PATRICIA KARVELAS: What have you made of the Coalition's criticism of the Prime Minister's China trip that it's a working holiday, that it was indulgent? Is that how you saw it?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: No, no, of course not. And I think you've spent a lot of time on your program going on this point, it was absolutely the right thing for him to do to go to China and I think the visit to the Great Wall and going further afield out of Beijing and Shanghai was very good. I mean, if I'd had more time when I had a similar official visit in 2016, I would have done the same thing. So it makes perfect sense.
PATRICIA KARVELAS: OK. But there are questions even that were just raised on my panel that he didn't adequately raise the sensitive issues. He said he mentioned the circumnavigation, the Australian Chinese writer who's being detained in China. Did you see it as an adequate raising of these serious issues?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: I thought that visit went about as well as it could go. So the criticism, the opposition has made of Albanese's visit to China is just opposition for opposition's sake. Look, I know what it's like. I've been Leader of the Opposition. You end up becoming a whinger and a knocker all the time and sometimes you just have to hold back because it does the opposition more harm, much more harm than it does the government.
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Their argument is that the priority should have been Donald Trump, though, as if there is a binary there. How do you view that framing?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, again, look, Patricia, the opposition is just doing what oppositions do. It is saying negative things because they can't think of anything positive to say. Again, being an opposition is very hard, particularly at the beginning of the term, particularly when you've been thrashed in the election. Look, of course it's important for Albanese to see Trump. He had a meeting lined up with Trump at the G7 in Canada. Trump bailed out because he had other things to deal with, notably bombing Iran. And I'm sure that Albanese and Trump will get together at some point in the near future. So this a storm in a teacup that is obscuring and distracting from the real issues.
PATRICIA KARVELAS: It was reported last week that you spoke about AUKUS repeatedly with the U.S. Under Secretary of Defense, that you spoke to Elbridge Colby. Just walk me through that. It was before he was the Under Secretary, but have you been telling him that AUKUS is a dumb deal?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Look, Elbridge Colby is probably… he's one of the smartest, most clear sighted people in the defence policy world in Washington and has been for some years. I mean, he had a more junior position in the Defense Department in the first Trump administration. He's a published author and public intellectual on these strategic issues. And he has expressed himself his own reservations about AUKUS, and they’re reservations that any rational American policy official or policy thinker would have. And they are, firstly, the Virginia class submarines are the most valuable and the most survivable parts of the US Navy. The US Navy does not have enough of them. They are producing about half as many as they need for their own purposes, let alone to spare any for Australia. So the question is, how can they spare any for Australia in 2031? And Bridge has raised this point, he raised it in his confirmation hearings.
The second important point that he has raised, and again, he's raised this prior to becoming Under Secretary, is simply is Australia investing sufficient in its defence capabilities? And this problem has been exacerbated by the decision to go into naval nuclear propulsion, which is hugely expensive. And we've already seen one program after another being cancelled because there isn't enough in the defence budget after spending money on AUKUS to pay for it. We've seen the Australian National Audit Office criticise the Navy for the failure to adequately maintain and sustain the too big LHDs, the two big aircraft carriers effectively, the Adelaide and the Canberra. We've seen satellite program cancelled, we've seen light armoured vehicle orders cancelled. There is a real question in the American's mind as to whether Australia is able to sustain its small, capable military and at the same time, pay for nuclear submarines within the envelope of its current defence budget.
And so you can understand someone like Bridge would be saying, no doubt to the Australian government, look, if you're not prepared to increase your budget, maybe you would be better off just funding a small, capable military and leaving the nuclear submarining to those who are prepared to pay for it.
PATRICIA KARVELAS: And do you think that is likely to be the outcome of his review?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, I don't know. I mean, I think the issue with the Virginias is a separate one, because if the US Navy cannot spare them, then we won't get them. That risk, as we've discussed this many times, it's set out in the American legislation. The President before a boat is transferred, has to certify that its transfer won't degrade the undersea capabilities of the United States Navy, and at the moment, no president, regardless of their politics, could so certify because they clearly do not have enough and they're not building enough.
Now, the problem they've got is that their efforts to increase production of submarines have been unsuccessful. They poured well over 10 billion dollars of additional money, their own money, not to speak of what we put in, into their submarine industrial base since 2018, and the rate of production has not changed. In fact, it's slightly declined.
PATRICIA KARVELAS: So just finally, Shadow Defence Minister Angus Taylor has said Australia should make principled commitments to the security of Taiwan and be prepared to act under certain circumstances. It's a deviation from the position that has been held in a bipartisan way, which is really strategic ambiguity. What do you make of that?
MALCOLM TURNBULL: Well, he clearly misspoke. He's obviously not sufficiently familiar with his shadow portfolio, and I noticed that he ate all those words or retracted all those words pretty soon afterwards. I mean, the United States government, President Trump himself, doesn't give an unequivocal commitment to defend Taiwan. In fact, he gave an interview with Bloomberg a year or so ago in which he suggested that Taiwan may well be indefensible. So Albanese is absolutely correct. Why on earth would Australia be giving an undertaking to take any action in respect of Chinese attempt to invade Taiwan if the United States hasn't made any commitment itself. So…
PATRICIA KARVELAS: Malcolm Turnbull always great to speak to you.
WATCH THE INTERVIEW HERE: https://iview.abc.net.au/video/NU2522C126S00
Sorry comments are closed.