Transcript

(This transcript is partly AI-generated and may contain inaccuracies.)

Pat Conroy

I do think that we're in a...more challenging circumstance than we've ever been since 1945. And I include the height of the Cold War.

Our future prosperity and security has to depend, and will depend on the rules based order being respected by everyone.

National Security Podcast

You're listening to the National Security Podcast, the show that brings you expert analysis, insights and opinion on the national security challenges facing Australia and the Indo-Pacific. Produced by the ANU National Security College.

Rory Medcalf

Welcome to the National Security Podcast. I'm Rory Medcalf, head of the National Security College at the Australian National University. Today's podcast is being recorded on the lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, and I pay respects to their elders past, present, and emerging. It's a great pleasure today to be joined by the Honorable Pat Conroy MP, Minister for International Development and the Pacific, and also Minister for Defence Industry and Capability Delivery. It's quite a mouthful, but it's two really key areas of endeavour for the Australian government. And there are some connections between those. Mr Conroy, thank you very much for joining us on the podcast.

Pat Conroy

My pleasure Rory and please call me Pat.

Rory Medcalf

I will do that, Minister. I guess I'll vary between Minister and Pat, but it's great to begin with that personal touch because, in the next little while, I'd like us to have a conversation that ranges across some of the really substantial issues that you lead on, that you deal with day to day in your portfolio responsibilities. But I also want to help our audience get to know you a little better, because here on the National Security Podcast, we're interested in the voices, the leaders in parliament who are prosecuting Australia's national interests and really what is motivating that journey. So perhaps if I can just kick off by asking a little about how you got to be, if you like, a minister who does have responsibilities for issues that touch on Australia's national security and interests in a very profound way.

And yet you've moved really as far as I can tell along a pathway that began much more with a social justice set of motivations. So if we can understand how those threads connect and what's really driving you philosophically, that would be a great opener.

Pat Conroy

Thanks Rory. It's a very broad question and where to start. I think I come from a really proud tradition of being raised in a Labor family and being encouraged to debate politics around the kitchen table and that has driven a commitment to social justice but that commitment to social justice doesn't stop at the water's edge and that obviously informs my work particularly in the Pacific and international development, I have always been an incredibly strong, sort of have a strong interest in history. And I studied things like international political economy and international relations at uni. was a member of the air league when I was a kid. So I was always interested in history, particularly military history and understanding our place in the world and my two great heroes.

And they won't surprise people who know my political background are John Curtin and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And I come from that proud progressive heritage of strongly progressive economic policies to lift families and pensioners and look after a strong progressive economy, but also strong on defense and strong on our place. I think that's something, really angered me that

around the world, the sort of being strong on defence and national security is seen as something that's the domain of conservative parties when I certainly think that progressive parties have an equal if not greater claim and in Australia, a much stronger claim. So for me, my origins have always been in those two purviews of progressive economic views, but also strong on that and always wanting to have an independent foreign policy, which always justify a strong diplomatic engagement and also a serious defence budget. And I got to do that in government when we're last in government, working as the defence material advisor to Greg Combey. And then I continued that when I entered parliament. people sometimes accuse me of fighting history wars, but I'm really passionate about people understanding the strong contribution Labor has made to our defence and foreign policy.

Rory Medcalf

Let's stick with that for a moment because you know our listeners will have if you like varying degrees of expertise and knowledge about really the wartime leadership of John Curtin and I come back to John Curtin because I think you know a little bit of insider information having paid a visit to your office there's at least one really striking image of John Curtin on the wall photograph of Australia’s Labor wartime leader. What was it about Curtin's leadership that inspires you?

Pat Conroy

Well, I think a couple of things. One, that leadership was on display even before World War II when he was opposition leader. Having, I'm working my way through the second volume of John Edwards' Magisterial Curtain Award, but he was calling for significant investment in the Air Force in the mid 1930s. He was questioning the concept of empire defence. He was criticising Menzies for saying we need to enlarge the army, but not getting the budget to do that. So his leadership predates World War II, but obviously during World War II, it's his leadership that he's most famous for. I think a couple of elements, one, obviously standing up to Winston Churchill. I remember I was up for Lions Youth of the Year on the Central Coast, which is where I grew up. the final party is giving it a speech. And I can tell you the moment that I lost the contest for being the Central Coast Lions Youth of the Year when they asked you, who do you look up to the most?

My competitor said Queen Elizabeth II, which was a very smart answer politically. I said John Curtin because he stood up to Winston Churchill and re-orientated Australia towards the United States in that period. And you think about that critical period when he was in a tussle with Churchill who quite outrageously was trying to divert the Australian division to Burma. And if that had happened, they would have been captured and spent four years in a Japanese POW camp. He fought, he stayed up, he used every resource available to get those trips back home and obviously they'll seminal in the Battle of the Pacific. But the other part of him was he was a proud empire man, he considered himself British, but that speech about turning towards the United States and also his partnership with MacArthur. One of my photos of Curtin on the wall in my office is of Curtin welcoming MacArthur to Australia and you couldn't get two more sort of different individuals. One a patrician, Blue Blood, who famously deployed US soldiers against striking veterans in the Depression era and Curtin, the line of the left. But he did what it took to defend Australia and that's a tradition that I'm so proud of, of my political party.

Rory Medcalf

And look, I must say that at the National Security College, we teach a course on leadership and you'll be glad to know there is always a lecture on Curtin in that academic course. there's a standing invitation when you have a spare hour, Pat, to come and join us for a guest talk on John Curtin at the college. But I know that you've got a pretty busy day job. I'm not going to pursue that immediately. Can we go to Roosevelt, your other, I guess, inspiration there. And again, an interesting observation is that, you know, Roosevelt was a great wartime and national security leader. But of course, before that, he was a social security leader. In fact, the whole concept of social security really came to prominence in the US in the 30s ahead of national security. So maybe just share one or two thoughts on on the Roosevelt influence as well.

Pat Conroy

Hmm. Well, I think part of it is he is a great progressive reformer, but he was also a pragmatist. He understood that to get reforms in, you need to embed them in to the of the sort of fabric of the government and society and then keep winning elections. And obviously no one won more elections in the United States. But he ultimately understood that economic security goes hand in hand with physical security.

And that's what obviously his response to the depression was about. And I think also the way he gradually re-orientated the United States towards supporting the Allies in World War II, pre the entry of the United States. So obviously the mobilization of the US industrial base that happened well before their intervention in, they're the famous, I'm going to get the number wrong, either 40 or 50,000 plane production a year was obviously Landmark and also the way he landed the Lend-Lease deal, which was incredibly controversial in an isolationist United States. So he was a great progressive reformer, but ultimately he was a pragmatist at the same time. And that always inspires me. And whenever I'm in Washington, I spend a fair amount of time visiting Washington, particularly because of our Aukus partnership. I always visit his presidential memorial. I think by far it's the most moving of the three presidential memorials in Washington because it's not just about FDR, it's about the United States that he inherited and improved. And I find it incredibly moving.

Rory Medcalf

And so we've got an insight there into your, I guess, your iconic figures from history that influence the way you think about the national interest and security today. Your own parliamentary career has moved, of course, through a number of portfolios, particularly a number of shadow portfolios, but also service before then really very much as an advisor, I think, as you said, with Combe back in the...the Gillard government. What, if you could share with our listeners, has been the of, you know, the thread of policy that has led you from those portfolios through to the external facing defence and Pacific mission that you have today. How does it all hang together in your view?

Pat Conroy

I think two elements. One is I'm an industry policy economist by training. And so that's what drives a lot of my passion. And so whether it's working on defence industry policy or climate policy, both as an advisor and in opposition, these are all about reshaping our economy into one that's more sustainable, that has high skill, high tech jobs that really grant our economy. that whatever role I've had, I think I've been really lucky to use those skills. Secondly, I've been really focused on within procurement on effective spending. So the first three years I was in opposition as an MP, I was the wastewater spokesperson and also the Labor's lead on the Joint Public Accounts and Audit Committee. And so I spent a lot of time with the ANOO and looking at, for example, the Defence Major Projects report. So I'm passionate about how we spend taxpayers' money effectively and get the capability for the ADF, but ultimately I'm driven by philosophy about the independence of Australia and the need for strong defence policy. I remember I was part of a debate in opposition where it was about foreign policy under a Labor government. And I was actually debating a Catholic nun, like peace activist that was very popular within the ACT left. And she was making a valid point that you wanted to break the alliance with the United States and an independent foreign policy. And one of my points is, well, you better be prepared to spend four to five percent of GDP on defense because that would be what would be required to have an independent foreign policy absent the alliance with the United States. So throughout my period in government, I've been doing that. And I've also been confounding, I think, some of the stereotypes about what it means to be in the left of the Labor Party.

I'm a proud member of the Labor Party left. I joined the Labor Party when I was 15, which is the youngest you can join the Labor Party. And I've been in the left the whole time. I was a left faction convener for six years when we were in opposition. people associate the left with being progressive economically, but not being really interested in defence. Whereas I think that it's critical if we're to be independent and make our own decisions. We need strong foreign and defence policy. Otherwise you will always be hostage to the whims of other countries. And ultimately, what drives my democratic involvement is that independence.

Rory Medcalf

And it sounds like the, the nun has foreshadowed kind of a, you know, an obvious but important question that I was going to come back to maybe later in this conversation about the tension between independence and alliance. So let's, let's put that one just to the side, but we'll certainly come back to it before the end of the conversation. Look, before we get into the, I guess the core of your portfolio responsibilities now, I just wanted to sort of touch on just two more things. One is still keeping it personal for a moment and that is it's a very large burden that you carry at the moment for the government. How do you reconcile that with I guess family life, personal life, being a citizen and really part of the community?

Pat Conroy

It's a challenge and anyone who says that it's easy, I think, is either fooling themselves or trying to fool other people. But it's something that drives my involvement. I want to be someone who helps improve the joint. Like I'm not religious by view, but I do believe in a higher deity. And I think there's an obligation on every single human being to leave the world in a better place than they found it. And I know I'm not going to be a minister forever.

These jobs are very short and you need to get up every day and fight to improve the country. And my family understands that and they're really supportive of that. It's not without challenges. And but I think the sacrifice is worth it. I just think about the week that we're having right now where we made a significant announcement around the NARU Australia Treaty. We've got the successful test firing of the Tomahawk cruise missile. We've also announced the support for a PNG rugby league team. Those three things make Australia a safer place and I've been privileged to play a role in all those three things. So no two days are the same in this job. One day I'm dealing with investing billions in missiles to re-equip the Navy. The next day I'm fighting for a rugby league team from PNG.

The next day after that I'm door knocking Windale, the poorest postcode in all of New South Wales to make sure that I'm returned to parliament or to do my best to make sure I'm returned to parliament. that variety is part of the joy of this job.

Rory Medcalf

Yeah, I suspect that some of our friends in certain other democracies where those that hold ministerial level responsibilities don't have to doorknock for their reelection probably don't envy that part of your job, but I think it does. It clearly keeps ministers grounded. Look, thank you for that list of some really important achievements. We'll come back to that throughout the conversation because I think we are recording this in December 2024 when there have been, I think, as you say, in the space of one week, three quite signal achievements of the government. But I do want to just finally ask you about your worldview, Minister, because you don't choose the times that you are born in, you don't choose the times that you develop your career in or that you, as you say, seek to improve the joint. But we are living in a very challenging era, globally and in the Indo-Pacific. So I'd be interested in your view of what is the challenge, what is your strategic worldview, if I can really pin you down on that.

Pat Conroy

Well, I'm not sure whether this will be coherent, particularly to the sort of academics who specialize in international politics. But it'd be a combination of, think, sort of a progressive worldview with an element of neorealism. If I reflect on my time at university, one of the most enjoyable courses I had was one taught by a Republican congressional staffer and I was focused on just looking at neorealism, pluralism and neo-Marxism and the of, I think the different approaches to international policy that drives that. And so I think I'm fundamentally a realist in terms of how I see the world. I'm certainly not a pluralist. And I think that obviously we live in a time where we've got a rise in great power at the same time we've got an established great power. And that is a real challenge.

The last time we had this was the sort of decline of Great Britain and the rise of the United States, two powers whose values were very similar. We've got, at this period, a very different circumstance where a unipolar world is being challenged by a rising country that seeks some element of, if not hegemony, certainly equal status in our region. And that's a challenge for all of us. I do think that we're in a...more challenging circumstance than we've ever been since 1945. And I include the height of the Cold War, because if you think about it, short of nuclear Armageddon, and obviously that was an existential threat to the entire globe, the Cold War was not as acute in the Indo-Pacific as it was in Europe. Obviously you had the Vietnam War, you had Korea, but short of that, you didn't see the sort of USSR and the US challenging each other directly.

We've obviously got a very different circumstances now. And so it is a huge challenge for Australia and we have to rise to that challenge.

Rory Medcalf

Looking globally, course, as I said, recording this in December 2024, we've got the continuing conflict in Ukraine, the results of Russia's or indeed Putin's aggression. There we've got some extraordinary disruption in the Middle East. Of course, the latest news being the fall of Assad in Syria. We've got challenges in and around many of the democratic partners that we have in the world, all sorts of questions about the impact of disinformation, the impact of new technologies. So how do you, I guess, pull that picture of a, you know, as I would say, the US-China contest in the Indo-Pacific and Australia's pursuit of its interests in that context? How do you expand that into a global picture in your worldview?

Pat Conroy

Well, I think the starting principle is a commitment to a rules-based order. And I think if you look at what Russia has done in Ukraine, what the role Iran has played, the role of the DPRK and the sort of Xi Jinping's sort of no strings attached friendship for those countries, particularly Russia, we've got a group of countries that are challenging the status quo.

And some of them involve a fundamental rejection of the current international rules and norms. And I think that's happening around the world. I represented Australia at the NATO IP4 conference in Brussels. And my main message is what happens in Europe affects us in Indo-Pacific and vice versa, because fundamentally we're seeing a challenge of international norms and Australia's a middle power. That's our position.

We’ll never be a superpower. We're a middle power and we're a middle power that fights or punches above our weight. our future prosperity and security has to depend and will depend on the rules based order being respected by everyone. And that's under assault, whether it's in Ukraine right now or things we're seeing with North Korea's support for Putin. We have to push back. So I don't say anything in the frame of China versus US competition. I think that would be too simplistic. But there is sort of competing mindsets about the international rules and we need to play a really strong role in arguing for that rules-based order.

Rory Medcalf

And I'm certainly not trying to put words in your mouth here, but it sounds to me as if you've got an outlook there that really brings together your progressive political instincts with a recognition of the need to protect the rules-based order from that grouping of powers that are seeking to challenge it, that revisionism.

Pat Conroy

Absolutely. We can't allow a world where might is right. We need to have a view where every country is equal, no matter its size. And that's obviously something I see in the Pacific a lot. But equally, we have to avoid war at all costs without giving away our independence. And I believe in that passionately because it's workers and working families that suffer the most in war. I gave a pretty controversial speech at our national conference around AUKUS. And the fundamental premise of it is we need to invest in our defense capabilities because it's workers who suffer the most in war and their families. And they're the ones who are most exposed. And so it's fundamentally progressive to believe in strong defense and foreign policy because if we don't, it's the vast majority of people who suffer.

Rory Medcalf

So bringing this conversation still to that level of the day-to-day needs of communities and societies that are often dealing with issues other than the clash of great powers internationally, I want to pivot to the Pacific, if you don't mind, because a lot of the nations in the Pacific, Australia's neighbors, Australia's family in the Southwest Pacific, a lot of these are very small countries where a lot of their day-to-day problems, as they see it, understandably are not, you know, who is top dog in the international system or what is China's authoritarian challenges, I would put it, to the United States across the Indo-Pacific. Or indeed, what are the risks of major war? Their needs are obviously much more immediate in the human security and health security and social development field. And of course, your Minister for International Development and the Pacific. And a lot of your effort, you've noted already, is directed in that way. So it would be interesting if you could bring the Pacific into that frame. What have been your priorities over the past few years there? To what extent is that about Australia being a good neighbour or citizen or meeting expectations in its neighbourhood? To what extent is that about something more geopolitical?

Pat Conroy

Well, I think I'll start with a couple of fundamental points. One, people shouldn't see what's happening in the Pacific purely in a view of China versus the US. Every country in the Pacific has agency and all actors should respect that. Secondly, and you touched on in your question, Rory, we need to have a very broad multifaceted view of security. Climate change is the number one existential threat to the Pacific. Health and food security. When you've got tens of thousands of cases of drug resistant TB, and you've got nations where half the kids are stunted due to lack of nutrition, they are existential challenges to states. And so we need to start from that basis. You asked me how I approach it. I approach it by how this government approaches it, which is we turn up, we listen, we respect and act on the priorities of the other countries.

And I think for too long, certainly one of my main criticisms of the last government is they didn't turn up and then they didn't act on the priorities of our partners. We're a member of the Pacific. And I always use the words the Pacific family rather than our Pacific family because it's a collective that we're a proud member of and we need to be a good family member and help other countries that are parts of our family disagree where we have to but always come from a position of turning up and acting. And so that means huge people to people engagement in the region from the Prime Minister down to Penny Wong, who's visited every PIF nation. To me, I've been to PNG, I think, nine or 10 times in the last two years, four times to Vanuatu, four times to the Soles, three times to Fiji. You've got to turn up and listen as the first step. And I think that's where Australia's got itself in trouble previously is we haven't done that first step respectfully.

Rory Medcalf

I mean, just to sort of push back a little bit there, there's, it strikes me, there is some degree of continuity surely in Pacific engagement from the previous government to this government. know, the Morrison government had the so-called step up. There was an increase in engagement. so yes, I knowledge your point about the, the tone and the frequency of leadership visits and that the high level engagement, but it strikes me that at a policy level is also some continuity there.

Pat Conroy

Well, I'd accept that there's probably a continuity in rhetoric, but not in action. And the reason for that is you can't actually engage with a Pacific if you don't engaged with the number one existential threat to the Pacific, which is climate change. And the challenge that Scott Morrison and his government was they spent every ounce of political capital they had blocking action on climate change, that they had no capital left to engage in a deeper relationship with the region. And that meant that they were doomed from day one in their engagement in the Pacific. Secondly, they couldn't come at issues that are really important to the region like migration.

And they still can't. The Pacific engagement visa is one part of our multifaceted Pacific approach that's really important. For the first time in history of the country, we've carved out a part of our permanent migration to the Pacific to grow to diaspora and the people to people. It's 3,000 visas every year, 56,000 applications for the first round. The opposition voted against it. They blocked the PEV because they want to weaponise migration. So they might have some rhetoric on engaging the Pacific, but whether it's blocking action on climate change, Peter Dutton making jokes about rising sea levels, wiping out islands, him and Dan Teane blocking action on PEV, Michael McCormack making statements like the Pacific should be grateful we let them pick our fruit. They constantly don't deliver on what they say they're committed to.

Rory Medcalf

And you've already started listing a few of the key countries in the Pacific. I mentioned small island countries, but of course Papua New Guinea is certainly not a small island nation. It's very significant power in its neighbourhood. It's a key actor and a very large community. And there's some highlights in that relationship that I know government has been really accentuating recently and some real achievements. Now you, Pat, of course, are a rugby league fan. And I know that the government has not pursued this simply for that reason. But you must feel a, I guess, a certain sense of pride in what Australia and PNG have been negotiating, bringing PNG into the NRL.

Pat Conroy

Thank you.

Rory Medcalf

Some would say there's got to be a kind of diplomatic subtext to this. This is not simply sport for its own sake, it's sports diplomacy. But can you please give us a sense of what can we expect? What's it all about?

Pat Conroy

Yeah, well, at the week of recording of this podcast, we're announcing that a Papua New Guinean team will enter the National Rugby League competition in 28, based in Port Moresby, and nothing will do more to deepen the relationship between our two countries.

Rugby League is a religion up there. I've gone up and watched many a game there and the 15,000 fans in the main Port Moresby Stadium make more noise than any grand final of State of Origin I've been to. Every single Papua New Guinea I know has a team. They follow up fanatically. State of Origin Knights are the quietest Knights in PNG.

This announcement and this policy is, yes, it's about sports diplomacy. It's about economic development. Like the money that will flow into Port Moresby, the thousands of Australian tourists that will go up every year will be about deepening and broadening the economy of PNG. It's also about delivering messages around gender equality. There's a beautiful documentary called Pawa Meri about the start of female …the Female Orchards team, is the National Rugby League team, or the PNG Women's team, and how that was used for gender equality in PNG around also I've seen programs of domestic violence. So it's also about social equality as well. But ultimately it's about bringing the two countries closer together. And that will deepen our relationship. And it's based everything we do in PNGs on the basis of shared strategic trust.

Prime Minister Marape, Foreign Minister Tkachenko, Deputy Prime Minister Rosso have all said that they are sticking with their traditional security partner, Australia, and that is the sort of underpinning framework for all our engagement up there. Rugby League, the bilateral security agreement, our record levels of ODA are all grounded in that shared strategic trust.

Rory Medcalf

So we’ve talked about Papua New Guinea, but there’s also an important announcement this week regarding the Nauru security agreement, a wide-ranging agreement – which has some resonance with last year’s agreement with Tuvalu – the Falepili Union. Tell us about that – about the Nauru agreement and what it signifies.

Pat Conroy

Yeah, well, this is is part of our broad integration agenda in the Pacific like the we genuinely want to be the partner of choice. And that means offering long term partnerships that really drive our relationship in the Pacific and make it so valuable to both parties that there's no need to look at other relationships in at the same level. And that started with the Falepili Union, which is the most significant Pacific policy we've announced since 75 with PNG independence. I'd actually say, given our role around the world, I think it's the most significant foreign policy initiative this government has undertaken since 1975, the Australian government that is. And we followed that with the Nauru Australia Treaty that was announced this week that was signed between Prime Minister Albanese and President Adeang. And that fundamentally is about supporting a multifaceted approach to resilience for both countries.

The number one priority for Nauru is economic sustainability and resilience. And so that's why we're investing in a $100 million economic budget support package, $40 million for policing and security, and a commitment to ensure that Nauru has banking services at their current level in perpetuity while the treaty exists. So Nauru get economic and policing security. And in return, obviously, we get an agreement that Nauru will not enter into security or policing agreements with a third country without agreement by Australia. That covers the telecommunications and banking sectors as well. And on other critical infrastructure, there's a requirement to consult.

Sorry, there's a requirement that any agreement entered into with another country won't have a security element. So it's a very broad approach to security that both countries have adopted. And quite frankly, if the Falepili Treaty hadn't been announced last year, this would be the most significant foreign policy initiative in the Pacific that we've announced in 75.

Rory Medcalf

And it requires a certain degree of buy-in from the private sector by the sound of it. I it's difficult for government to make commitments about banking or telecommunications without private sector partnerships. So how is that tracking?

Pat Conroy

Yes, going well, the Commonwealth Bank has provided a commitment that they will provide banking services to Nauru. They did that without any financial assistance from the Commonwealth Government and didn't ask for any financial assistance. And they're acting in their national interest. It's in our national interest for Nauru to have access to banking services. The national currency of Nauru is the Australian dollar. So it makes a lot of sense for an Australian bank to provide both their retail and correspondent banking services.

Rory Medcalf

Now, all of this, as you say, is about Australia being partner of choice in the Pacific. But how do you respond then if other voices, whether it's in the Pacific or elsewhere say, isn't this all about competing for influence with China? I know that the foreign minister has said we're in a sort of a contest for influence with China in the Pacific. So how do you explain what is and isn't about competing with China?

Pat Conroy

Well, there is geostrategic competition in the Pacific. Only a fool would deny that. But the Labor Party has got a strong record of engaging in the Pacific, even when there was no geopolitical competition. Like, Gough Whitlam said, his greatest legacy is supporting PNG independence. Obviously, Hawke and Keating played similar roles in engagement in the Pacific.

So my party has had a strong, progressive tradition of engaging in the Pacific, grounded in where we are in Australia and that conditions of social justice. So we should be doing both. We want to be the partner of choice for the Pacific because we're part of the Pacific family. And we would be doing that regardless of whether China was interested in the region or not. But obviously that adds an element where it is more important than ever that we, our relationship with the Pacific as strong as ever and that the value proposition for the Pacific is that you can have economic relationships with whoever you want. We've got a strong economic relationship with China as well, but we really should follow through on the 2022 PIF leaders communicate, which said that the Pacific should look to its own for security support and that's what we're doing. And I'm really passionate about entwining the future of all Pacific countries closer together with Australia because I think it's in all our interests. I grew up playing rugby union and rugby league, I still play rugby union occasionally. I've always played in Polynesian clubs and that's a great thing. The Polynesian diaspora is one part of the broader Pacific diaspora that makes Australia a better place and we do need to bring our Pacific countries closer together.

Rory Medcalf

So there's certainly a vision here that's being pursued about Australian partnership with the Pacific, but we're not the only player, if you like. I I've mentioned China already, but we've got New Zealand, we've got Japan, we've got United States, we've got others. What do you see as kind of an equilibrium, a desirable equilibrium to aim for when it comes to partnerships and stability in the Pacific? Or is there a risk that Australia just keeps getting dragged in as the not only principal but even the only partner.

Pat Conroy

Well, I don't think we should be the only partner in the Pacific and we're certainly not seeking to do that. What we are seeking other countries who are interested in engaging the Pacific is to engage on principles of respect and acting on the priorities of the Pacific. I keep getting asked about, for example, infrastructure investment in the Pacific and just to use that as one example of how we think other countries should engage. There's five principles that we espouse for every country. One is acting on the priorities of the Pacific in terms of infrastructure, secondly, not being transactional in how you do that, thirdly, maximising local content when you do that, fourthly, activating the highest quality of infrastructure, and fifthly, making sure that it doesn't lead to an unsustainable debt burden. So every Pacific country is free to chart their own course.

And there's lots of countries interested in being active in that journey. And that's fine, but we should always take a principled and democratic approach to that.

Rory Medcalf

So we've talked about equilibrium in the Pacific, but I want to now look at equilibrium from a very different perspective, if you don't mind, Minister, and that is deterrence. Because if you look at the broader Indo-Pacific and global picture, you've talked about strategic competition, you've talked about your own realist instincts and the need for nations, as I would say it, to ensure they have the power and the capability to defend their interests.

This other hat, very important hat, your responsibility as Minister for Defence Industry and Capability Delivery. So a quick sense of why, what is the urgency for Australia to really sharpen up its military edge?

Pat Conroy

Well, it starts from sort of a grounding in what contributes to our security. I think the security and safety of Australia since 45 has been based on three principles. One is the alliance with the United States. Secondly, has been the partner of choice in the South Pacific, which is obviously under assault right now. And third is the 10 year warning horizon for any major or regional conflict. And that third sort of grounding or pillar disappeared. The 2020 Defence Strategic Update of the previous government included that. My criticism with them is they accepted that, that the 10-year warning horizon has disappeared, but they didn't do anything about it. And so the sense of urgency I have is that we no longer have a 10-year warning time for a major regional conflict. We have the greatest arms build-up in the region since 45, and that arms race is occurring without strategic reassurance or transparency. That is critical.

And so we have to respond and we have to respond by re-equipping the ADF, transforming it along the lines recommended by the defence strategic review in terms of long range strike, littoral manoeuvre, giving it that deterrence ability. And we have to have an underpinning defence industry that can sustain the Australian Defence Force and that make a meaningful contribution to our lines and our support of like-minded countries. And that's what drives me in the defence industry portfolio every day.

Rory Medcalf

And just to be very clear, and I know that there are certain things that one can or cannot say, presumably you have access to all sorts of interesting classified assessments of what's happening in the world, but there is a risk of conflict in our region. And if conflict were to break out, there's quite a probability of Australia being involved. that how you see it or am I putting words in your mouth?

Pat Conroy

No, I think that's right. I think there's always a risk of conflict. And what we're seeing in this region in terms of an arms race without strategic reassurance or transparency and what we see in the South China Sea in terms of unsafe and unprofessional interactions between militaries does contribute to that risk. And there is always a risk that Australia gets pulled into it.

We want to avoid that at all costs and we do that by investing in public, sorry, investing in diplomacy first and foremost. Our diplomatic engagement has been strengthened massively over the last two years, but you also invest in it by stronger deterrents, by making it clear that we are ready for conflict and we're ready to deter that conflict by having the best equipped ADF possible.

Rory Medcalf

And the way I read the defence strategy documents that your government has released over the last few years, particularly the national defence strategy, we are now moving towards a much more focused military. There was a, rightly or wrongly, there was a tradition in the Australian defence force of having a bit of everything but not being focused on one particular region or one warlike contingency. And that's changed.

Rory Medcalf

So if I look at the priorities that are listed now, one of those is about strike. It's the ability to strike targets at distance, to hold adversaries at risk at a distance. You gave a speech, I think, at the press club not that long ago about the new missile age, which Australia is now really joining and playing its part in defending its interests in. This week, as you say, a really big announcement from government test firing of a Tomahawk cruise missile from an Australian vessel, which I think makes us one of a very, very small number of countries in the world. Tell us about the missile journey for Australia.

Pat Conroy

Oh, absolutely. And one of the unofficial nicknames I have within the government is the Minister for Missiles and Rugby League, because

Rory Medcalf

In that order, I hope.

Pat Conroy

… in that order, of course. But you're right about what the National Defence Strategy found. We don't have the luxury of having a balanced force. The DSR recommended and the government accepted the need for a focus force, a force built around and focused on the least likely but most catastrophic security threat to Australia, which is a high-end kinetic war. So we don't build the ADF for peacekeeping, Middle East coalitions, and a bit of high-end war fighting. We have it structured around deterring a high-end conflict and trust that that will allow it to do its other duties. And that involves equipping the Royal Australian Air Force with more long-range missiles to deter conflict.

It involves transforming the Australian Army into one focused on the Toro maneuver and long range strike. And it's focused on doubling the size of the Navy, more than doubling the size of the Navy and equipping it with long range strike as well. Long range strike is how we deal with the fact that our distance that has always been one of the foundations of our safety has disappeared with the rise of missiles. The air-sea gap to our north is a lot less formidable than it was a decade or two decades ago and we need to have long range strike. That's why we're moving the Australian Army from its longest range weapon of 40 kilometres to 500 and then a thousand kilometres. And that's why we've moved the Royal Australian Navy from its longest range weapon being a harpoon, whose range is about 130 kilometres to the Tomahawk, whose range is two and a half thousand kilometres. So a more than 20 fold increase or around a 20-fold increase in range. So we focused on the guided weapons and explosive ordnance enterprise, allocated huge resources to that and that involves lifting war stock, bringing forward capability. So we've brought forward the Tomahawk capability by about three years. We brought forward the SM-6 and SM-2 capability by a number of years as we did with the naval strike missile. And then secondly, increasing stock, increasing the ability to repair and overhaul those missiles in this country. And then the third fundamental part is being able to manufacture missiles in our country. We can't rely completely on global supply lines like we did in the past. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated the fragility of that, as has the COVID pandemic. Anyone who tried to buy toilet paper during the pandemic understood the fragility of global supply lines. And that's why we're establishing two missile factories in this country. Only the second time in the world that a country will be building naval and joint strike missiles and the first country outside the United States to build the land attack missile, the Gimlaz, and then being part of the prison development. So this is all about giving the ADF the equipment they need to defend us, but at the same time investing in a sustainable defence industry with high-tech, high-skill jobs.

Rory Medcalf

And look, none of this sounds like business as usual. Are we moving fast enough? mean, some of the critics will say, you know, the government speaks about urgency. We can't wait. We really need to move more quickly. We need to invest more. We need to persuade the broader population, the broader political spectrum of this increased investment. How do you instill that sense of urgency? How do you feel about that critique?

Pat Conroy

Well, we are moving at speed and this is a debate that really gives me the irates to be frank, because some of the criticism just isn't grounded in reality. We've increased the defence budget massively by $50 billion, including in the forward estimates. We've brought forward capability massively, whether it's the missiles coming forward a number of years, the general purpose frigates being delivered first one in 2029, whereas the last government's plan was the first Hunter class in 2034 as the first new naval vessel, moving the landing craft heavy forward by seven years. We've moved a range of capabilities forward by years, if not a decade. And that is what we're doing every day, speed, speed, speed. But some of the criticism implies that we've been in government since 2013. In that National Press Club speech, in response to a question, I said, I wish I had a time machine and that we can make these decisions in 2016 or 2019. We don't. And people seen... We got criticised for the fact that, we'll be making missiles in this country next year, the missile factories won't be coming online to 2028 or 2029. Well, that's how long it takes to build things. Like, if we started in 2019, they'd be online now, but we're starting in 2024 because, quite frankly, the last government dropped the ball, didn't fund these areas, cut defence funding and we're having to repair the damage. I hope that Peter Dutton, I know Andrew Hastie was on your podcast, they talk a big game. I hope at a minimum they match our funding commitment. At the moment, their policy is to cut defence funding by $50 billion. And if people are worried about the speed we're moving at now, we'll be going backwards if the coalition get into power.

Rory Medcalf

But it does sound to me from your, not just your rhetoric, but your actions as well, Minister, that you would like to maximise the cross-partisanship on these issues if you could.

Pat Conroy

I don't want this to be a partisan issue at all. I would love for Andrew Hastie and Peter Dunn to get up at an address at the National Press Club and say, we will match the funding. Probably more importantly, I'd love Angus Taylor as the Shadow Treasury spokesperson to get up and say, we're matching it and it's included in our funding commitments. I'd love them to get up and say they'll match our increased funding for foreign aid because that's central to our security as well. But at the moment, they're going to the next election saying they're going to cut defence funding by $50 billion and that they're going to cut ODA by $11 billion. And both of those things make this country less safe and imperils our position in our region. And these issues shouldn't be political. And the best way of making them not political is by the coalition growing up and showing some maturity. And I know that's a harsh political note, but ultimately I live in the real world and priorities can only be determined by your budget allocation.

Rory Medcalf

I know we have an election campaign coming up in this country and I'm sure there'll be opportunities for voices from the opposition to explain, I guess, what they see as their potential defense budget and to sort of come back on that point about cuts or otherwise. But I want to wrap up talking about the Alliance, if I may, Minister, because I think early on in this conversation, you talked about how do we manage the independents of our interests, how do we protect our sovereignty, but also how do we do that in the context of our alliance with the United States? So I want to, particularly on the question of AUKUS, go to that. AUKUS is obviously one area where there was a very strong display of bipartisanship in that your government is implementing the AUKUS arrangement originated under a previous government, under the Morrison government.

Nuclear powered submarines, advanced technologies, hugely ambitious. And then, and now we have, of course, a Trump presidency and questions being asked about how will a Trump presidency, a second Trump presidency perceive America's commitments under AUKUS? How do you say, how do you see AUKUS playing out? What are your priorities in that regard?

Pat Conroy

Well, my priorities in AUKUS are delivery, implementation, getting on and maintaining the speed we've got now. We're moving at speed and we're hitting all the critical milestones, especially in AUKUS Pillar 1 around the acquisition of nuclear-powered but conventionally armed submarines. But I think people misunderstand what AUKUS is about. AUKUS is not about charity. AUKUS is about increasing the collective security of the three nations involved. The United Kingdom and the United States are doing this not out of goodwill to Australia, but because it makes their countries safer as well as Australia. And my broader point is AUKUS will survive changes of government across all three countries. It's already survived changes of government in the United Kingdom and Australia.

And it has, if anything, got stronger because of those changes of government. And it will continue to do so because it's in the self-interest of all three countries. And that's where sort of my realism approach is grounded. this, yes, is about an alliance with the United States and us working together and us having shared values in a lot of areas. But ultimately the reason that the AUKUS legislation got an 80 % yes vote in the US Senate in a very divided Congress is because it's in the interest of the United States and it will continue to be so.

Rory Medcalf

And I do recommend listeners who are interested in the politics of AUKUS, including the point that you make about national security from a progressive point of view to take another look at the speech you gave at the Labor National Conference last year where you, I think you said "If you are for human rights, you are for AUKUS. If you are for peace, you are for AUKUS." I think those were very striking words. This last point though about independence.

Pat Conroy

Thank you.

Rory Medcalf

Whether it's AUKUS or whether it's many of the other elements of ADF capability, there is a high level of dependence on the United States for Australia's security and defence. How do you think about that?

Pat Conroy

Well, I think of it as shared values. I think there are very few countries in the world that can have a strong and stable position in the world without having partnerships. And if they are, they're investing massively in their national defence. You think about the Scandinavian countries outside of Norway pre-joining NATO. They're spending massively on their defence capabilities. For me, our alliance with the United States is the bedrock of our security, but it also contributes to the security of the United States as an alliance that's grounded in shared values. We're both democratic countries and we have strong traditions in common, but we've also got strong common interests. And I think that's really important. And you can be independent. You can have independent policy positions while having an alliance.

The people who it's easiest to disagree with are the best of friends. It's harder to disagree with strangers. And I think that's why I think you can be independent as long as you're putting the resources in, as long as you take starting from a position of understood values and a philosophical tradition and approach. And the Labor Party has done that. We've had a strong alliance support with the United States while we've disagreed on things, whether it's intervention in Vietnam, whether it's the second Gulf War, we have disagreed with the US administration at the time, but our support for the alliance has been 100 % and absolute. And the US understand that. Friends can disagree, but we always come back to looking after each other. And that's, think, the bedrock of our alliance.

Rory Medcalf

Pat Conroy, it's been a great conversation and we could go on, but I think there's already a lot in this discussion and I know that there's a big year ahead in 2025. So, I want to thank you at that point for joining us on the National Security Podcast. And as I've said to other guests across the political spectrum on this program, I really appreciate your commitment to the national interest and wish you well.

Pat Conroy

Thanks Rory for the opportunity and thanks for the ongoing conversation and thanks for what you do.