Andrew Clennell, Host: Penny Wong, thanks for joining us.
Penny Wong, Foreign Minister: Good to be with you.
Clennell: So, you're one of 25 Foreign Ministers to put out this statement calling for an end to the war in Gaza, and it condemns what you call, or you all call, quote, "the drip feeding and the inhumane killing of civilians, including children, seeking to cover their most basic needs of water and food". Now, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, has called this statement, quote, "disgusting", unquote, saying it's Hamas who won't agree to a ceasefire. What do you make of that?
Foreign Minister: Well, I'd make a couple points, I think. First, it's good to remember that President Trump has been a very strong advocate for a ceasefire and hostage deal, and so are we. The second point I'd make is, I think, the statement, which was signed by a number of U.S. Allies, so the United Kingdom, Italy, Canada, Japan, as well as us. You know, I was one of 28, actually, Foreign Ministers representing our nations who signed up to the statement. You know, I think that statement reflects the real distress that Australians, so many Australians, feel about what they're seeing in Gaza. You know, they are concerned, distressed, by the catastrophic humanitarian situation that we are seeing.
Clennell: What do you think of Huckabee's comment, though?
Foreign Minister: Well, I speak for Australia, and what I can say to you is that we are where so many in the international community are, which is, you know, we are clear in our condemnation of Hamas. We are clear in our condemnation of their ideology and their actions. We call for the release of hostages. We also say that civilians must be protected. We say aid must be delivered unimpeded. And these are all important to the Australian people.
Clennell: Who initiated this statement? How long has it been in the works? What was your role in it?
Foreign Minister: That's a lot of questions. Well, look, diplomacy, you know, it is a lot of discussion, but obviously, the United Kingdom had a key role in this statement. But this is a statement that is agreed by almost, by 28 other countries, and I see quite a number of U.S. allies. And what that reflects is the deep concern that so many people have about what we're seeing in Gaza.
Clennell: Well, that says to me, this is a statement aimed at the U.S., at the administration, saying, "get on board with us and work harder to produce a ceasefire". Is that where it's aimed?
Foreign Minister: That is a very longbow, that question, and no, I don't agree with it. I mean, it's a statement that is expressing the concern of these nations, these nations about the situation in Gaza. That's what this statement is about.
Clennell: Well the U.S. are key to a ceasefire, though, would you agree?
Foreign Minister: I think President Trump has the greatest chance of any political leader of brokering a ceasefire --
Clennell: Did you --
Foreign Minister: I think we see that because the Israel-Iran ceasefire that he announced is holding. So, of course, the United -- U.S. President is the one who can most deliver the ceasefire that he and others, including Australia, have called for.
Clennell: Did you discuss Gaza with Marco Rubio when you met him?
Foreign Minister: We had a conversation about the bilateral relationship, about the region. Obviously, we're meeting in the context of the Quad, so I have to be honest with you, the focus of our discussion was very much the Indo-Pacific.
Clennell: Would you contact him now about it? About Gaza?
Foreign Minister: Well, we make our representations as we think is appropriate. We've certainly made representations to the Israelis. And what I'd say about the U.S. administration's position is they have also sought a ceasefire and articulated the need for that.
Clennell: I mean, are you in contact with Marco Rubio outside these summit situations at the moment?
Foreign Minister: Well, we have spoken on a number of occasions. I think I've spoken publicly about them and will continue to do that. I would speak to him as much as I spoke to the previous Secretary of State.
Clennell: Right, do you see an irony in the fact that you would criticise the last Coalition government for not being able to secure a phone call with any Chinese official, but the PM can't easily get the U.S. President on the phone?
Foreign Minister: My criticism of the Coalition, which I have to say was not only accurate before the 2022 election, but also in the last term, and appears to be accurate this term, is that they don't learn, and they always seek to create domestic politics in circumstances where you really need to be adult and mature and navigate a diplomatic relationship. That's my criticism.
Clennell: But you were happy to make a political point when they had a hopeless relationship with China.
Foreign Minister: I was critical of how they handled what is always going to be a challenging relationship. I've been upfront about that, Andrew. I have been very clear with the Australian people. We are always going to have differences because of who we are, with China. The question is not whether you have differences, the question is how you manage them.
Clennell: Who is to blame for no ceasefire in Gaza? Is it Hamas, the Netanyahu Government, or both?
Foreign Minister: Look, Hamas has to release hostages. We've made that clear. And, you know, we have been unequivocal as an Australian government in our condemnation of Hamas. But I think this is a point where, you know, we need to, as an international community, back in what President Trump has said, which is that he wants a ceasefire and the release of hostages.
Clennell: What do you think's going on there in terms of civilians, in terms of them getting enough food, not getting enough food, should I say. What's your read on what's playing out there?
Foreign Minister: I think it's self-evident that insufficient aid is going into Gaza. I don't think anybody disputes that.
Clennell: And who's responsible for that?
Foreign Minister: Well, yeah, we just want aid to go in. Right. I know that people want a political argument. The purpose of what we advocate for internationally, and we're not the central player, you know, as I always remind people, but we add our voice to the calls from the international community for things to happen. And this is what this statement is, you know, we want aid to enter unimpeded. Why do we want to do that? Because there are innocent civilians, there are women and children, who are not getting enough food to eat. Now, we need to fix that.
Clennell: And, this sort of juxtaposes the dire situation for Palestinians in Gaza with Jewish people, Jewish Australians, who feel under threat here from antisemitism.
Foreign Minister: No, I don't, that's not an equivalence. I think we've got to be really clear, given who we are as a country, about what are the boundaries here. It is legitimate for us to criticise actions of the Netanyahu Government. It is never legitimate for people's hatred and antisemitism to be allowed to stand. It is never acceptable for acts of violence driven by this ancient hatred to occur. And it must be - we must stand resolute against it across the political spectrum. So, I think they're very different things. And I have been quite deliberate in many of my comments to be very clear about the distinction.
Clennell: Let's talk about the PM's China visit and the relationship with America. Have you heard any disquiet out of the U.S. administration about how long the visit was or the nature of the visit? Anything at all?
Foreign Minister: I haven't had any discussion with anyone in the U.S. administration about the visit to China, and I would make this point: this is an important trading relationship. China is our largest trading destination, export destination. We obviously live in a region where China is a very, very substantial power. We are also a U.S. ally.
Clennell: Is it fair then to say the PM is walking a tightrope here between having a good relationship with the Chinese leadership so that, you know, in the hope that they don't subject us to foreign interference, cyber security threats or military threat, and because of the trade relationship on the one hand, and keeping the U.S. happy on the other, because they see China as their main threat? And ultimately, if China decided to come after us, they are our main form of protection, particularly through AUKUS.
Foreign Minister: I think it's important to think very clearly about these circumstances and to understand what you have to do to advance Australia's interests in all circumstances. That has to be the job of Prime Minister Albanese. That has to be my job. That's how we see it. In terms of the United States, they are our ally. We are their ally. They are our principal strategic partner. They're also our largest investment partner. That does - none of that is - none of that changes. And we will continue to work with the United States in terms of our closer military arrangements, our closer relationship, just as we have always done. China is our most important trading destination, and it is such an important power in our region. And we know that there are times where we will disagree with what China articulates, what China seeks to do. So, we have talked about, and you would have heard it, cooperate where we can, disagree where we must, and engage in the national interest as a way of a shorthand way for describing how we manage that complex relationship. But the world is not only those two relationships. You know, the world is also how we engage with our region and our relationships with Japan, with the countries of Southeast Asia, with India and with Korea. And you would have seen this government working very hard to invest in those relationships because that is how you achieve strategic balance.
Clennell: Is it a tightrope, though?
Foreign Minister: I think diplomacy is often a tightrope.
Clennell. So, I was going to ask you anyway about this "disagree where we must" phrase that you commonly use. Where do we disagree with the Chinese leadership?
Foreign Minister: We disagree on human rights. We disagree on aspects of international law. We have a difference of view, for example, on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. I've made those positions public. We also have a view about the need to maintain strategic balance in our region. China seeks to become a predominant power in our region. Australia wants a balance where no country dominates, and no country is dominated. So, obviously we have differences of views there.
Clennell: Let me ask you about AUKUS. Marco Rubio in Washington gave you something of an assurance around the future of AUKUS. But Elbridge Colby seems to be the issue. We see some fights between - or arguments, disputes, I guess - between Defence and Foreign Affairs in every government, including this one. Is that what could be going on in the U.S. here when it comes to AUKUS? Does Marco Rubio have a different view of AUKUS, perhaps, than Pete Hegseth and Elbridge Colby?
Foreign Minister: Andrew, you wouldn't be surprised that the Australian Foreign Minister is not going to get into commentary about different parts of the U.S. administration, but this is what I would say: AUKUS is a win, win, win. AUKUS is a win for the United States, which gets more maintenance days and investments into its industrial base now and into the future and also gets another Indian Ocean Port capability. It's a win for Australia, and it's a win for the United Kingdom. It's a win for Australia because we gain a capability that enables us to contribute to the strategic balance that I've talked about. We do that through deterrence, military deterrence, which is hard deterrence, but we also do that through diplomacy and reassurance, which is also what I've spoken about. So, I would say, whatever people's views, I think we believe very clearly it is a win for all three countries involved in the endeavour.
Clennell: Could the AUKUS review be a bargaining chip to get Australia to commit to more spending on defence?
Foreign Minister: Again, I think you're asking me to get into commentary about the U.S. administration. The review is something you would anticipate from an incoming government, just as the United Kingdom engaged in a review.
Clennell. So, when Elbridge Colby sort of says, "look, you know, if you want these submarines, you've got to be prepared to join the U.S. in a conflict", did those sort of comments shock or concern you?
Foreign Minister: We are a sovereign nation who will always make our own decision about what's in our national interests, and there is no Australian government that would do otherwise.
Clennell: People in government have called the nature of the Trump administration chaotic to me. Would you describe --
Foreign Minister: I'm not going to do. I'm not going to get engaged in that sort of commentary.
Clennell: Do Australians have anything to fear in terms of our current relationship with the American administration, in your view?
Foreign Minister: Look, I understand that this is a time of change, and I was pretty upfront about that. I said to Australians before and after the election, President Trump envisages a different role for America in the world, and that does involve a change. But we should have confidence in our capacity to navigate that world. We should have confidence in our capacity to navigate our relationship with the United States and all the ways in which we seek to advance Australian power in our region.
Clennell: Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, thanks for your time.
Foreign Minister: Good to be with you.
