON: That's only if you define American interests really very, very narrowly, which is can we defend our continent? Well, of course they can no one's suggesting any alternative. But the United States hasn't thought about the world since the 1930s in that way. And with good reason they changed their approach in the 1930s and 1940s because they recognised how disastrous it was for their broader interests, the interests of their citizens and their country, globally, if they just retreat into themselves. And I think the prospects of them retreating in that way again are very remote, not impossible, but very remote.
CONNELL: Is the trend the worry, though? I mean, Joe Biden not attending ASEAN, for example, it's actions versus words.
PATERSON: No, I'm not at all concerned about that. I mean, if you look at the United States engagement with Australia as just one example, their investment in hardening our northern bases, the rotational forces of Marines in Darwin, the rotational submarine forces in Western Australia, they are very committed to this region and in fact the opposite has happened under the Biden administration. As we've discussed before, President Biden has now said four times that the US would engage militarily if China tried to change the peaceful status quo across the Taiwan Straits by force. Now that is the clearest declaration any US President has made about their engagement in that particular security issue in Asia.
CONNELL: Overlapping without quite being in the same region. But what did you make of the Anthony Albanese approach, if you like, of at least wanting to spread the sort of load of what's happening in our region. He really wants closer ties with Indonesia. For all what you said around the alliance, Indonesia and India, we've got to build these relationships up?
PATERSON: They're not mutually exclusive in fact, they're reinforcing. One of the reasons why Australia has standing in the region is for our own merits, but also because we are recognised as a US ally and we can help be a voice in the US system for countries that don't have the good access that we do in the US system. One of the reasons why countries in South East Asia value Australia is because of our independent perspective, but also our relationship with the US as a key ally. And of course we should pursue closer relations with Indonesia and India and of course––
CONNELL: With as many of these as possible and we'd never be left alone, even if one of them falls over. Even if it is to, somehow the US isolationist with Trump or you know Trump 2.0 or whatever it might be, build more bridges?
PATERSON: But they're not in any way contradictory or mutually exclusive. We can pursue AUKUS and closer relationships with those allies I'm not––
CONNELL: I guess the problem is pursuing AUKUS and saying well what's possible is its funds and the nuclear submarine and how much they cost. That does become somewhat of a zero-sum game on defence spend.
PATERSON: Well, look, AUKUS is not only nuclear submarines and yes, they will cost a lot of money, but for the capability they provide us it will be transformational.
CONNELL: Want to talk about the voice with you? Look, I'll insert my personal views once. That's just on the song, The Voice, can't stand it. If that makes me unpopular, so be it. But it's a very well-made ad, isn't it? This could sway a few people, it's got this sort of emotional pull. What did you make of it when you watched it?
PATERSO: It's an incredibly slick, well-produced ad––
CONNELL: 'Slick' is a bit pejorative, though, isn't it? It's a good ad.
PATERSON: It's incredibly professionally done, and it reflects the very significant amount of corporate money that the Yes campaign has from Qantas and BHP and Rio Tinto and the top end of town. And they will massively outgun the No side of the case with their spending there's no doubt about that. But all the polling shows, including one in The Australian today, that the more people learn about this, the more sceptical they are of the merits of it. Sceptical about whether it will provide the benefits promised to Indigenous Australians, they're sceptical about the risk that it poses to our Constitution and the way in which it is dividing our country right now before it's even been put in the Constitution, let alone once it's enshrined that way. So, I think the Prime Minister really does have a final window of opportunity here to recognise the trajectory that this is on and change course––
CONNELL: He couldn't do that now, surely.
PATERSON: Well he has said that if this goes down it will have terrible consequences for Indigenous Australians and Australia's international standing in the world. If he really believes that he should look at this polling and say, 'do I want to put the country through this?' He's got a choice, the writs haven't been issued yet by the AEC, this is the final opportunity for him to change course and I think he should it.
CONNELL: It's interesting to note though, I mean, we all remember the same sex marriage postal survey, there were sort of warnings around what it would do. It did seem to bring the country together and also made Australia's gay community feel more accepted.
PATERSON: Yes, but there's a key difference, Tom––
CONNELL: Could this do the opposite for Indigenous Australians? Is that how they they're going to feel in this?
PATERSON: It could do the opposite. And the reason why we can make an assumption about that is every poll in the lead up to the same sex marriage plebiscite showed the majority of Australians, in fact a comfortable majority of Australians, supported same sex marriage.
CONNELL: When they started there was very strong support. Would you feel any responsibility in helping to drive the No campaign? That feeling on the Sunday after the referendum?
PATERSON: We have warned the Prime Minister at every point along this journey that the road he has taken in choosing the most extreme Voice model available, not willing to make any amendments to reduce the constitutional risk, not willing to sit down and negotiate with the Opposition to reach bipartisan consensus. We've warned him at every opportunity that this is where this is headed, and I fear that's the course that it's on. Before the writs are issued he can pull it and he still has the time to do that.
CONNELL: James Paterson, thanks for your time.
PATERSON: Thank you.
ENDS
