Transcription
What makes you so sure China isn't a military threat to Australia?
Because I've got a brain principally and I can think and I can read, you know, and I read every day, you know. I mean, why would China want to threaten? What would be the point? They get the iron ore, the coal, the wheat. What What would be the point of China wanting to occupy Sydney and Melbourne militarily? And could they ever do it?
I know you're trying to ask a question, but the question is so dumb it's hardly worth an answer. Get this right, Laura. This is about the maintenance of US strategic hegemony in Asia. Now, this is a country which has no no land in the metropolitan zone of Asia. There's no part of it. There's no Alaska. There's no islands. There's no US in Asia. It's 10,000 kilometers across the Pacific to the coast of California. So they are not a metropolitan uh Asian power, but they claim to be and wish to be the primary strategic power in Asia. They're looking around for for suckers. Suckers, you know, global Britain, and they found, oo, here here's a bunch of accommodating people in Australia.
At the Kabuki show in San Diego a day or so ago. There's three leaders standing there. Only one is paying our block elbow. And secondly, you have a tremendous uh skill uh for invective and criticism. Could I ask you now to turn some of that to the Chinese Communist Party and its treatment of uh weaggguers, for example, its treatment of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong? Will you be similarly critical of them as you are of people in your own party and journalists?
After what you co-wrote with Harter last week in that shocking presentation in the Herald on Monday, Tuesday and went you should hang your head in shame. I'm I'm surprised you even have the gall to stand up in public and ask such a question. Frankly, you know, you ought to do the right thing and drum yourself out of Australian journalism. You know, I mean, the that's the the most egregious, the worst, the most biased presentation. And here you are asking me about weaguers and you're asking me about uh if I said to you and I did say when I saw last time, here's the prime minister over. There's everyone over in India, not one question from any one of you about about Modi shutting in the Muslims in Kashmir in the pro-Hindu policies. Nothing.
But there is still a question, Mr. Keading, about the Chinese treatment of the Weaggguers.
Yeah. Well, the treatment of the weagers, I'm not to defend China about the weagers. I mean, there's disputes about what the nature of the of of the of the Chinese affront to the Weaguers are. There's a spirit about that. But one thing we can't be sure, what if the Chinese said, "But look, what about deaths in custody of Aboriginal people in your in your present system?" You know, wouldn't that be a valid point for them? You know, the idea that we need American submarines to protect us, you know, three there's if there's we if we buy eight, three are at sea, three are going to protect us from the might of China. Really? I mean, the rubbish of it, the rubbish. And so, so in other words, let me say this. China has not threatened us. And despite 5 years of this China threat appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald particularly, you know, written by, you know, provocators like Harter and people, it's all been untrue.
So, it's been untrue.
So, if uh if there's not if the threat isn't about direct invasion, as you say, there is still an issue about China finding its place in the in the region and being more assertive in the region. What's the appropriate strategic response to that?
Yeah. Well, I say in the speech, it's worth saying here. Um, China has committed in the eyes of the United States the great sin of internationalism. And what is that sin? To develop economy as big as the United States. That's the sin. They've got as big as the US. You see, and all those all those strategic people in the US, they get their little book out and they say, "Yeah, state as big as us." They lick licking through trying to find that and they can't find it, you know. Uh you see, uh they will never the Americans will never condone or accept a state as large as them, you know, and that's what China presents. China's mere presence. I mean, they would have preferred they remain in poverty 20% of humanity forever. But the fact that China is now you know an industrial economy larger than the United States larger than IMF 20% larger they say hang on this is not in the playbook this this is not in the playbook you know what an affront you know.
So this is what this is about. It's about the maintenance of US get this right Laura this is about the maintenance of US strategic hegemany in Asia now this is a country which has no no no land in the metropolitan zone of Asia. There's no part of it. There's no Alaska. There's no islands. There's no US in Asia. It's 10,000 kilometers across the Pacific to the coast of California. So, they are not a metropolitan uh Asian power, but they claim to be and wish to be the primary strategic power in Asia.
So, what are the Chinese supposed to say that? Oh, that's okay. We've been here 4,000 years. We've developed, you know, we we've been subjugated by every bugger known to man. We've developed a decent economy, a decent standard of living, you know, shelter, accommodation, education, you know, uh that's our sin, is it? That's our sin. And we've got to be superintended by your navy. Yeah. By the US Navy.
So, um you would always argue that we have to find our security in Asia.
Exactly.
And you would also argue that we have to maintain our own uh sovereignty and our policy.
Yeah. If those are the rules. Um, but you do have a a China challenging the orthodoxy if you like of the reg.
But it's not, but the thing is they're not challenging.
I'm not I'm not saying they're talking about threatening, you know, to invade anybody, but you know, they are a rising power and they are getting more assertive in in they're not stupid. What is.
What would you do if you had an economy big 20% bigger than the US? Would you hide your light under a bushel?
What should we do? What I mean, what what do you think is the appropriate response? For example, if if the uh the Chinese want to assert themselves in terms of rights uh against the Philippines or Vietnam, not we're not talking about invasion or war, but in terms of asserting their rights, what what is the defense and strategic.
Well, do you think the United States in the Western Hemisphere doesn't assert its rights against Cuba?
I'm not they're another superpower. No, no, no. I'm just that's that's reasonable enough if you say that's what the US does and you can say, "Well, that's what China does cuz it's a superpower." But what does it mean for us?
What should we be doing?
What it means for us is prosperity. That's what it means for us. Uh it means that that that we we joined with 20% of human humanity if they as they've dug themselves from poverty. So you got to remember this about China. We're speaking of it as though it's almost like the old Soviet Union. It is not the Soviet Union. It's in the IMF. It's in the World Bank. It's in the WTO. It's in the WH. You know, you had Xiinping at Daravos five years ago pro proletizing in favor of of uh globalization. I mean, this is not a state which wishes to overturn the West. You know, but there's a whole lot of difference in not wishing to overturn the West and copying the nonsense from the Americans that the Chinese should live forever under their strategic command. You follow me?
You've also said though in this speech that as a result of this announcement in part that the uh the Chinese you know that you've that we've set the clock ticking almost that, you know, it has set a new trajectory for relationships in the region.
Yeah. Look Chinese is a lonely state. That's the truth of it. They would fall over themselves having a proper relationship with us. fall over themselves. We supply their iron ore which keeps their their really industrial base going and there's nowhere else but us to get it. You know, we provide them wheat. We provide them all all sorts of things, investment, what have you. They they are 12 flying hours from us. We have a continent of our own, a border with no one. No border disputes with them. Perfect. No, no. We've manufactured a problem. You know, don't let the sleeping dogs lie. you know, we giving the old dog a kicking, you know, um and and and so that instead of saying, you see, one of the points I've made here and what's one of the principal problems of this deal is that defense has overtaken foreign policy over I mean, you don't see Penny Wong out there. You see Miles out there, you know, standing on the submarines is Miles. It's not Penny Wong. So what's happened is is that the the military have taken over the the the foreign the foreign policy and as a consequence we're not using diplomacy. I mean, let me just make this point running around the Pacific Islands with a lay around your neck handing out money which is what Penny does is not foreign policy. It's a consular fundamentally foreign policy is what you do with the great powers what you do with China what you do with the United States. This government, the Albanese government does not employ foreign policy, right?
But it has improved the relationship with China since it's come to office.
Look, they've decided not to speak rudely or loudly, but at core, you can see what the outcome is. Here's here's Anthony Albanese signing up with the Americans, the the British. I mean, look, the just let's remember about the British. They pulled their grand fleet out of East Asia in 194. They they witnessed the capitulation of Singapore in 1942, right? Uh uh they then they then uh announced their east of Suez policy in 1968. In other words, you're all on your own, you Australians. We're leaving. We'll leave you with Singapore and New Zealand uh and Malaysia, right? The FPD8, you know. And then in 1973, just to make sure we got the message, they said, "We'll buggy you. we're going into Europe. So, no wheat, no wool, no, you know, um and and so and then of course after the great problem of Brexit, after that fool Johnson destroyed their place in Europe, two world wars. It took two world wars to drag Britain to the center of Europe to sit beside Germany as a second major power. No, no, you know, the empirical people, you know, the Tories, that's good enough for us. We're Great Britain. We're the great power. So, okay, they're now they're now out of uh they're now out of So, so then they're going to put together Global Britain. So, they're looking around for for suckers. Suckers, you know, global Britain. And they found, oo, here here's a bunch of accommodating people in Australia, you know, an accommodating prime minister, you know, a conservative defense minister, a riskaverse foreign minister. Let's put a proposition to them. So, here we are 230 years 230 years after after we left Britain, we are returning to the Cornwall where Morrison did this deal. We're returning to Cornwall and now Rishi Sunnak for God's sake. Rishi Sunnak for Australia to find our security in Asia. I mean, how deeply pathetic is that?
Well, when we last spoke in 2021, uh the Morrison government had just announced the Orcus deal. uh you've savagely critical as we've uh seen of um the prime minister and the foreign minister and the defense minister in this deal. Uh what does it represent in in the sense of our strategic and defense position?
What what.
It's been announced.
Look, I'd say for the cost 360 billion for 360 billion we're going to get eight submarines, right? Must be the worst deal in all history. But let's say 360. If we were if we were buying uh Collins class replacements, we'd get at least 40 to 50 of those submarines. 40 to 50 for the same price. Now, no Navy's ever done better than having one/ird of their boats at sea at any one time. So, we would have let's call it 45 to make it simple, you know, or or something like that. uh we we'd have you know uh uh a third a third a third of them 15 say at sea 15 at sea against three nuclear boats 15 against three now remember the nuclear boats only firing a traditional torpedo it's not firing a nuclear torpedo just like the other boats and because it's 8,000 tons that's big they're discoverable they'll be discoverable from space and What's more, they are too big for the shallow waters of Australian coast. A 4,000 ton boat like the Collins work perfectly around the Australian coast because it was designed to protect Australia. It wasn't designed to sit off the Chinese coast sinking Chinese submarines. Right. So now we've got a big 8,000 ton clunker. We get three instead of 15. And and and you know what the Navy says? I I saw with Miles, I saw Vice Admiral Collins, the head of the Navy recently. They came up to see me and Colin said, you know, well, Mr. Keing, he said, you know, we've got to put the snort up every night to get the oxygen. I said, Admiral, please don't think I'm stupid. You only need to put the snort up if you're going at full power. If you go just cruising, you put the snort up every four days or so. And it may be that it is more risky now than it was 30 years ago. But if you've got 15 of the things at sea, how in the god would knocking one out matter? But if you knock one of the three nuclear subs out, it really matters.
So.
They don't snort, but they'll be found because they're bulk. Yeah. So in terms of the actual deal though um you've basically said that it's been structured to uh support US industry um by buying into the Virginia class submarines in the short term.
And that uh the deal is driven by the fact that the Americans don't want to disrupt or can't disrupt their manufacturing capacity and thus there's this proposal for the British to uh sort of co-build the U.
That's right. Well, look at at at at uh at the Kabuki show in San Diego a day or so ago. There's three leaders standing there. Only one is paying our bloke elbow. The other two, you know, they got the band playing happy days. I hear again, you know, the American president can hardly keep put three coherent sentences together. You know, he was happy about it all. Richishy couldn't believe, you know, Richishy, you know, and so guess what? We're going to pass across 2003 380 billion dollars a dollars overtime to British aircraft BIE systems a British company to build these things and to the and to the and to the American submarine things submarine companies and we have to build the bases here. So you know the at the at San Diego there was only one payer the Australian prime minister, you know.
So where does it leave us in if we are so uh.
Answer is in deep do deep doodoo that's where it leaves us.
Where does it go.
Where does it go I I think uh uh I mean what'll happen is we'll get sucked into the American control system will start to you got to remember it was it was It was Julia Gillard and Steven Smith in the in the Obama visit with the who first allowed basing in Australia. I would never have allowed American basing in Australia, but they allowed it, you know. Um, so now we're going to have Americans submarines coming and going. And of course, they would say, "Oh, well, of course, these are on rotation. They're not permanent." But if the rotation is permanent, they are permanent.
Does it make a material difference though that that that rotational u presence? You know, I mean, the way China.
Just means that we are in the we are in the ambit of the US strategic command system. That essentially we've we've turned the place out. You know, in other words, we don't run the place ourselves anymore.
It it essentially adds to the sense that we are our own when when we when we get our own Virginia class submarines, uh, for example, we're basically an adjunct to the Americans. Is that what you're saying?
Yeah. Yeah. Of course. Of course. Well, of of course that the the the the reactor is run by the Americans. The control system is run by the Americans. And of course, and the Albanese is running around now, every second sentence he says, he talks about u uh what's the word um.
Sovereignty.
Sovereignty. Yeah. He thinks if he drops a word in into enough sentences in in an hour, it'll actually happen. Our sovereignty is just being peeled away by all this, you know. I mean with with the Collins class boat we had complete sovereignty and just I'll tell you something else which I don't think the media knows but I know the French government have offered the Australian government a new deal on the submarines and that would be the new French nuclear submarine the newest one in the world 5% only enriched uranium not 95% weapons grade delivery firm date 2034 fixed prices. No response have the French had to that. Instead of that, we're going to be running around and I mean the ignimonyy of having the British around. Here they are. You know, thatcher wiped out their manufacturing sector when she knocked the unions over or on the they're on the bones of their bum searching the world for, you know, um the new Britain, you know. and and here we are in Asia going back to Britain you know after they've dumped us completely dumped us all through the 20th century.
Uh just you were just talking about uh the lowenriched uranium submarines from uh France I mean one of the things that we weren't expecting out of yesterday's announcement which we did get was uh the revelation that uh we're going to hold on to the uh uranium uh and have to find a storage for it after.
After the uh submarines hypothetical submarines reach the end of their life.
What what's your take on that? In particular, what it's imputation is for non-prololiferation.
Well, I don't think bearing spent fuel rods is proliferation and Australia is big enough for that. It's a it's a minor issue. Look, the bigger issue is this. I'll read this to you. Every year the United States Department of Defense has a statute of responsibility to report to the Congress. And in November of 2022, in its report, the Defense Department said this. The People's Republic of China aims to restrict the United States from having a presence in China's periphery. In other words, not having our our ships run up and down their coast. That's what it really means. Any more than the Americans would consider. Like just imagine, could you just imagine if the if the Chinese bluewater navy decided to do their sightseeing six miles off the coast of California? Could you imagine the brewhaha that would go on? So here's the Department of Defense, not me or or those of us have their view. The PRC aims to restrict the United States from having a presence in China's periphery. In other words, China wants to have as a great state, they want their front doorway clean. Just as there if you take the the Western Hemisphere, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic, you know, there's no way the Americans would want anyone else in that area. And this thing goes on to say, the PLA is increasingly able to project its power into the Philippine Sea. Well, you could just about swim across the Philippine Sea. I mean, shocking. Here's the Chinese, but this is the Americans themselves. So, here we are. Here we are. There's the Australian government where, you know, we're going to stop those Chinese. We're going to poke their eyes out. You know, we're going to get these subs. But the US US Defense Department says, "Oh, by the way, I think the Chinese are really only interested in their front door, their periphery." You know.
I mean I mean that takes all the speculation out of it, doesn't it? And just make this point about the United States. threats the United States. China does not threaten the United States. Nobody can threaten the United States. It's got it's got 10,000 kilometers of sea between the Chinese coast and California. It's got the Atlantic Ocean on the other side. It has a massive country with in space in land mass and friends in Canada on the north and Mexico on the south and the greatest armaments in all history. There's no way the Chinese would ever think of attacking the United States and have never thought to attack the United States. So here we're in this position. The Chinese cannot attack the United States and have never thought so and cannot attack Australia and have never thought so because they try to attack us. We simply sink the armada of the combat ships come of of the troop ships coming. So all of this is all all all foreign policy spook like talk. you know, these these spook agents all have a dirty postcard up their sleeve. You know, when I was prime minister, uh people say, "Oh, you're not at all interested in the cables, you know, the the the product of of the security agencies, you know, and they have some, oh, PM, we've been listening to someone's phone and they've just said this, you know." I said, "Listen, if I want to find out about Malaysia and Singapore, I'll read the Straits Times. I'll get more out of that than your nonsense." you know.
Um the the language yesterday was all about this being a deterrence um at some level that it's sending a signal to China that, you know, we're we're not.
In other words, we're not going to you may attack us when we know they're not going to attack us and have never threatened to attack us and don't wish to attack us. That's the point. You see, don't underestimate the effect that the Sydney Morning Herald in the age for 5 years, you know, that that you know, I've been attacked by uh by Harter, that psychopath who runs this attack on me about me being a representative or putting the views of a People's Republic of China, you know, but he's had free movement for five years to run this scare campaign in Australia. And this was supported by the management of nine group and this fellow James Chessel I understand sits at the top. So Chessel is part of the responsibility here you know and so this this maniac has put this stuff and he he's on the ABC's on the drum every other night you know he's got the great Stentoran voice but no Stentoran mind to match it. The the suggestion always is that your commercial interests drive. Let me make this. Let me do let me deal with this. They talk about me on China Development Bank. I I was on China Development I I by the way I left 5 years ago right I was on the China Development Bank board for 13 years and 10 years as chairman right with Henry Kissinger with Paul Vulkar with the managing former managing director of the IMF Jacqu de la Rosier and you know what our fee was? $5,000 a year. $5,000. What they didn't even call it a fee. They called it an honorarium. I have no commercial interest in China whatsoever. None. None. So, I had And you know what I used to do before I'd go to a China Development Bank meeting? I'd visit Glenn Stevens and I'd say to the governor, the governor of our central bank, Glenn, what would you like me to inject into the conversation up there this this week? Every year I would see him. And when I got the Chinese papers back, I would give them to the the Reserve Bank. In other words, I sat as an Australian representative essentially with Kissinger as my deputy for these years sitting there picking up intelligence out of the PRC hoping I was doing a great thing for Australia and taking it back to the central bank here. That's what I was doing. But I've had to put up with this stuff out of uh Sky News. You know that that Dill Bolt and others and and of course uh you know Alassad drop himself uh uh uh uh Archer saying, "Oh yes, but look, Keing views a compromise as if an Australian prime minister would compromise his commitment to the country because he sat on some international board and getting paid $5,000 a year and having no other interest there." Having said all of that and not reflect not in any way suggesting it's about commercial interests but have you been surprised by the way the Chinese have developed their military in the last 5 years? Uh you know it's it it's been an exponential growth in their spend.
Yeah. But but their percent of their spending defense spending to GDP is only a third of that 40% of that of the United States. As long as you understand that right they are bigger. So 40% of bigger is more, but it's nothing like the United States. The United States spends more than next 10 countries behind it.
But why are they doing it?
Why are they? Well, they're doing it because a they have a huge economy which is internationally dependent uh and because uh more latally they have this sort of pressure from the US. And so like every state of its kind, remember the IMF says on a purchasing power par basis, China is 20% larger than the US. So what do they want them to do? Have have little toy destroyers in the bath. You know, they could like little boy in the bath. They could muck around little boats in the bath. Would that suit the Americans? You know.
But you you have said nonetheless that China doesn't have any territorial ambitions.
It doesn't. No.
So why do you need such a big land army? such a big navy.
Well, that it's the the land army of a of China is really part of the police force of the place really. I don't it's like a paramilitary type for the same as Indonesia, you know. Um, look, the Chinese are locked into a bowl. They've got Siberia to the north, they've got the Himalayas to the west, they have Indochina to the south. They don't go anywhere. They're not attacking anyone. All they've done is they've militarized those shors in their South China Sea. But that's all about, as the American Defense Department says, restricting United States from having a presence in China's periphery. In other words, until this happened, the US 7th Fleet used to patrol up along the territorial sea of China, 6 milesi off the coast. You know, the Chinese said, "Bug this. We're not having this anymore. You know, we don't want to be rude, but we don't have to put up with this anymore." you know um.
Um if I could just ask one question before we turn to our uh my colleagues in CRA um which isn't directly related to um to Ocus but.
Uh it does go back to some comments you made in 2021 and is relevant to the Ukraine uh situation. What what's your view of China China's uh ambitions to the west in the stands given you know the incredibly rich payload of.
Well, I told you this on our last program last time we met here China's interests are not in the east see Australia and the US think oh the Chinese you know they're going you going to muck around with the Philippines they're all all their interests are in the east no what what's their interest in the east is the front keep the front doormat clean not have the US7 fleet up there real interest are in the the west of China and in the Stan countries Kazakhstan, Ubekiststan these countries which I believe they'll have major influence in all the way up to withstand bull you know you can say so China see this is this is the point uh developed countries like Australia are about 90% urbanized China that's Germany France US China is 55 it's got another 35 to go and it's got the Stan countries So, China's growth is just going to keep on coming, you know. Um, and as you know, they've got an agreement to take railways and roads up to up to Gdansk in Poland. So, here's the Americans. Uh, I mean, they've always been protected by the two oceans, but now for the Americans, the Pacific and the Atlantic are a corset. They're a corset on them. They've got nowhere to go. They're protected, but they got nowhere to go. But the Chinese have got lots of places to go, you know.
Well, we'll switch to uh the press club in CRA and my colleagues.
Something in my ear.
Yes, you've got some questions. Um and uh while we're just sorting out Mr. Kading's earpiece. The first question today will be from Phil Curi from the Financial Review.
Uh thanks Laura. Hope hope you can hear me Mr. Kading. Um look, Richard Miles perhaps in anticipation of your comments today uh in defending the yesterday's announcement said we have witnessed in our region the single biggest conventional military buildup anywhere in the world since the end of the Second World War. He says to not respond to that is to be condemned by history. Could I just ask you to clarify? Do you think we should not respond to it at all or we're responding in the wrong way?
We're responding in the wrong way. The Collins class boat which which which uh I built with Kim Beasley was a boat designed in the defense of Australia. It was designed to protect present the continental sh the continental lands of Australia and to repel any invasion of us. What these what these boats are and this is what I don't think uh uh the defense minister is telling you is that these boats are designed to sit off the continent continental shelf of China and sink American nuclear nuclear capable weapons capable submarines. Now ju just I'll just make this point to you. China's peripheral waters there let's make this point that people may not know about a 100 miles off the Chinese coast there's a plateau it's a very shallow plateau right very shallow plateau any any American nuclear nuclear armed subs got to get across that plateau before they get the deep water. So the Americans said, "Ah, we can have like ducks in a shooting gallery. We will shoot them out before they can get to the deep water." But in in the Chinese shallow water, the Chinese have it absolutely loaded with sensors and with equipment to detect large submarines. An 8,000 ton submarine is going to be visible in a second with the Chinese coming across it. So our submarines are going to be susceptible. Our submarines are going to be um uh in the peripheral waters of China where the platforms and sensors are most concentrated. Right? So while the Americans think they can shoot Chinese submarines like duck ducks in a barrel, the Chinese can also shoot our submarines because we're in the shallow water and we are detectable. Right? So this is a this is a strange way to be defending Australia to have your submarines sunk on the Chinese continental shelf. Uh chasing Chinese submarines where in fact with the with the uh Collins model you had and if the numbers are right 45 or 50 conventional submarines around the coast of Australia saying put a step over our finger we'll punch your lights out. That's the better defense policy for Australia than joining with the Americans up there in the shallow waters of the Chinese coast trying to knock out. See, look, you know this, Phil, you may know this. The Chinese in their in their the air sea battle plan they had eight or 10 years ago was whether they could knock out all the Chinese nuclear weapons in one strike. And people doubt that this can happen. you know, you can find the site and knock them out. Also, so what what's what big states do is they have submarines in deep water that carry the same nuclear weapons that are not subject to a strike. It's called the second strike capability. What what the Americans are trying to do is deny the Chinese a second strike strike capability. And we'd be the mugs up there helping them. You know, we'll be up there say, "Oh, no. will put our boats into jeopardy uh in the shallow waters of China instead of what what is our aim in life? It is to protect the continent of Australia border with no one shallow waters. We don't need 8,000 ton submarines. Collins was four. We could have 50 Collins class boats and 15 at sea and we'd have a much stronger defense than this rubbish that the government's doing.
So, um you might like to adjust your earpiece again, Mr. Keing while we uh guess get ready for the next question which is from Karen Barlow from the CRA Times.
Uh thank you Mr. Keating. I want to draw you towards Indonesia a place I lived for two years. You visited many times as prime minister. In 1995 you uh signed the landmark security deal with Indonesia and a year later in Singapore you talked to the great uncertainty with China on Indonesia. Could you talk to the impact the Orcus agreement will have on the Australia Indonesia relationship?
Well, look, I've said before many times, Australia's strategic bed bread is buttered in the Indonesian archipelago. A major attack on them and the only people that could attack them majorly would be the Chinese would affect us whether we liked it or not. And a major attack on us would affect them. So this is why I put the agreement together with Sahhat. An attack on any one of us was an attack on all of us. So what what wise governments do is they put safety things in place. You know, you don't sit there waiting for someone to hit you over the head. Think, hang on, I better I better put a few defenses up here. So the the Indonesia is central to our our security uh our long-term security. Um, and uh, not that I expect, let me repeat, I don't expect any Chinese military assaults upon the Indonesian archipelago or us, but but nevertheless, a prudent country running a defense policy, which is what I've done uh, in the years I was in office would be to to see uh, to have that u have that archipelago at least, you know, capable of of not intrusion by let's call a negative power. Now, but you see what the difference is what what um what what what Anthony Albanese has done this week. He screwed into place the last shackle in the long chain which the Americans have laid out to contain China. We are now part of a of of a containment policy against China. you know, we've got Japan, the US, ourselves, uh, and India, right? And buying these subs, uh, was like Anthony Albanese screwing up the shackle to make sure all the chains are connected. That's we're doing instead of doing a more sensible thing, say, look, our Brit Southeast Asia, it's Southeast Asia that matters. It's Indonesia which matters. Let's get along. I mean, the Chinese don't want to attack anybody. They don't want to attack us and they don't want to attack the Americans and they don't want to attack the Indonesians. So what is all this? It's only about one matter only. The maintenance of US strategic hegemony in East Asia. This is what this is all about. You know, and I go back to the point I made to Laura. If the US has no continental land in East Asia, how does it protect how does it suspect or argue that that it can remain the strategic superpower? Because if it all turns badly, it'll be just like Afghanistan and Iraq. The Americans will pull out and leave the mess behind. They would just go back to San Diego 10,000 km and leave us with the consequences. You know, that that would be the outcome.
Andrew Probin from the ABC has a question.
Mr. Keing, you said before that um that China has not threatened Australia, but how do you reconcile that with the fact that um they have uh issued sanctions on coal, timber, wine, lobster, barley, Australian products. um that there has been a uh depth diplomacy employed among our Pacific neighbors, an encroachment of the South China Sea, an effective annexation of some islands, uh a huge military ramp up that uh that Laura's asked you about. How is this not as one Biden official said this week, undeclared economic and commercial boycott of Australia?
Threat to Australia is a military threat, right? a military threat. It's a for for the uh for for uh the the army of the People's Republic of China to come and occupy Australia. That's what a threat is. Like for instance, a similar threat would be if someone went to occupy Tasmania on us, right? Uh that that's what that's what a threat is. Commercial commercial reactions commercial reactions on things like the things you mentioned. They're not strategic. They're not in a threat, you know. I mean, look look at we're doing to them and the WTO and all the steel dumping and all the rest of our stuff, you know. I mean, you know, the the in the friction of international politics, these things turn up, but they're not threats. You can't impute threat meaning me meaning invasion with putting a a tariff on wine. Or maybe you're silly enough to think that. You know, do you think you are silly enough to think that.
Mr. Keing? Cyber attack.
Well, what do you think the Americans and the Russians are not into cyber attacks? Who who in the world is not into cyber attacks? Or do you think we are not? You know, just just remember this. Uh the best friend we had in Asia was a was a former president of Indonesia bar to Yoda Hono. You know he was the best guy we had barracking for us. You know those dopes in ISIS tapped his telephone and that of his wife. Tapped his phone. I mean this is what states get up to if you let these security agency ning- nongs take control, you know. But you can't impute as your as your question imputes that that a tax or a tariff on wine or barley is equivalent to to to an invasion of the country. China does not threaten Australia has not threatened Australia does not intend to threaten Australia. You can have all these commercial rows you like. We can have diplomatic sort of dust. Remember, this all happened after after um Maurice Payne, you know, the great non-minister of our time, went on the insiders program and said, "We're going to have weapon inspection, weapons type inspections of of Wuhan to find out what was the cause of the virus." It was out of that came all of this, you know. So, you can't put a question without contexting it. You know, you know, I mean, contextualization may not be your long suit, but that's what you should be doing. Oliv Olivia K Olivia Kasley from Sky News.
Olivia Kasley from Sky News. You've described Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Defense Minister Richard Miles as seriously unwise in this nine-page document. Unlike present players, you haven't received a military briefing on this issue since the mid90s. Could you be out of touch on this issue? And given you didn't foresee the military buildup uh from China as well as intimidation of neighboring countries uh when you were in office, what makes you so sure China isn't a military threat to Australia?
Because I've got a brain principally and I can think and I can read, you know, and I read every day, you know. I mean, why would China want to threaten? What would be the point? They get the iron ore, the coal, the wheat. What what would be the point of China wanting to occupy Sydney and Melbourne militarily? And could they ever do it? I mean, could they ever bring the numbers here? It would it would be an armada of troop ships to do it, you know? So, you don't need a briefing from from from the dopey security agencies we have in CRA to tell you that, you know. I mean, I know you're trying to ask a question, but the question is so dumb. It's hardly worth an answer.
Well, so do you just let them carry on with their business, whether that be in the Spratley Islands or wherever you just say, "Oh, well, they don't plan to attack Australia, so it's all okay."
You know, you know how big, you know, how big the the um what's the other islands we're all talking about? Ju just look just pick it up. Just go on to Google Maps and have a look at it. It's about as big as Centennial Park. About as large as Centennial Park in Sydney. That's what we're talking about here, you know. I mean, you know, Sky News, you got to, you know, you got you got to dust up your reputation beyond Sky News, you know, and you're probably doing your best to do that.
Thank you.
Ben. Ben Ben Westcot from Bloomberg.
Uh, thank you very much for your talk, uh, Mr. Keing. Uh, Ben Wescott from Bloomberg. Um I just wanted to ask uh you've talked a lot about uh orthodox threats uh that being an invasion of Australia but you know as my colleagues have set up here there are many other different types of threats and particularly for Australia we're a trading nation all of our um wealth comes in large part from overseas trade and that's you know similar to the US interest in Asia. A lot of their trade comes from Asia as well. Shouldn't Australia, you know, work with a partner like the US to protect trade, which is its main economic interest in the region?
This is the United States that would never ever agree at congressional level to ratify uh the international uh the international program on the law of the sea. You realize that, don't you? The US refuse to ratify the law of the sea program, right? So, that puts a pretty big hole through that question, doesn't it? Second, secondly, second secondly, uh why would the the Chinese can't find an alternative supply to Australian iron ore? They've got 30% of their country still to build. We have the the highest grade 63% FE iron ore, 10 steaming days from their coast. What do you think they don't want that? You think we need we we need the American military at the Pentagon to make sure our our iron ore boats go to China? The ch Chinese. It's a wonder they don't have a welcome proofs out every day one of the damn thing turns up because all that tonnage on their warves build these Chinese cities. Chinese the story of modern China is a story of urbanization. That's what it is. Urban areas are built with steel. Steel can only be done in China out of Australia. So why would the Chinese want to interrupt their capacity to deal with us, you know, and why would we see some donkey in Washington to help us? Yeah. Jess Malcolm from the Australian.
Thanks, Mr. Keating. I'd like to ask you about the government's proposed changes to super tax concessions and whether you have a position on that.
I'm not doing this is all about orcas. I'm not doing super today. I mean, I've done super since since I was a kid.
Um, Matthew not from the Sydney Morning Herald in the age.
I do have a backup question. I I do have a question on China. Um, China's submarine fleet is forecast to grow by six nuclearpowered submarines by 2030. And they're building 20 service warships a year, which is even more than the entire Australian fleet. In your opinion, who is being more provocative, Australia or China?
Uh, not what the Chinese do in the building fleet is not provocation. Why do you use the word provocation? That's the wrong word to be using. You know, they're they're a major state. They have an economy bigger than the United States. They spend about 40% of their national budget on defense. The Americans spends more than the next nine states in the world on defense. So why is it a provocation? Why would you think it's a provocation for a great state like China to build a navy? Why would you think that? I mean, I just don't accept it. You know, the question is invalid. Yes, that's the truth of it, you know. Thank you.
Matthew not from the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age has a question.
Uh, hi Mr. Kading. I'll ask two parts if I could. You've been extremely critical today of the Albany government, including ministers Richard Miles and Penny Wong. Are you concerned that your comments today could represent a fundamental rupture with the party? You've already said that the prime minister hasn't responded to your request to brief him on this. And secondly, you have a a tremendous uh skill uh for invective and criticism. Could I ask you now to turn some of that to the Chinese Communist Party and its treatment of uh weaguers, for example, its treatment of pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong? Will you be similly critical of them as you are of people in your own party and journalists?
After what you co-wrote with Harter last week in that shocking presentation in the Herald on Monday, Tuesday and went you should hang your head in shame. I'm I'm surprised you even have the gall to stand up in public and ask such a question. Frankly, you know, you ought to do the right thing and drum yourself out of Australian journalism. You know, I mean, the that's the the most egregious, the worst, the most biased presentation. You pick up four specialists. You could have picked up John McCarthy, a long-term specialist, Ellen Gingel. You pick up four China hawks, the the biggest of them all, Jen Jen Jennings, uh, you know, Deina Lee, these are all China hawks. You represent them to the community as having an independent view. where you know full well that you've sacked you've you've you you've selected them to do this thing and here you are asking me about weaguers and you're asking me about if I said to you and I did say when I saw last time here's the prime minister over there's all everyone over to India not one question from any one of you about about Modi shutting in the Muslims in Kashmir in the pro-Hindu policies. Nothing.
But there is still a question, Mr. Keading, about the Chinese treatment of the Weaggguers.
Yeah. Well, the treatment of the weagers, I'm not to defend China about the Weaguers. I mean, there's disputes about what the nature of the of of the of the Chinese affront to the Weaguers are. There's a sphere about that. But one thing we can't be sure, what if the Chinese said, "But look, what about deaths in custody of Aboriginal people in your in your prison system?" You know, wouldn't that be a valid point for them? Wouldn't it be a valid point? In other words, great power diplomacy is cannot be about reaching down into the low social entrails of these states any more than they can with us. You know, but the Sydney Morning Herald frankly has has lost it's it's a newspaper without integrity and and and the age follows it in. Poor little like a little pup running behind. Uh, you know, I mean, if I were you, mate, I'd hide my face and never appear.