Speers: Time now to talk to the Foreign Minister to talk about all of that, and to take us there,
here was the British Prime Minister offering support for Australia's position on China.
Boris Johnson: So, we stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends, but I think I
probably speak for Scott (Morrison) as well when I say nobody wants to descend into a new cold war
with China. We don't see that as the way forward. This is a difficult relationship where it is vital
to engage with China in as positive a way as we can, but where there are difficulties,
which there evidently are, it's vital that allies - UK, Australia, work together, and
that's one of the reasons why we're sending the carrier strike group out your way.
Speers: Marise Payne, welcome to the program. Payne: Good morning.
Speers: So how important are these statements from some of the G7 leaders that we saw over
the past week? Do they embolden the Australian Government to take an even
firmer line when it comes to China? Payne: Well, the Australian Government
will maintain our very clear and consistent line on these issues broadly. But importantly,
I think what the G7 Plus meeting has shown, and a number of our other engagements is a realisation
that the issues around strategic competition, the issues that we are facing in the Indo-Pacific
are very real. The opportunity to meet in person, notwithstanding the challenges of COVID,
does make a substantial difference. I found that myself at the Foreign Minister's meetings
in May and the Prime Minister's just had the same experience as well. Not just, of course,
in London and Cornwall, but through his visit to Singapore and his meetings in France. So whether
it is the United Kingdom, whether it is the G7 itself. Whether it is the United States and France
as well in recent comments, these acknowledgements of the challenges of the geostrategic environment,
and particularly the position in which Australia finds itself, I certainly welcome.
Speers: We saw the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson just in at that clip there
refer to sending a British carrier strike group to the South China Sea, and Australia has agreed to
join in with some Navy vessels as well. What can you tell us here? What will they be doing
and what is the significance of this? Payne: Well, we engage actually quite
regularly with partners across the region and those who visit. So a month ago the French sent
the Jeanne d'Arc task group to the region. We had Australia, France, the United States, Japan,
working together, enhancing interoperability, enhancing that development of familiarity but
also being very clear in our support of the application of international law - whether
that is through the UNCLOS, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or more broadly.
And certainly, we welcome the engagement of Her Majesty's ship, Queen Elizabeth, and the vessels
that will travel with her and we look forward to doing that. We have had our own task groups,
Indo-Pacific Endeavour, travelling throughout the region annually since 2017 in the Pacific, in
north Asia, in South-East Asia and across to south Asia as well. Affirming those bilateral defence
relationships and those multilateral engagements. Speers: It's just that Boris Johnson said about
this particular exercise that it's because, "People are worried about what's happening to the
Uighurs, about the general repression of liberties in Hong Kong and some of the ways that China
behaves in the region, particularly towards Australia." Is that why we're joining this one,
or is it more routine as you suggest? Payne: Well, it is routine. But we're not
denying the challenges of strategic uncertainty. And I think that the G7 meeting affirming that,
NATO's observations in the past week have been important in demonstrating that there is a broad
realisation across many partners of the challenges that strategic uncertainty poses for Australia and
more broadly. We've engaged previously with the UK when they've sent vessels to the region. This,
of course, is their new carrier - HMS Queen Elizabeth. It's a very significant undertaking
on their part, but we welcome it. We think that it adds to interoperibility and adds to familiarity
and is something that the Australian Defence Force and the Australian
Government is very happy to support. Speers: But we're not doing this
because of the way that China treats its people, as Boris Johnson suggested?
Payne: I think that there's a range of issues at play. And certainly,
Australia has been very clear in our views on the human rights issues in China, including as you've
mentioned in passing, in relation to Xinjiang. Speers: A couple of other things - a push for
a fresh inquiry into the origins of the coronavirus. China's vice minister of
state security is reported to have defected to the United States and may have passed on
intelligence relating to the origins of COVID. Are you aware of any of this? Or any new information
that may suggest how the pandemic began? Payne: Well, I wouldn't normally comment on
intelligence matters of that nature. But what is very important here is that we do maintain the
momentum of this inquiry process. We know that the phase 1 inquiry had significant limitations
in terms of the delay in deploying it, access to information, access to
appropriate scientific and medical evidence. So we are very determined to work with our partners
to ensure that the phase 2 investigation is able to access the material that it needs,
including within China. That is strongly supported by the G7 itself, who has
canvassed this issue in their meetings. It's strongly supported by many of our other partners
and I note that Helen Clark and her colleague Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in their most recent report,
the independent panel on Pandemic Preparedness and Response has also focused really importantly
on the need for timely access and timely engagement: The most important thing here
is that this never, ever happens again. It doesn't matter whether it is from Australia's perspective,
the United States' perspective or the smallest developing nations, we all share that view.
Speers: If any inquiry is going to get to the bottom of this, China needs to provide information
and there's no indication that they’re going to give any more than they have. If they don't,
will Beijing be hiding the truth? Payne: Well, I'm not going to speculate
about whether they will or they won't, because they are strongly encouraged by many, many parties
and those who sit around the World Health Assembly table are included in that. To do so, to enable
this to be a very clear and comprehensive process. That's something which we have been advocating
for, as you well know, and will continue to do so. Speers: On trade, Australia's now going to lodge a
second case at the World Trade Organisation against China - this one over wine tariffs.
What's the point of doing this if the WTO is seen as a toothless tiger? The Prime Minister has been
talking about the need to reform the organisation. What's the point of lodging a case at the moment?
Payne: Well, there's a number of factors here. Certainly, we believe that the World Trade
Organisation needs a number of key reforms. Both Dan Tehan and I have met with the new Director
General in Geneva ourselves in person recently. But what lodging the dispute enables us to do
is begin dispute settlement consultation, which actually is a bilateral discussion with China
about the issues. We've seen duties of over 200% applied to Australian wine. We don't believe that
that is consistent with China's obligations under the WTO. So that part of the process enables us to
have that direct conversation. And then, secondly in relation to the reform question, as I said,
we have been calling for some time for the reform of the appellet mechanism, a dispute settlement
reform to ensure that there are processes of transparency in place. All of those sorts of
aspects, which the Prime Minister canvassed in his speech in Perth before he travelled to Europe,
have been reinforced by his conversations and reinforced by my conversations with the
Director General and those of Minister Tehran. Speers: The G7 in their communique committed
again to net zero by 2050 and achieving after overwhelming decarbonising power
system in the 2030s. Why can't Australia make either of those commitments?
Payne: Well, we're very focused, as we have been clear, on low-cost, low emissions technology. We
signed three new partnerships during the Prime Minister's travel with Germany, with Japan and
with Singapore. And the Prime Minister has been very consistent in saying that we absolutely want
to aim to achieve net zero emissions, preferably by 2050, and that remains our position. All of
our achievements so far have over achieved on our targets and we intend to keep doing that. But what
we have seen, what we saw around the G7 table, what I saw in my travels in the United Kingdom
and in the United States and the meetings that took place there was a significant
interest in Australia's focus on low emissions technology and the work that we are doing.
Speers: Just on the "preferably by 2050" position that you've used there as well,
is that a Government position? Is it something that Cabinet has agreed to?
Payne: Well, I don't usually discuss Cabinet matters.
Speers: But is it a Government position? Payne: The clear position that
the Prime Minister has articulated. Speers: Is it the Government's position?
Payne: We want to make sure that we are protecting Australia's industry,
Australia's businesses, Australia's farmers and not doing this by taxes, but by technology.
Speers: I know that line. Payne: And preferably by 2050.
Speers: Sorry, and I know that this is the Prime Minister's
language, but is it the Government's position? Payne: It is the broad position of the Australian
Government that we want to achieve net zero emissions as soon as possible,
and preferably by 2050. It is a sensible position and we need to make sure that we
do it - not by penalising our businesses, our farmers and producers through taxes,
but an absolute focus on low emissions. Speers: Just to be clear for the viewers
on this - broadly the position of the Government? Does that mean it is the Government's position?
Payne: The Prime Minister's been very clear that it is an objective of achieving net zero emissions
as soon as possible and preferably by 2050. Speers: And that's the Government's position?
Payne: That is absolutely what the Prime Minister has said, David.
Speers: Just on emissions, we know that the Nationals have a somewhat different view.
Some openly oppose any sort of target of net zero by 2050 - what do you say to them
as Foreign Minister about where that might leave Australia internationally? Whether in
relation to our Pacific neighbours? With Europe? With the Biden Administration?
Payne: Well, I would advocate and repeat what I've said in the past, which is that we are
forming a pathway, building a pathway, that takes us to a technology-driven,
not tax-driven, but a technology-driven solution in emissions reduction. We've seen it benefit us
in trade terms, or in partnership terms, I should say, with Germany, with Singapore, with Japan,
just in the Prime Minister's visits now. Speers: And we've heard that position… I
guess I'm asking, does it matter for Australia internationally in your role if we don't sign
up to the target? How significant is it? Payne: These discussions always matter and
that's why the Prime Minister took his views and our views to the G7 Plus. It's why I've engaged
in the United States and the United Kingdom and across the region, including as you say,
with the Pacific, where these issues through the Boe declarations, the Kainaki II declaration
are recognised as key security challenges in the Pacific. We understand and have supported both
of those declarations and work closely with our partners in the Pacific to address the issues.
Speers: What I'm asking is - would it matter if Australia does not sign up to the target? Would
it matter to our relations internationally? Payne: Australia has been very clear in our
approach internationally and that is... Speers: Not on the target, with respect.
Not about the net zero by 2050 target? Payne: Well, that is the question
that you asked me? Speers: Yes, and I'm saying
does it matter if we don't sign up to the target? Payne: We are absolutely on a path to doing that
in terms of the work that we are doing through low emissions technologies, through the work that we
are doing across the region in supporting the development of climate resilience and climate
adapted infrastructure, particularly in the Pacific, but also a focus in South-East Asia.
Speers: So we will sign up to the target? Payne: Well, David, we've said clearly what
the Prime Minister is undertaking is and that is what we are committed to.
Speers: Look, are you nervous at all about the prospect of Nationals changing
leaders back to Barnaby Joyce? Payne: Well, these are matters
for the National Party. I heard you say earlier in your remarks as the program started that Liberals,
and frankly, any other party speculating on the leadership processes of a Coalition colleague
or another party in the Parliament is never helpful and I don't intend to contribute to that.
Speers: That's probably wise. But you've sat around the Cabinet table with both Barnaby Joyce
and Michael McCormack. How do they differ? Payne: I won't make personal comments or
observations on my parliamentary colleagues and I'm not going to
inject myself into the National Party's process. Speers: One thing that the Nationals
were pretty excited about this week was the Prime Minister shifting on the idea of an agricultural
visa. Our Pacific neighbours, though, may not be as excited about the prospect of this.
How will this work? Will it mean Pacific workers are left out jobs in Australia in favour of
those from Vietnam, the Philippines and so on? Payne: It will absolutely not mean that Pacific
workers are left out. We only last week announced a streamlining process to bring the Pacific labour
scheme and seasonal worker scheme into greater alignment both for the Pacific sending countries
and for producers and farmers here so that renews our strong commitment to the Pacific labour scheme
and the seasonal worker programs which draw from the Pacific neighbours. The agricultural visa
more broadly is something that the Government has committed to and will enable us to make sure that
in terms of COVID recovery, we have the workers that we need and it particularly reflects
the change in the structure of the working holiday-maker visa as it was with the UK.
Speers: Will there be the same conditions, though, for the new agricultural visa, for
the South-East Asian worker as the Pacific workers? Or will it undercut the conditions
that the Pacific workers have to get? Payne: Well, the Immigration Minister
Alex Hawke will lead that work as the visa process is developed. But it will comply with all of the
appropriate requirements for protection of workers and protection of employers as is currently the
sorts of structures that you would expect to see. Speers: The same conditions? Same
conditions as the Pacific workers? Payne: Well, Minister Hawke will lead
that work, as I said. And that is yet to be done. Speers: Because David Littleproud, your minister,
is saying that there will be different conditions, that there are special protections
for Pacific workers? So, this new visa for the South-East Asian countries might be different?
Payne: Well, we would absolutely ensure that the appropriate legal requirements which need to be
in place to protect workers, to support employers, are in place, no matter what the sort of visa is.
But the Pacific labour scheme - we have over 12,000 workers here and a ready worker pool of
27,000 in the Pacific and I look forward to welcoming them to Australia as soon as
conditions allow. They've been coming for some time now and we know that that will continue.
Speers: Just a final one - Sean Turnell, the Australian economist and former advisor to
Aung San Suu Kyi is expected to face trial this week. This was four months after being arrested in
Myanmar in the days after the coup there. Do you know what's happening with the trial? And have you
been able to speak to your counterpart in Myanmar? Payne: The trial is said to be occurring this
week. Our consular officials, our post, has been able to communicate with Professor Turnell,
as has his family, and that is important consular access. I hope that the process
is a fair and open trial. However, we do believe that Professor Turnell is arbitrarily
detained and we have been consistently seeking his release since he was detained some months ago now.
That is part of the advocacy that we've been supporting in relation to Myanmar more broadly
the vice chief of the Defence Force, Vice Admiral David Johnson spoke
with the deputy commander-in-chief to reinforce these points last week and
we've been consistent in seeking his release. Speers: Payne: Foreign Minister Marise Payne,
thank you for joining us this morning. Payne: Thank you very much David