Interview with Patricia Karvelas on Mark Carney’s address to the Australian Parliament

Interview with Patricia Karvelas on Mark Carney's address to the Australian Parliament

5th of March 2026

JOURNALIST: You were sitting in the chamber, watching the address by Mark Carney. What's your assessment of the message he was sending?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: It's a really important message. It follows on from his speech in Davos, and I think it's the most important message that we're hearing in response to this new world disorder that Donald Trump has really ushered in. And that is that middle powers, like Australia and Canada and the Europeans and Japan have got to work together. 
And those of us who still believe in international law and free trade, have got to work together and practice it.

JOURNALIST: Is Australia and Canada's relationship more important than ever at trying to recapture rules might look like among middle powers?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: The example that Mark Carney gave of the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a good example of this. 
We kept the TPP going when Trump pulled out. That was an Australian initiative, my government's initiative. 
We worked with Japan, got everyone back on board, and that was an example of middle powers being able to work together. As Carney said, now the European Union is seeking to join, or affiliate itself with that. We know the UK has already joined. So you do have agency, and I think it's important otherwise, what's the alternative? 
You just have to hitch your wagon to some mighty hegemon, presumably in our case, Washington, and just hope for the best, go along with the ride and have no agency, no respect at all. That's no way for a sovereign state like Australia to act.

JOURNALIST: He identified defence as an area of cooperation for a closer relationship. Does our involvement with AUKUS compromise that? 

MALCOLM TURNBULL: I don't think so. AUKUS is overwhelmingly about submarines - the acquisition, or in our case, the nonacquisition of submarines. 
Basically, we're providing a tonne of money to the Brits and the Americans, there may be some submarines, most unlikely… the Americans are getting a big naval base and dockyard in Perth which is very advantageous to them. I don't think that precludes doing anything with the Canadians. AUKUS Pillar 2, which is supposedly working about advanced technologies apart from the submarines has really not yet taken off. And that's largely because no one's invested much money into it. It's a great idea, and everyone would welcome it, but they've got to find some concrete goals. 
And I think the three countries have all acknowledged this Patricia. This is not me being critical of it. I think it needs to be focussed on some real deliverables, and they've got to invest some money.

JOURNALIST: So when it comes to Mark Carney's role here, where he's really trying to galvanise the middle powers of the world to reinvest in democracy and this joint project, how do you assess Australia's role in all of this? Mark Carney is taking a leadership role. Is Anthony Albanese? 

MALCOLM TURNBULL: 
Well, he's not taking as leading a role as Carney, obviously, but you've got to remember Carney has been right on the edge there. The Americans have exerted enormous economic coercion against Canada, put tariffs on them, bullied them, threatened them, said it should be the 51st State. And Carny got elected as Prime Minister [because] he brought the Liberal Party in Canada, which is the centre left Party, from being 25% percentage points behind to winning an election because he was prepared to stand up to Trump, and his conservative opponent was seen as being Trump-light. 

JOURNALIST: So this tougher approach that we're hearing from Mark Carney, that clearly our government has endorsed, but not led on, you think it's natural that Mark Carney would play that role and we'd play a different role? 

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, I think knowing the personalities of the two leaders, knowing the situation of the two countries, Canada more threatened by the United States…. 

JOURNALIST: Is Australia hedging? 

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yes, I think it is.

JOURNALIST: It is? 

MALCOLM TURNBULL: For sure.

JOURNALIST: And how does that look? 
So Australia clearly is leaning a little into the Mark Carney message of middle powers talking about rules, but equally, if you look at the Iran situation, Australia has been pretty careful to not criticise the United States, especially on International law.

MALCOLM TURNBULL: I think there's a lot of mealy mouth talk here. 
The American action is in breach of international law. That's clear. Look at Article 2 of the UN charter. 

JOURNALIST: So should Australia just say yes?

MALCOLM TURNBULL:  Of course we should. But the point is, the Americans do not suggest it is in line with international law. 
The Americans no longer regard international law as applying to them. And this is why when I've said it's a breach of international law, people say: Oh, Malcolm's being critical of America. I'm not being critical, I'm just stating a fact. 
Their National Defense Strategy says and I quote, “the international rules based order is a cloudcastle abstraction”. So they're mocking the international rules based order, which used to be what we're all supposed to be standing up for.

JOURNALIST: So what do we do in response then, just accept that as the new normal? 
That's what people like Andrew Hastie are saying that it's over and we just need, I don't know, to have a proper funeral for it and move on. 

MALCOLM TURNBULL: I think Andrew Hastie was doing no more than I'm doing, he was just recognising reality. 
And Carney recognised reality in Davos. Now, what is the reality? The reality is that the United States will comply with international law only when it suits it. 
Now, that's not good, but there's not much we can do about it. But what we can do between, say, the countries of the TPP and the Europeans, among the rest of the world we can at least work together and comply with international law and promote free trade and so forth. If the United States is going to regard itself as being, if you like, practising sovereign exceptionalism, because they are the superpower, the laws that apply to lesser nations, i.e. everybody else, doesn't apply to them.
We can't talk them out of that. It's absolutely not in their interest. In the long term it’s not in their interest because it will cause people to distrust them. They will lose respect. They are just burning up their capital, their political capital around the world, but they're not going to listen to us. We should make the point as friends, but what we've got to do is not lower our standards. So that's that's really the message that Carney is making

JOURNALIST:
So do we lower our standards by backing the action against Iran?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: I don't think so. It depends how far you want to back it. Nobody is going to mourn a change of regime in Iran. But, you've got to recognise that the United States going and essentially assassinating the leader of Iran - let's say he's a bad guy, so sure OK..what happens if they decide to do that to Vladimir Putin? Or Kim Jong Un. They're both dictators. They've got nuclear weapons. Where does this end? 

JOURNALIST: So there is danger you think in this action? 


MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, of course there is, because you're establishing precedence and you're making these extraordinary precedents of kinetic action in contrary to the UN charter and America no longer even pretends to be bound by it. This is where Trump, often accused of being a liar, is actually very honest. He was asked does international law apply to you? 
He said, more or less, “no, it doesn't”.  What is the bound of your international activities? And he said to the New York Times, "my own morality”. So he said that. 
Now, he’s being very honest. He was honest the other day with Chancellor Mertz when they said what's the worst thing that could happen with Iran? And he said, well, the worst thing is that we go to all this trouble…assassinate the leader, change the regime, and they end up with somebody who's even worse. Well, that's exactly basically what happened in Iraq. 


JOURNALIST: So, Australia obviously has a limited level of influence, as does lots of people lots of countries at our level. Should we be urging de-escalation now with any of our leverage that we do? 

MALCOLM TURNBULL:  I think we should always urge de-escalation. You remember when Penny Wong said early in the Gaza War, urged restraint on both sides and people jumped on her and said how dare you urge restraint on the Israelis? It is in our interest - let's just focus on Australia's interest, we're Australians - it is in our interest for international law to be abided by. Clearly.  We're not a superpower. Carney makes this point. 
So we need to have international law complied with, and we should always encourage it to be complied with, even if it has been broken, we should always encourage parties to come to peaceful resolutions. What may suit, may suit, the interests of a superpower, the United States in this case, does not mean it suits us. And some of the right wing commentators and politicians in this country have got an awful habit of, even unconsciously, saying what's good for America is good for us. 
That's not true. We've got to be more patriotic and stand up for Australia. And if we do that, we'll be respected more. 

JOURNALIST: 
Australia's been criticised for backing in the Iran action, from some on the basis that we are basically acquiesced to the United States. Do you see it that way? 

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, we have acquiesced to the United States, yes, for sure…and people can criticise that. 

JOURNALIST: Do you think that's what's motivated it?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Yes, I think so… if this could result in a change of regime [and] Iran moved to a democracy, that would be an amazing outcome. 
Sadly, historical experience is that it doesn't end like that. We don't have to go back long, you've only got to look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya… is Iraq better off than it was under Saddam Hussein? Well, some people might argue it is today, but there were 20 years of horror to get there.

JOURNALIST: Do you think Australia will end up regretting its fulsome support?

MALCOLM TURNBULL: I doubt it.
I think we have got to be very careful, and we've got to recognise that our actions are being viewed and judged by the whole world. We've got to look at the way other countries see us. 

JOURNALIST: Well, we're taking a very different position to the UK, for instance. 
So around the world, and you listen to the same things as I, there's a lot of scrutiny on what's happening in Australia. Why have we taken this position? 
Do you think that's fair critique? 

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Of course it is absolutely fair to critique us. And I think the only way Australia can justify the position that's taken is being as a thoroughly pragmatic position that it was better in Australia's interest at this juncture, to acquiesce in this…or give it some support, but we're not actually doing anything substantive in support of it rather than calling it out. You have got to remember in the UK, the whole Iraq experience is just the hottest of hot political issues. 

JOURNALIST: Diabolical for Blair, of course. 

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Diabolical. 
And so Starmer remembers that. And he's of course, he was being asked to have UK bases being used in a very obvious and kinetic way with bombers taking off and so forth. So he drew the line there. 


JOURNALIST: So just ending, if we can, on Mark Carney's pretty historic visit and his speech. Australia clearly wants to be part of this middle power rules-based alternative order. 

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, we are already, you know. 


JOURNALIST: But should we be leading more heavily in? 

MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, we led on TPP. That was something I did as Prime Minister, and we kept the TPP alive. It would have died without our actions. 
There's nothing comparable to that, that the current government is doing, but maybe the opportunity hasn't arisen. The United States respects allies - if you're worried about the American attitude - they respect allies that stand up on their own two feet and show real sovereignty. The Israelis, who not everyone likes the Israelis or agrees with the Israelis, but they stand their ground. 
They have the sharpest of sharp elbows, and they don't let other people push them around, and they have the respect from Washington for doing that. I'm not saying we should copy what they're doing, but sovereignty and self respect and being prepared to back in your own beliefs and your own values and not, if you like, be just an echo chamber or a sycophant, is very important. 

 ** ENDS**