IN FULL: Former Australian PM, Paul Keating joins Laura Tingle in conversation on ‘AUKUS’ at the NPC

Transcript

[Music] Today at the National Press Club, former Prime Minister Paul Keating will be speaking about the nation’s strategic framework. Mr Keating has been critical of the AUKUS security pact, raising concerns it’ll weaken Australian sovereignty.

Paul Keating with today’s National Press Club address. [Music]

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the National Press Club and the Westpac address, coming to you from the lands of the Garagal people Sydney and from the lands of the Nunawal and Nambry people Canberra. My name is Laura Tingle, I’m the club’s president.

Yesterday’s announcement in San Diego of a nuclear submarine strategy for Australia, as well as for the U.S and UK, has set our country on a trajectory for at least the next three decades which has profound strategic, defense and economic implications. It ties us inexorably tighter to the United States and the United Kingdom than the words in any treaty could do in terms of our place in the region and the world.

It represents another progression in Australia’s pushback against the assertiveness that has inevitably come with China’s rise as a world power. It also entangles our future plans for developing our manufacturing and broader industry sectors with those of the US and UK.

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating has been a vocal critic of the nuclear-powered submarine plan from the start, arguing in an appearance here in 2021 that Australia has lost its way and that the submarines purchase would be like throwing “a handful of toothpicks at a mountain”.

Today Mr Keating returns to speak to us in the wake of yesterday’s announcement. A short time ago he released a statement outlining his views which have been circulated to my colleagues attending today’s event at the Press Club in Canberra. He and I will discuss the points he has made before we turn to questions from the floor in Canberra.

Mr Keating, welcome.

Thank you Laura. In probably characteristic style you haven’t missed in your statement and you’ve called it the worst international decision by an Australian government since the Labor government by an Australian Labor government since the former Labor leader Billy Hughes sought to introduce conscription to augment Australian forces in World War One and that it’s a mistake.

Yeah, why is that?

It’s a mistake. Look, Labor’s got all the big ones basically right in the 20th century. They got right knocking Hughes off over conscription. Curtin got it right in knocking Churchill off over the troops from Burma back to Papua New Guinea, back to Kokoda. Arthur Calwell got it right when he opposed the Vietnam War. Simon Crean got it right when he said we shouldn’t be sending troops to Iraq and went to the wharf and waved them away while saying they shouldn’t be going.

So Labor’s had a knockout set of rights against the Coalition, but this one is where we break the winning streak.

It was that well because underlying all this stuff about the need of nuclear submarines is the idea that China has either threatened us or has threatened us, it has threatened us or will threaten us. Now this is a distortion and it’s untrue. The Chinese have never implied that they were threatening us or said it explicitly.

But what threatened us means is an invasion of Australia. It doesn’t mean firing a few missiles off the coast like the Japanese submarines did in 1943, firing a few things into the Eastern suburbs of Sydney. It meant an invasion.

All great land battles are fought on land. All great battles are fought on land. They fought as invasions. Hitler’s Barbarossa cost the Russians 26 million people in a fight on land. Before that there was Bonaparte controlled Europe on land. You can see with the current battle between Ukraine and Russia is on land.

So the only way the Chinese could threaten Australia or attack it is on land. That is they bring an armada of troop ships with a massive Army to occupy us. This is not possible for the Chinese to do because you would need an armada of troop ships and they’d need to come 13 days of steaming 8,000 kilometers between Beijing or Shanghai and Brisbane say, in which case we would just sink them all.

See, the moment they leave their port they are visible straight away on things. Remember this: the Allies succeeded in Normandy because as a maritime assault because there’s an industrial state 21 miles away Britain, there was no radar and there was cloud cover. So in bad cover we slipped those boats onto the beaches of Normandy and got away with it. That’s impossible today with satellites. It’s impossible with this sort of note coverage.

So what would happen is we wouldn’t need submarines to sink an armada and it would mean a murder of Chinese boats, ships, combat boats, troop ships. We just do them with planes and missiles.

The idea that we need American submarines to protect us, three as 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.

So in other words, let me say this: China has not threatened us and despite five years of this China threat appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald particularly, written by provocateurs like Archer and people, it’s all been untrue. So it’s untrue.

So 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 region and being more assertive in the region. What’s the appropriate strategic response to that?

Yeah well, I think the speech is worth saying here. China has committed in the eyes of the United States the great sin of internationalism. And what is that sin? To develop an economy as big as the United States. That’s the sin. They’ve got as big as the U.S.

You see in all those strategic people in the U.S, they get their little book out and they say stay as big as I say, looking through trying to find that and they can’t find it. So they will never, the Americans will never condone or accept a state as large as them. 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 an industrial economy larger than the United States, larger according to some have 20% larger they say. This is not in the playbook. This is not in the playbook.

So this is what this is about. It’s about the maintenance of U.S. strategic hegemony in Asia. Now this is a country which has 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 U.S in Asia. It’s ten thousand kilometers across the Pacific to the coast of California.

So they are not a metropolitan Asian power but they claim to be and wish to be the primary strategic power in Asia. Is that what are the Chinese supposed to say? That oh that’s okay, we’ve been here four thousand years, we’ve developed, we’ve been subjugated by every bugger known to man, we develop a decent economy, a decent standard of living, shelter, accommodation, education. That’s our sin and we’ve got to be superintendent by your Navy by the US Navy?

So 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 sovereignty and our policy if those are the rules.

But you do have a China challenging the orthodoxy if you like of them. The thing is it not, I’m not saying that they’re talking about threatening to invade anybody, but you know they are a rising power and they are getting more assertive in…

Well they’re not stupid. What is it? What would you do if you had an economy 20% bigger than the U.S? What should we do? What do you think is the appropriate response for example if the Chinese want to assert themselves in terms of rights against the Philippines or Vietnam? Not we’re not talking about an invasion or war, but in terms of asserting their rights, what is the defense and strategic…

What do you think the United States in the Western Hemisphere doesn’t assert its rights against Cuba? They’re another superpower. No no no, that’s that’s reasonable and enough if you say that’s what U.S does and you can say well that’s what China does because 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 means for us. It means that we joined with 20% of humanity if they’d as they’ve dug themselves from poverty. So you’ve 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 WHO.

You had Xi Jinping at Davos five years ago proselytizing in favor of globalization. I mean this is not a state which wishes to overturn the West. 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 Chinese you know that you’ve that we have set the clock ticking almost that you know it is set a new trajectory for relationships in the region.

Yeah look, China is a lonely state. That’s the truth of it. They would fall over themselves having a proper relationship with us, fall over themselves when we supply their iron ore which keeps their industrial base going and there’s nowhere else but us to get it.

We’re providing them, we provide more all sorts of things, investment what have you. They are 12 flying hours from us. We have a continent of our own, a border with no one, no border dispute with them. Perfect. No, we’ve manufactured a problem.

Don’t let the sleeping dogs lie. We’re giving the old dog a kicking. And so that’s 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 defense has overtaken foreign policy. I mean you don’t see Penny Wong out there, you see Miles out there standing on the submarines. There’s Miles, there’s not Penny one.

So what’s happened is that the military have taken over 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 lei around your neck handing out money which is what Penny does is not foreign policy. It’s a consular task.

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 has Anthony Albanese signing up with the Americans, the British.

I mean look, let’s remember about the British. They pulled that Grand Fleet out of East Asia in 1904. They witnessed the capitulation of Singapore in 1942. Right, they then 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 and Malaysia.

And then in 1973 just to make sure we got the message, they said we’ll bugger you, we’re going into Europe. So no wheat, no wool, no you know.

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 the second major power – no, the imperial people, the Tories, that’s good enough for us where Great Britain where the great power.

So okay then they’re now out of, they’re now so then they’re going to put together Global Britain. So they’re looking around for suckers. Suckers. Global Britain and they found oh here here’s a bunch of accommodating people in Australia, an accommodating prime minister, a conservative defense minister, a risk-averse foreign minister. Let’s put a proposition to them.

So here we are 230 years after we left Britain, we are returning to Cornwall where Morrison did this deal. We’re returning to Cornwall are now at Rishi Sunak for God’s sake. Rishi Sunak. To find our security in Asia? I mean how deeply pathetic is that.

Well when we last spoke in 2021, the Morrison government had just announced the AUKUS deal. You’ve savagely critical as we’ve seen of the Prime Minister and the foreign minister and the defense minister in this deal. What does it represent in the sense of our strategic and defense position?

It’s been announced. Look I’d say for the cost 360 billion, for 360 billion we’re going to get eight submarines. Right, this must be the worst deal in all history. But let’s say 360. If we were buying Collins class replacements, we get at least 40 to 50 of their submarines, 40 to 50 for the same price.

Now no Navy’s ever done better than having one-third of their boats at sea at any one time. So we would have, let’s call it 45 to make it simple, we’d have a third of them, fifteen say 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 the Australian coast.

A 4,000 ton boat like the Collins worked 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 the Navy says, I saw with Miles, I saw Vice Admiral Collins the head of the Navy recently they came up to see me and Collins said you know well Mr Keating you 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’re not 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, you’ve basically said that it’s been structured to support U.S industry by buying into the Virginia-class submarines in the short term and that 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 sort of co-build the…

That’s right. Well look at the Kabuki show in San Diego a day or so ago. There’s three leaders standing there, only one is paying. Albanese, Biden, the other two. Look at the band playing Happy Days Are Here Again. The American president can hardly keep put three coherent sentences together. He was happy about it all. Rishi couldn’t believe.

And so guess what? We’re going to pass across 380 billion dollars over time to British Aircraft BAE Systems, a British company to build these things and to the American submarine companies. And we have to build the bases here.

So you know that at San Diego there was only one payer – the Australian prime minister.

So how do you think this came about? I mean you’ve talked a bit about the fact that in your statement about the fact that Labor came out and supported the Morrison government’s proposition 24 hours after it was made. You know is this because Labor doesn’t feel that it can move on National Security?

What happened? Penny Wong got the job five years six years ago and she decided that with Bill Shorten at the time that there should be no opening for the Liberal Party to attack Labor on strategic policy. So she folded in with Julie Bishop and then subsequently Marise Payne. There wasn’t a bit of difference with them.

In other words, they were not going to let she was not going to rustle one leaf or see Labor go into an election campaign with strategic issues being about. So it was a small, the smallest small target policy.

What happens after five years of this? Finally that willful Morrison comes up run by all the spooks in Canberra, particularly this Andrew Shearer fellow. This is a cookie we’re still in the Labor nest. He’s still running the policy. He’s the guy who says we’ve got a better idea, why don’t we get rid of those French submarines, why don’t we get the US ones.

And so they would now notice the Labor party, they call them in at four o’clock one afternoon I’d say Albanese, Wong and Miles, and at 10 A.M the following morning they have taken the policy in its entirety on board. And the prime minister is running around recently so I was very proud to be able to take that policy in 24 hours.

Well how would you take a policy which is going to cost this much money, have these consequences for our relations with China, with the region, in terms of our industrial base? How would you do this

in 24 hours? You can only do if you have no perceptive ability to understand the weight of the decisions you’re being asked to make. It’s getting other people call it incompetence. I’ll call it maybe trying, but we’re dancing to the tune of Andrew Shearer. We’re dancing to the children. It’s a Labor government, a Labor government of ASPI which is this cell pro-American cell run by a former private secretary of Liberal Minister this Bassey fellow that at because Morrison made clear the Australian newspaper made clear on the weekend the foreign minister wasn’t consulted, the people consulted were at the ONA people that is and ASPI.

I mean this is this is it and wouldn’t you think the first thing a Labor government would do would knock all their heads off? No no no, Andrew Shira was in the plane on the way to Tokyo with the Prime Minister. Midnight they’ve been brought in. I mean this is something about the left in Australia. I mean I politically in the Labor party I thought the left most of my life, always mostly on behalf of the United States. But the two principal people on the left in Australia are now Anthony Albanese and Penny Wong and what they’ve done they have essentially accommodated the strategic wishes of the United States uncritically. This is the left you know and of course they would say the old left oh that mob in Sussex Street you can’t trust them but God you know if you look at me or Laurie Brereton or Leo McLean we look like Bolsheviks compared to them.

So where does it leave us in? If we are so… The answer is in deep doo doo that’s where it lives. Where does it go? Where’s it go? I think what will happen is we’ll get sucked into the American control system will start to. You’ve got to remember it was Julia Gillard and Stephen Smith 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. So now we’re going to have Americans submarines coming and going and of course they always 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 rotational presence? You know I mean in the way this means that we are in the ambit of the U.S strategic command system that essentially we’ve turned the place out. In other words we don’t run the place ourselves anymore. It essentially adds to the sense that we are our own when we when we get our own the junior class submarines for example we’re basically an adjunct to the Americans is that what you’re saying?

Yeah of course. Of course we’re of course. The reactor is run by the Americans, the control system is run by the Americans and because in the Albanese is running around now every second sentence he says he talks about what’s the word… Yeah he thinks if he drops a word in into enough sentences in an hour it’ll actually happen. Our sovereignty is just being peeled away by all this. I mean with the Collins-class boats 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 five percent only enriched uranium not 95 weapons grade delivery firm date 2034 fixed prices no response. Have the French had to that so that we’re going to be running around and I mean the ignominy of having the British around here they are. Thatcher wiped out their manufacturing sector which you knock the unions over on the they’re on the bones of their bum searching the world for you know the New Britain you know and here here we are in Asia going back to Britain you know after they’ve dumped us completely dumped us all through the 20th century.

Just you’re just talking about the low enriched uranium submarines from France. I mean one of the things that we weren’t expecting out of yesterday’s announcement which we did get was the revelation that we’re going to hold on to the uranium and have to find a storage for it after after the submarines hypothetical submarines reached the end of their life. What what’s your take on that in particular what its imputation is for non-proliferation?

Well I don’t think burying spent fuel rods is proliferation and Australia is big enough for that that’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 as a 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 ships run up and down their Coast that’s what it really means. Any more any more than the Americans would consider like just imagine could you just imagine if the Chinese Blue Water Navy decided to do their sightseeing six miles off the coast of California? Could you imagine the brew haha that would go on?

So here’s the Department of Defense not me or those of us have Evia: “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 that if you take 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 loud but project its power into the Philippine Sea.” Well you could just about swim across the Philippines say I mean shocking here’s a 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 here at the fence Department says oh by the way I think the Chinese I really ain’t only interested in their front door their periphery you know. I mean that takes all the speculation out of it doesn’t it.

And just make this point about the United States: the threats of the United States China does not threaten the United States nobody can threaten the United States 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 I’ve never thought so and cannot attack Australia and have never thought so because they try to attack a sailor we’d simply sink the Armada of the combat Ships Come of the trip Ships coming. So all of this is all foreign policies spook-like talk. These book ages all have a dirty postcard up their sleeve.

When I was prime minister people say oh you’re not at all interested in the cables you know the product of the security agencies you know that they’d have some RPM we’ve been listening to someone’s phone and they’ve just said this. 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.

The language yesterday was all about this being a deterrence at some level that’s sending a signal to China that you know when we’re not in other words We’re Not Gonna 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 and the age for five years you know that that you know I’ve been attacked by by heart to 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 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’s on the abc’s on the drum every other night you know he’s got the great stantorian voice but no stentorian mind to match it.

The suggestion always is that your commercial interests Drive. Let me make this let me just let me deal with this: they talk about me on China development I was on China development by the way I left five years ago right I was on the China Development Bank board for 13 years and 10 years as chairman with Henry Kissinger with Paul volcker with a manager at former managed director of the IMF Jacques de la rossier and you know what our fee was five thousand dollars a year five thousand dollars what they didn’t even call it a fee they called it an honorarium. I have no commercial interests in China whatsoever none none.

So I had I 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 that the government the governor of our Central Bank Lynn 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 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 Sky News you know that that Dylan bolt and others and and of course you know I’ll acid drop himself Archer saying oh yes but look Katie’s views are compromised as if an Australian prime minister would compromise his commitment to the country because he sat on some International board and getting paid five thousand dollars 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 five years? You know it’s it’s been an exponential growth in their spend.

Yeah but but that’s a percent of their spending defense spending to GDP is only a third of that or 40 percent of that of the United States as long as you understand that but they are bigger so 40 percent of bigger is more but it’s nothing like the United States the United States spends more the next 10 countries behind it.

But why are they doing it? Why are they well they’re doing it because either have a huge economy which is internationally dependent and because more laterally they have this sort of pressure from the US and so like every state of this remember the IMF says on a purchasing power parity 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 a 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 or such a big Navy?

Well the land Army of 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. Look the Chinese are locked into a bowl they’ve got Siberia to the north they’ve got the Himalayas the West they have indo-chines of the South they don’t go anywhere they’re not attacking anyone all they’ve done is they’ve militarized those Shoals in their South China Sea but that’s all about as the American defense department says restricting the United States from having a presence in China’s periphery in other words until this happened the U.S 7 Fleet used to patrol up along the territorial sea of China six miles off the coast you know the Chinese said bugger 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.

If I could just ask one question before we turn to our my colleagues in Canberra which isn’t directly related to Orcas but it does go back to some comments he made in 2021 and is relevant to the Ukraine situation what what’s your view of China’s Ambitions to the West in the stands given you know the incredibly Rich payload?

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 gonna muck around with the Philippines they’re all they’re interested in the East I know what that what’s the difference in the use of the front to keep the front door mat clean not have the US seventh fleet up there they’re really into surrender West the west of China in understand countries Kazakhstan Uzbekistan these countries which I believe they’ll have major influence in all the way up to Istanbul you know you can say so China so this is this is the point developed countries like Australia are about 90 urbanized China That’s Germany France U.S China is 55. it’s got another 35 to go Anders got the Stan countries so China’s growth is just going to keep on coming you know 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 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’ve got nowhere to go but the child has got lots of places to go you know.

Well we’ll switch to the Press Club in Canberra and my colleagues are there something in my ear yes we’ve got some questions and while we’re just sorting out Mr keating’s earpiece the first question today will be from Phil Curry from the financial review.

Thanks Laura I hope you can hear me Mr Keating. Look Richard miles perhaps in anticipation of your comments today in defending 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 vote which which which which I built with Kim Beasley was a boat designed in the defense of Australia it was designed to protect present the Continental 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 the defense minister is telling you is that these boats are designed to sit off the Continental continental shelf of China NSYNC American nucleus nuclear-capable weapons-capable submarines.

Now just just make this point to you: China’s peripheral Waters let’s make this point that people may not know about 100 miles off the Chinese Coast there’s a plateau it’s a very shallow Plateau a very shallow plateau any any American nuclear nuclear-armed Subs got to get across that Plateau before they get in 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 for the Chinese come across it so our submarines are going to be susceptible our summaries are going to be 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 and 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 strange way to be defending Australia to have your submarine sunk on the Chinese continental shelf chasing Chinese submarines where in fact with the with the 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 filter you may know this the Chinese in there in there the ESC battle plan they had eight or ten 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 sides 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 beat the mugs up there helping them you know we’ll be up there saying oh no we’ll put our boats into Jeopardy 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 you might like to adjust your earpiece again Mr Keating while we get ready for the next question which is from Karen Barlow from the Canberra times.

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 signed the landmark Security deal with Indonesia and a year later in Singapore you talk 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 bread is buttered in the Indonesia archipelago a major attack on them and the only people who could attack them majorly would be the Chinese would affect us whether we liked or not and a major attack on us would affect them so this is why I put the agreement together with sahado 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 you think hang on I better I better put a few defenses up here so the Indonesia is Central to our our security our long-term security and 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 in the years I was in office would be to to see to have that have that archipelago at least you know capable of of not intrusion by let

call it a negative power now but you see what the difference is what what what what Anthony Albanese has done this week he’s screwed into place the last shackle in the long chain which the Americans have laid out to contain China we are now part of it of a containment policy against China you know we’ve got Japan the US ourselves and India right and buying these Subs it was like Anthony Albany 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 bread is buttered in Southeast Asia it’s southeast Asia it matters it’s Indonesia which matters let’s get along when the Chinese don’t want to attack anybody that I’m going to attack us and they don’t 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 U.S 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 kilometers and leave us with the consequences you know that that would be the outcome.

Andrew proven from the ABC has a question mysticating you said before that that China has not threatened Australia but how do you reconcile that with the fact that they have issued sanctions on coal Timber wine Lobster barley Australian products that there has been a debt diplomacy employed among our Pacific neighbors an encroachment of the South China Sea an effective annexation of some islands a huge military ramp up that that Laura’s asked you about how is this not as one by Biden official said this week Undeclared economic and Commercial boycott of Australia to Australia is a military threat by a military threat it’s a threat for for the for for 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 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 in the WTO and all the steel dumping and all the rest of our stuff you know I mean you know the the the the in the friction of international politics these things turn up but they’re not threats you can’t impute threat meaning meaning invasion with putting 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 Keating Cyber attack well what do you think the Americans and the Russians are not in the cyber attacks who who in the world is not into cyber attacks or do you think we are not you know just from just remember this the best friend we had in Asia was a was a former president of Indonesia bar to Yoda hono you know he’s the best guy we had barracking for us you know those dopes in Asus tapped his philophone and that of his wife tapped his phone I mean this is what states get up to if you let the security agencies ning nongs take control you know but you can’t impute as your as your question imputes that that attacks 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 rails you like we can have diplomatics or adults remember this all happened after after 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 will harm 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 like you know I’m in contextualization may not be your long suit but that’s what you should be doing.

Olivia case Olivia casley from Sky News Olivia casley from Sky News you’ve described foreign minister Penny Wong and defense minister Richard miles is seriously unwise in this nine page document unlike present players you haven’t received a military briefing on this issue since the mid 90s could you be out of touch on this issue and given you didn’t foresee the military buildup from China as well as intimidation of neighboring countries 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 I know I can think and I can read you know and I read every day you know I mean why would China want a threat what would be the point they get the iron ore the coal the wheat what would be the point of the 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 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 Canberra 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 hard to be worth an answer.

Well so do you just let them carry on with their business whether that be in the spratly islands or whether you just say oh brother they don’t plan to attack Australia so it’s all okay?

Yeah yeah you know how big you know how big the the um what’s the other Islands we’re always talking about just 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 gotta you know you’ve got you’ve got to dust up your reputation Beyond Sky News you know and you’re probably doing your best to do that.

Good thank you then then Westcott from Bloomberg thank you very much for your talk Mr Keating Ben Westcott from Bloomberg I just wanted to ask you’ve talked a lot about Orthodox threats that being an invasion of Australia but you know as my colleagues have said up here there are many other different types of threats and particularly for Australia we’re a trading Nation all of our wealth comes in a large part from overseas trade and that’s you know similarly to the U.S interest in Asia a lot of fair 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 the international the international program on the law of the sea you realize that don’t you the U.S refuse or 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 why would the Chinese can’t find an alternative Supply to Australia and iron ore they’ve got 30 percent of their country still to build we have 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 China the Chinese it’s a wonder they don’t have a welcome for us out every day one of these damn thing turns up because all that tonnage on their wolves build these Chinese cities Chinese the story of modern China is a story of urbanization that really 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 why would we see some donkey in Washington to help us.

Yeah just 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.

Matthew Knott from the Sydney Morning Herald and the age I do have it I do have a question on China ‘s submarine Fleet is forecast to grow by six nuclear-powered 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?

It’s not what the Chinese do in the building affiliate 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 percent of their National Budget on defense the American 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’s invalid just aggressive truth of it you know.

Thank you Matthew not from the Sydney Morning Herald and the age has a question hi Mr Keating our last two parts if I could you’ve been extremely critical today of the Albanese 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 tremendous skill for invective and criticism could I ask you now to turn some of that to the Chinese Communist party and its treatment of uyghurs for example it’s 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 archer last week in that shocking presentation in the herald on Monday Tuesday I went you should hang your head in shame I’m I’m surprised you even have the goal 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 that’s 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 Alan gingel you pick up four China Hawks the the biggest of them all Jenn Jennings you know Davina Lee these are all China Hawks you represent them to the old Community as having an independent view where you know full well that you’ve sacked you’ve you’ve you’ve selected them to do this thing and here you are asking me about uyghurs and you’re asking me about if I said to you and I did say when I saw her 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 Keating about the Chinese treatment of the uyghurs the treatment of the wicked I’m not to defend China about the weakest I mean there’s disputes about what the nature of the of of the of the Chinese affront of the uyghurs 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 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 it cannot be about reaching down into the low social entrails of these states any more than they can with us you know but the city Morning Herald frankly has lost as it’s it’s it’s it’s a newspaper without integrity and and and and the age follows it in poor little like a little pup running behind you know I mean if I were you mate I’d hide my face and never appear again on on the subs or the record that’s getting we’re very proud of our journalism and you know we think that’s made an important contribution to the National debate but can I just clarify do you think that it really is in dispute about what China has been doing in xinjiang it’s been a very well chronicled by the United Nations which issued a detailed report right well let me ask you do you what do you believe Modi and his Hindu party is doing to to the Muslims in Kashmir if you’ve got a view on another question about China back because because you’re not honest enough to recognize that the guy you support Modi has the same sort of problems.

Could I just follow up on Matthew’s question about whether you’re concerned about a break with the party the party I’d when I saw Anthony Albanese at at he asked me to curability about a couple of months ago before he saw Xi Jinping I was the last person who taught him before he saw a season Pig at the G20 and I said these issues are so big Anthony it’s a case for me of country before party you know I’m not going to have Australia’s long-term strategic interest compromise by rubbish in the labor party you know an understanding you know of of the of the issues in other words you know I would have expected him from the left and and Penny Wong from the left to have stood up with a position look look at look at Labor’s great history in China goth recognizing China in 1972. horkie was huya bung you know the Chinese party secretary and and zaziang the premier you know the Apec leaders the Apec meeting I did the Apec leaders meeting I talked I talked the Chinese into sitting down with Hong Kong and Taiwan could you imagine any of these people getting the Chinese to sit down in Apec which turned with with these people and then then there’s I tended to deal with Indonesia Kevin did Kevin Rudd did the East Asia Summit you know we’ve got this huge proud history but Wong drops the whole thing she drops the whole thing five years ago not to be running a small Target policy there’s no way I’m going to let let the Liberals wedge me on on National Security because I’m on the same I look a little tell you the story Archer wrote a book and asked on the back for comments and pennywong was going to attend the book launch with Maurice Payne and was going to add the comments to the back jacket of the book so I discussed with this with I remember she’s a shadow foreign minister and harder is the infant teribla of this debate right she’s turning up with that so our discussion with Gareth Evans and Bob Carr about this and I said you’ve got to tell her if she goes to the launch and she puts some in the back of the book I’m into her and I think Cara is too and so she didn’t but you see that’s how that’s this this is a small Target thing this is where we’ve got you know we’ve got to in her administration of the policy you know it’s it’s terrible.

MAIF Bannister has a question thanks Mr Keating Maeve Bannister from the Australian Associated Press China has criticized the orcas security pact as Australia disregarding concerns of the International Community and being in breach of the non-proliferation treaty but the Chinese military itself has a nuclear-powered technology capabilities so is China being hypocritical do you think and why shouldn’t Australia have that same capability?

Well we’d have the same capability if we needed it I think I think that’s the answer we wouldn’t worry about them what the China said I mean bag of the Chinese you know we’d have the same capability if we knew that my point is we don’t need it we’re far better off with 45 Collins class new age submarines in the defense of Australia so it’s like put your toe over our beach and we knock your head off that’s the policy in other words we’ve gone from a defend Australia policy now to a forward defense policy the old four defense policy we’re going to sit with a bunch of American submarines off the Chinese continental shelf and try a duck shoot of Chinese nuclear armed submarines I mean this is not the defense of Australia you know so if we need a nuclear armed submarines nuclear power we wouldn’t take any knows what the Chinese said but the fact is we just don’t know them.

The next question is from Paul carp thanks very much Mr Keating despite the Albanese government’s support for August it does appear to have made progress normalizing the relationship with China could I please ask is that worth anything and does that show that a productive economic and political relationship is possible despite orcas?

What about you’d have to be naive to be thinking that wouldn’t you I mean you have to you know you know look what I what I said in the speech I’ll try and find it I said my refiner words no mealy mouth talk of stabilization get the emphasis mealy-mouthed talk of stabilization now China relationship or resort to softer or polite language will disguise from the Chinese the extent and intent of our commitment to the United States strategic hegemony in East Asia with all its deadly portettes really I mean so in other words they’re not going to be as rude as as Scott Morrison they’re not going to be a rude as as Maurice Payne they’ll talk softly but by the way we’ll put the last Shackle in the con in the chain to contain you you know they’re trying to say oh think well look thanks for that I’m glad you’re speaking to us more nicely.

We’ve only got a couple of minutes left Mr Keating the next question is from Dan javasbadi thank you for dress Mr Keating Dan Jervis body from the West Australian can I ask how widely held do you think your view is about orcas within the labor party both at a Grassroots level and among parliamentarians and if it is widely held why are you the only one that’s speaking up?

Well generally because I have been championing these issues for you know last 30 years that’s a reasonable I’d say majority of Labor people would share my view about this I’d say in those branches of ours when they work out that that we have returned to Britain 230 years after we left after British dumped us all through these years that we’re going to bail the British bie systems and British aerospace companies and submarine companies out and build their Marine for them I think the average when the average Branch labor party member gets onto this you know I mean it was like you know I think there’ll be a big reaction to what the government’s doing I mean there’s no mandate inside the labor party no mandate for what prime minister Albanese foreign minister Penny Wong and Richard miles are doing no mandate.

The next question is from Julie hair Mr Keating Julie here from the Australian financial review I’m just a little bit confused I’d like you to clarify if possible you say that China is not a threat to Australia but you agree we need to respond to their military buildup using collins-class submarines how do you explain that contradiction?

Not their military anyone’s military buildup in other words you have what a defense policy is about is prudence you potentially cover your bases the point of the Collins was the was to cover us against any comers not the Chinese see remember this when I did the Collins with Kim Beasley in the late 80s China’s defense was nowhere Chinese military was nowhere I mean I don’t mean anywhere I mean nowhere but we built the collins-class submarines prudently so that we could pretend the
country and that’s still the same today and the thing is what would you rather eight Collins class boats or nine or sorry for 15 at Sea permanently or three nuclear boats you’ve got to remember they’re only firing traditional Torpedoes not foreign so there we are the massive Marine Maritime region of Australia we’ve got the three boats out there and I hope you Chinese are quaking in your boots I mean I’m sure they’ll be quacking in their boots.

Mr heading we’re out of time I have received a message saying that Penny Wong actually launched Peter Hatcher’s book country to what you said I don’t know she wanted but she didn’t put the the I think the sticker on the back you know and I had many people saying to me please don’t hop into a please don’t hop into it and it was with all the restraint I could Muster that I didn’t.

Well you seem to have hopped into a fair bit today so thank you for your observations and thank you for joining us at the Press Club today.

Okay thank you so much thank you.

Original Article Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2lQvFTmMxU

中文翻译

完整内容：前澳大利亚总理保罗·基廷在国家新闻俱乐部就”AUKUS”与劳拉·廷格尔对话

文字记录

[音乐] 今天在国家新闻俱乐部，前总理保罗·基廷将就国家的战略框架发表讲话。基廷先生一直批评AUKUS安全协议，担心这会削弱澳大利亚的主权。

保罗·基廷今天的国家新闻俱乐部讲话。[音乐]

下午好，女士们先生们，欢迎来到国家新闻俱乐部和西太平洋银行演讲，来自悉尼加拉加尔人的土地和堪培拉努纳瓦尔和南布里人的土地。我是劳拉·廷格尔，俱乐部主席。

昨天在圣地亚哥宣布的澳大利亚以及美国和英国的核潜艇战略，已经为我们的国家设定了至少未来三十年的轨迹，这具有深远的战略、国防和经济影响。它比任何条约中的文字都更紧密地将我们与美国和英国联系在一起，就我们在地区和世界中的地位而言。

它代表了澳大利亚对中国作为世界大国崛起必然带来的自信的又一次推进。它还将我们发展制造业和更广泛行业部门的未来计划与美国和英国的计划纠缠在一起。

前总理保罗·基廷从一开始就是核动力潜艇计划的直言不讳的批评者，在2021年在这里露面时辩称澳大利亚已经迷失了方向，购买潜艇就像”向山上扔一把牙签”。

今天，基廷先生在昨天宣布后回来与我们交谈。不久前，他发布了一份声明概述了他的观点，这些观点已经分发给今天在堪培拉新闻俱乐部参加活动的我的同事们。他和我将讨论他提出的观点，然后转向堪培拉现场的问题。

基廷先生，欢迎。

谢谢劳拉。可能以典型的风格，你在声明中没有错过，你称之为自前工党领袖比利·休斯试图在第一次世界大战中引入征兵以增强澳大利亚军队以来，澳大利亚政府做出的最糟糕的国际决定，而且这是一个错误。

是的，为什么这么说？

这是一个错误。看，工党在20世纪基本上把所有大事都做对了。他们在征兵问题上把休斯赶下台做对了。柯廷在把丘吉尔从缅甸调回巴布亚新几内亚，回到科科达做对了。亚瑟·卡尔威尔在反对越南战争时做对了。西蒙·克里安在说我们不应该向伊拉克派兵并到码头挥手告别时说他们不应该去时做对了。

所以工党在与联盟党的对抗中有一系列出色的正确决定，但这一次是我们打破连胜纪录的地方。

那是因为，关于需要核潜艇的所有这些说法的背后，是中国要么威胁了我们，要么威胁了我们，它威胁了我们或者将要威胁我们的想法。这是一种扭曲，是不真实的。中国人从未暗示他们威胁我们或明确说过。

但威胁我们的意思是对澳大利亚的入侵。这并不意味着像1943年日本潜艇那样向海岸发射几枚导弹，向悉尼东郊发射一些东西。这意味着入侵。

所有伟大的陆地战斗都是在陆地上进行的。所有伟大的战斗都是在陆地上进行的。他们作为入侵而战。希特勒的巴巴罗萨行动在陆地上的战斗中让俄罗斯损失了2600万人。在此之前，波拿巴在陆地上控制了欧洲。你可以看到乌克兰和俄罗斯之间的当前战斗是在陆地上进行的。

所以中国人威胁澳大利亚或攻击它的唯一方式是在陆地上。也就是说，他们带来一支庞大的运兵船舰队和一支庞大的军队来占领我们。这对中国人来说是不可能的，因为你需要一支庞大的运兵船舰队，他们需要从北京或上海到布里斯班航行13天，8000公里，在这种情况下我们会把他们全部击沉。

看，他们离开港口的那一刻，他们就在东西上立即可见。记住这一点：盟军在诺曼底成功是因为作为一次海上攻击，因为21英里外有一个工业国家英国，当时没有雷达，有云层覆盖。所以在恶劣的掩护下，我们把那些船滑上了诺曼底的海滩并侥幸成功。今天有了卫星这是不可能的。有了这种覆盖范围这是不可能的。

所以会发生的是，我们不需要潜艇来击沉一支舰队，那将意味着大量中国船只、战舰、战斗船、运兵船的屠杀。我们只用飞机和导弹就能对付他们。

我们需要美国潜艇来保护我们的想法，三个好像如果我们买八个，三个在海上，三个将保护我们免受中国的强大力量？真的吗？我是说这完全是胡说八道，胡说八道。

所以换句话说，让我这么说：中国没有威胁我们，尽管五年来这种中国威胁论出现在《悉尼晨锋报》上，特别是由像阿彻这样的人写的挑衅者，这一切都是不真实的。所以这是不真实的。

所以如果威胁不是关于直接入侵，如你所说，仍然存在中国在地区中找到自己的位置并在地区中变得更加自信的问题。对此适当的战略回应是什么？

是的，我认为演讲值得在这里说。中国在美国眼中犯下了国际主义的重大罪行。那是什么罪行？发展一个和美国一样大的经济。这就是罪行。他们变得和美国一样大。

你看美国所有那些战略人士，他们拿出他们的小书说保持和我一样大，翻来翻去试图找到那个，他们找不到。所以他们永远不会，美国人永远不会宽恕或接受一个和他们一样大的国家。这就是中国所呈现的。

中国的存在，我是说他们宁愿他们永远保持20%人类的贫困，但事实是中国现在是一个比美国更大的工业经济，根据一些人的说法大20%他们说。这不在剧本里。这不在剧本里。

所以这就是这一切的意义。这是关于维持美国在亚洲的战略霸权。现在这是一个在亚洲大都市区没有土地的国家。没有它的部分，没有阿拉斯加，没有岛屿，亚洲没有美国。它横跨太平洋一万公里到加利福尼亚海岸。

所以他们不是一个大都市亚洲强国，但他们声称是并希望成为主要的战略强国。这就是中国人应该说的吗？哦，没关系，我们在这里四千年了，我们发展了，我们被所有已知的人类征服过，我们发展了一个体面的经济，体面的生活水平，住房，住宿，教育。这是我们的罪行，我们必须由你的海军，美国海军来监督？

所以你总是主张我们必须在亚洲找到我们的安全。

正是。你还会主张我们必须保持我们自己的主权和政策，如果这些是规则的话。

但你确实有一个中国在挑战他们的正统观念。问题是，我不是说他们在谈论威胁要入侵任何人，但你知道他们是一个崛起的大国，他们在变得更加自信…

嗯，他们不傻。是什么？如果你有一个比美国大20%的经济，你会怎么做？我们应该做什么？我是说，例如，如果中国人想在菲律宾或越南方面主张他们的权利，你认为适当的回应是什么？不是我们在谈论入侵或战争，而是在主张他们的权利方面，什么是国防和战略…

你认为美国在西半球不主张对古巴的权利吗？他们是另一个超级大国。不不不，那是那是合理的，如果你说那是美国做的，你可以说那是中国做的，因为它是一个超级大国。

但这对我们意味着什么？我们应该做什么？

这对我们意味着繁荣。这就是对我们的意义。这意味着我们与20%的人类联合，如果他们从贫困中崛起。所以你必须记住关于中国的这一点：我们谈论它就好像它几乎是旧的苏联。它不是苏联。它在国际货币基金组织，在世界银行，在世界贸易组织，在世界卫生组织。

你有习近平五年前在达沃斯宣扬支持全球化。我是说这不是一个希望推翻西方的国家。但在不希望推翻西方和复制美国人的胡说八道之间有很大的区别，美国人说中国人应该永远生活在他们的战略指挥下。

你明白我的意思吗？

你还在这次演讲中说，由于这次宣布的部分原因，中国人你知道你已经我们几乎让时钟滴答作响，你知道它为地区关系设定了一个新的轨迹。

是的看，中国是一个孤独的国家。这是事实。他们会争先恐后地与我们建立适当的关系，当我们供应他们的铁矿石时他们会争先恐后，这维持了他们的工业基础，除了我们他们没有其他地方可以得到它。

我们向他们提供，我们提供更多各种各样的东西，投资等等。他们离我们12飞行小时。我们有自己的大陆，与任何人没有边界，与他们没有边界争端。完美。不，我们制造了一个问题。

不要让睡着的狗躺下。我们在踢老狗。所以那是而不是说…

你看我在这里提出的观点之一，这笔交易的主要问题之一是国防已经超越了外交政策。我是说你没有看到黄英贤在那里，你看到马尔斯在那里站在潜艇上。有马尔斯，没有黄英贤。

所以发生的是军方接管了外交政策，结果我们没有使用外交。我是说让我指出这一点：在太平洋岛屿上戴着花环分发钱，这是黄英贤做的，不是外交政策。这是领事任务。

从根本上说，外交政策是你与大国的关系。你与中国的关系，你与美国的关系。这个政府，阿尔巴尼斯政府，没有正确运用外交政策。

但它自上任以来改善了与中国的关系。

看，他们决定不粗鲁或大声说话，但在核心你可以看到结果是阿尔巴尼斯与美国、英国签署协议。

我是说看，让我们记住关于英国的事情。他们在1904年把大舰队从东亚撤出。他们目睹了1942年新加坡的投降。对，他们然后在1968年宣布了他们的苏伊士以东政策。换句话说，你们澳大利亚人自己看着办，我们要走了。我们会把你们留给新加坡和新西兰以及马来西亚。

然后在1973年，只是为了确保我们得到信息，他们说我们操你，我们要去欧洲了。所以没有小麦，没有羊毛，没有你知道的。

然后当然在英国脱欧的大问题之后，在那个傻瓜约翰逊摧毁了他们在欧洲的地位之后——花了两次世界大战才把英国拖到欧洲中心坐在德国旁边作为第二大强国——不，帝国人民，保守党，这对我们来说足够好了，大不列颠在哪里，大强国在哪里。

所以好吧，他们现在出来了，他们现在所以要组建全球英国。所以他们四处寻找傻瓜。傻瓜。全球英国，他们找到了哦，这里有一群随和的澳大利亚人，一个随和的总理，一个保守的国防部长，一个规避风险的外交部长。让我们向他们提出一个提议。

所以我们离开英国230年后，我们回到了康沃尔，莫里森做了这笔交易的地方。我们回到了康沃尔，现在在里希·苏纳克那里，看在上帝的份上。里希·苏纳克。在亚洲寻找我们的安全？我是说这有多可悲。

嗯，当我们上次在2021年交谈时，莫里森政府刚刚宣布了AUKUS协议。正如我们所看到的，你对总理、外交部长和国防部长在这笔交易中的表现进行了严厉的批评。就我们的战略和国防地位而言，它代表了什么？

已经宣布了。看，我会说花费3600亿，3600亿我们将得到八艘潜艇。对，这一定是历史上最糟糕的交易。但让我们说3600亿。如果我们购买柯林斯级替代品，我们至少会得到40到50艘他们的潜艇，同样的价格40到50艘。

现在没有海军在任何时候在海上拥有超过三分之一的船只做得更好。所以我们会有，让我们说45来简化，我们会有三分之一，十五艘在海上对抗三艘核潜艇。15对3。

现在记住核潜艇只发射传统鱼雷。它不像其他船只那样发射核鱼雷。因为它有8000吨那么大，它们可以被发现，它们可以从太空被发现。更重要的是，它们对于澳大利亚海岸的浅水区来说太大了。

一艘4000吨的船像柯林斯在澳大利亚海岸周围工作得很好，因为它被设计用来保护澳大利亚。它不是被设计用来坐在中国海岸击沉中国潜艇的。

对，所以现在我们有了一个大的8000吨的笨重家伙，我们得到3艘而不是15艘。海军说，我和马尔斯一起看到，我最近看到海军上将柯林斯，他们来看我，柯林斯说你知道基廷先生你说你知道我们每天晚上都必须把通气管竖起来获取氧气。我说海军上将请不要认为我傻，你只有在全速前进时才需要把通气管竖起来。如果你只是巡航，你每四天左右把通气管竖起来一次。

可能现在比30年前风险更大，但如果你有15艘东西在海上，上帝啊，击沉一艘有什么关系？但如果你不是三艘核潜艇中的一艘出去，那真的很重要。

所以他们不通气，但他们会因为体积大而被发现。

是的，所以就实际交易而言，你基本上说它是为了通过短期购买弗吉尼亚级潜艇来支持美国工业，这笔交易是由美国人不希望扰乱或不能扰乱他们的制造能力驱动的，因此有英国共同建造的提议…

对。嗯，看几天前在圣地亚哥的歌舞伎表演。有三个领导人站在那里，只有一个人在付钱。阿尔巴尼斯，拜登，另外两个。看乐队演奏《快乐的日子又来了》。美国总统几乎连三个连贯的句子都说不出来。他对此都很高兴。里希不敢相信。

所以猜猜看？我们将随着时间的推移向英国飞机BAE系统公司，一家英国公司，传递3800亿美元来建造这些东西，并向美国潜艇公司。我们必须在这里建造基地。

所以你知道在圣地亚哥只有一个付款人——澳大利亚总理。

所以你认为这是怎么发生的？我是说你在声明中谈到了工党在莫里森政府提议24小时后就出来支持的事实。你知道这是因为工党觉得它不能在国家安全上行动吗？

发生了什么？黄英贤五年前六年前得到了这份工作，她决定与当时的比尔·肖顿一起，不应该给自由党攻击工党战略政策的机会。所以她与朱莉·毕晓普然后与玛丽斯·佩恩保持一致。与他们没有任何区别。

换句话说，他们不会让她搅动一片叶子或看到工党带着战略问题进入选举活动。所以这是一个小的，最小的目标政策。

五年后发生了什么？最后那个任性的莫里森出现了，由堪培拉所有的间谍管理，特别是这个安德鲁·希勒家伙。这是一个我们还在工党巢穴里的饼干。他还在运行政策。他是那个说我们有更好的主意的人，为什么我们不摆脱那些法国潜艇，为什么我们不得到美国的。

所以他们现在会通知工党，他们在一天下午四点叫他们进来，我会说阿尔巴尼斯、黄英贤和马尔斯，第二天上午10点他们已经完全接受了这项政策。总理最近在跑来跑去，所以我非常自豪能够在24小时内接受这项政策。

嗯，你怎么会接受一项将花费这么多钱，对我们的关系有这些后果的政策…

与中国的关系，与地区的关系，就我们的工业基础而言？你怎么会在24小时内做到这一点？你只有在没有感知能力理解你被要求做出的决定的分量时才能做到。其他人称之为无能。我称之为也许在尝试，但我们是在跟着安德鲁·希勒的调子跳舞。我们是在跟着孩子们跳舞。这是一个工党政府，一个ASPI的工党政府，这是一个亲美的小组，由一个前自由党部长的私人秘书这个巴塞家伙管理，因为莫里森明确表示，《澳大利亚人报》在周末明确表示外交部长没有被咨询，被咨询的人是ONA的人，也就是ASPI。

我是说这就是这样，你不认为工党政府要做的第一件事就是把他们的头都敲掉吗？不不不，安德鲁·希勒在去东京的飞机上与总理在一起。午夜他们被带进来。我是说这是关于澳大利亚左派的一些事情。我是说我一生中在工党政治上大多认为左派，总是大多代表美国。但现在澳大利亚左派的两个主要人物是安东尼·阿尔巴尼斯和黄英贤，他们所做的他们基本上不加批判地迎合了美国的战略愿望。这是左派你知道，当然他们会说老左派哦，萨塞克斯街那帮人你不能信任他们，但上帝你知道如果你看我和劳里·布雷雷顿或利奥·麦克莱恩，我们看起来像布尔什维克相比他们。

所以它把我们留在哪里？如果我们如此…答案是在深深的麻烦中，这就是它所在的地方。它去哪里？它去哪里？我认为会发生的是我们将被吸进美国的控制系统，将开始。你必须记住是朱莉娅·吉拉德和斯蒂芬·史密斯在奥巴马访问时首先允许在澳大利亚驻军。我永远不会允许美国在澳大利亚驻军，但他们允许了。所以现在我们将有美国潜艇来来往往，当然他们总是说哦，当然这些是轮换的，不是永久的，但如果轮换是永久的，它们就是永久的。

这种轮换存在是否真的有实质性区别？你知道我的意思是，这方式意味着我们在美国战略指挥系统的范围内，本质上我们已经把这个地方交出去了。换句话说，我们不再自己管理这个地方了。它本质上增加了我们是我们自己的感觉，当我们当我们得到我们自己的初级潜艇时，我们基本上是美国的附属品，你是这个意思吗？

是的当然。当然我们是当然。反应堆由美国人运行，控制系统由美国人运行，因为阿尔巴尼斯现在到处跑，他说的每句话他都谈论什么词…是的他认为如果他在一小时内把足够的词放进足够的句子中，它实际上会发生。我们的主权正在被这一切剥离。我是说有了柯林斯级潜艇，我们拥有完全的主权，只是我要告诉你一些我认为媒体不知道的事情，但我知道法国政府向澳大利亚政府提供了关于潜艇的新交易，那将是世界上最新的法国核潜艇，只有5%的浓缩铀，不是95%的武器级，交付确定日期2034年，固定价格，没有回应。法国人不得不这样，所以我们将到处跑，我是说有英国人在这里的耻辱，他们是。撒切尔摧毁了他们的制造业部门，你在上面打击工会，他们在骨头上搜索世界你知道新英国你知道，我们在这里在亚洲回到英国你知道，在他们完全抛弃我们之后，在整个20世纪完全抛弃我们之后。

只是你在谈论法国的低浓缩铀潜艇。我是说昨天宣布中我们没有想到但确实得到的事情之一是，我们将保留铀，并在假设的潜艇寿命结束后必须为其找到储存。你对此有什么看法，特别是它对不扩散的影响？

嗯，我不认为埋葬乏燃料棒是扩散，澳大利亚足够大，那是一个小问题。看更大的问题是这个，我读给你听：每年美国国防部有一份责任法规作为向国会的报告，在2022年11月的报告中，国防部说了这个：”中华人民共和国旨在限制美国在中国周边存在。”换句话说，不让我们的船在他们的海岸上下航行，这就是它的真正含义。任何更多，任何更多比美国人会考虑就像想象一下，你能想象如果中国蓝水海军决定在加利福尼亚海岸六英里外做他们的观光吗？你能想象会发生的骚动吗？

所以这里是国防部，不是我和我们这些有埃维亚的人：”中华人民共和国旨在限制美国在中国周边存在。”换句话说，中国作为一个大国，他们想要他们的前门干净，就像如果你拿西半球古巴波多黎各多米尼加共和国你知道，美国人不会想要任何其他人在那个地区。

这件事继续说：”解放军越来越大声但将其力量投射到菲律宾海。”嗯，你几乎可以游过菲律宾海，我是说震惊这里有一个中国人但这是美国人自己。所以我们在这里，我们在这里有澳大利亚政府，你知道我们将阻止那些中国人，我们将戳他们的眼睛，你知道我们将得到这些潜艇，但美国这里的国防部说哦，顺便说一下，我认为中国人我真的只对他们的前门他们的周边感兴趣。我是说这消除了所有的猜测，不是吗。

关于美国，就这一点：对美国的威胁中国不威胁美国，没有人能威胁美国，它有10000公里的海洋在中国海岸和加利福尼亚之间，它另一边有大西洋，它有一个拥有空间陆地面积的大国，北面有加拿大朋友，南面有墨西哥朋友，以及历史上最伟大的军备，中国人永远不会想到攻击美国，也从未想过攻击美国。

所以我们处于这个位置：中国人不能攻击美国，我从未这样认为，也不能攻击澳大利亚，也从未这样认为，因为他们试图攻击一个水手，我们只会击沉战斗船来的舰队，运兵船来的舰队。所以所有这些都是所有外交政策的间谍式谈话。这些书呆子都有一张肮脏的明信片在他们的袖子里。

当我担任总理时，人们说哦，你根本对电报不感兴趣，你知道安全机构的产品，你知道他们会有一些RPM我们在监听某人的电话，他们刚刚说了这个。我说听着，如果我想了解马来西亚和新加坡，我会读《海峡时报》，我会从中得到比你的胡说八道更多的东西。

昨天的语言都是关于这是一种威慑，在某种程度上，这是向中国发出信号，你知道当我们不在换句话说我们不会你可能攻击我们，当我们知道他们不会攻击我们，从未威胁攻击我们，不希望攻击我们，这就是重点。

你看不要低估《悉尼晨锋报》和《时代报》五年来你知道那个你知道我一直被那个经营这次攻击我的精神病患者攻击，关于我是中华人民共和国的代表或表达观点，你知道但他有自由行动五年在澳大利亚进行这场恐吓运动，这得到了九集团管理层的支持，这个家伙詹姆斯·切塞尔我理解坐在顶部，所以切塞尔是这里的责任一部分，你知道所以这个疯子放了这些东西，他每隔一晚在ABC的《鼓》节目上，你知道他有伟大的雄辩声音但没有匹配的雄辩头脑。

建议总是你的商业利益驱动。让我处理这个，让我处理这个：他们谈论我在中国发展，顺便说一下我五年前离开了中国发展，对吗？我在中国开发银行董事会任职13年，担任主席10年，与亨利·基辛格、保罗·沃尔克、前国际货币基金组织总裁雅克·德·拉罗西埃一起，你知道我们的费用是多少吗？每年五千美元，五千美元，他们甚至不称之为费用，他们称之为酬金。我在中国没有任何商业利益，完全没有。

所以我有，我知道我以前做什么，在我去中国开发银行会议之前，我会拜访格伦·史蒂文斯，我会说政府我们的中央银行行长林恩，你这周想让我在那里注入什么对话？每年我都会见他，当我拿到中国文件回来时，我会把它们交给储备银行，换句话说，我基本上是作为澳大利亚代表坐在那里，基辛格作为我的副手这些年，坐在那里从中华人民共和国收集情报，希望我为澳大利亚做了一件伟大的事情，并带回这里的中央银行，这就是我在做的事情，但我不得不忍受天空新闻的这些废话，你知道那个迪伦·博尔特和其他人，当然你知道我会酸滴自己阿彻说哦是的，但看基廷的观点受到损害，好像一个澳大利亚总理会因为坐在某个国际董事会每年拿五千美元而没有其他利益而损害他对国家的承诺。

说了所有这些，并不反映不以任何方式暗示这是关于商业利益，但你对中国人过去五年发展军队的方式感到惊讶吗？你知道它的支出呈指数级增长。

是的，但但那是他们支出国防支出占GDP的百分比只有美国的三分之一或40%，只要你理解这一点，但他们更大，所以更大的40%更多，但不像美国，美国花费比它后面的10个国家更多。

但他们为什么这样做？为什么他们嗯，他们这样做是因为要么有一个巨大的经济，这是国际依赖的，因为更横向地他们有来自美国的这种压力，所以像这个的每个国家记住国际货币基金组织说在购买力平价基础上，中国比美国大20%，所以他们想让他们做什么，在浴缸里有小玩具驱逐舰，你知道他们可以像浴缸里的小男孩一样，他们可以玩弄浴缸里的小船，那会适合美国人吗？

但你你仍然说中国没有任何领土野心，它没有，不，所以你为什么需要如此庞大的陆军或如此庞大的海军？

嗯，中国的陆军实际上是这个地方的警察部队的一部分，真的我不它就像印度尼西亚一样的准军事类型。看中国人被锁在一个碗里，他们北面有西伯利亚，西面有喜马拉雅山，南面有印度支那，他们不去任何地方，他们不攻击任何人，他们所做的只是他们在南中国海的那些浅滩军事化了，但这一切都是关于如美国国防部所说，限制美国在中国周边存在，换句话说，直到这件事发生，美国第七舰队过去常常沿着中国领海巡逻，离海岸六英里，你知道中国人说去他妈的，我们不再忍受这个了，你知道我们不想粗鲁，但我们不必再忍受这个了。

如果我能在我转向我们在堪培拉的同事们之前问一个问题，这不直接与AUKUS相关，但它确实回到他在2021年做的一些评论，并且与乌克兰局势相关，你对中国的野心向西的看法是什么，考虑到你知道极其丰富的有效载荷？

嗯，我在我们上次节目上次我们在这里见面时告诉过你，中国的利益不在东方，看澳大利亚和美国认为哦中国人你知道他们将在菲律宾周围捣乱，他们所有他们感兴趣的是东方我知道那是什么，使用前门保持前门垫清洁的区别，不让美国第七舰队在那里，他们真的投降西方，中国西部理解国家哈萨克斯坦乌兹别克斯坦这些国家，我相信他们将在所有方面产生重大影响，一直到伊斯坦布尔，你知道你可以说所以中国所以这是这一点发达国家如澳大利亚大约90%城市化中国那是德国法国美国中国是55%。它还有35%要去安德斯得到了斯坦国家所以中国的增长只会继续，你知道如你所知，他们有一个协议把铁路和公路带到波兰的格但斯克，所以这里是美国人我是说他们总是被两个海洋保护，但现在对美国人来说，太平洋和大西洋是一个紧身胸衣，它们是一个紧身胸衣在他们身上，他们无处可去，他们受到保护但无处可去，但孩子有很多地方可去。

嗯，我们将切换到堪培拉的新闻俱乐部，我的同事们在那里，我耳朵里有东西是的，我们有一些问题，当我们正在整理基廷先生的耳机时，今天的第一个问题将来自《金融评论》的菲尔·柯里。

谢谢劳拉，我希望你能听到我，基廷先生。看理查德·马尔斯也许预料到你今天的评论，在为昨天的宣布辩护时说，我们在我们的地区目睹了自第二次世界大战结束以来世界上任何地方最大的常规军事建设，他说不回应那将被历史谴责，我能请你澄清一下，你认为我们根本不应该回应，还是我们以错误的方式回应？

我们以错误的方式回应。柯林斯级潜艇，我与金·比兹利建造的，是一艘设计用于澳大利亚防御的船，它被设计用来保护澳大利亚大陆土地，并击退任何对我们的入侵。这些这些船是什么，这是我认为国防部长没有告诉你的，是这些船被设计用来坐在中国大陆架外，与美国核能核武器能力潜艇同步。

现在只是向你指出这一点：中国周边水域，让我们指出这一点，人们可能不知道，离中国海岸100英里有一个高原，一个非常浅的高原，一个非常浅的高原，任何美国核武器潜艇必须穿过那个高原才能进入深水，所以美国人说啊我们可以像射击场里的鸭子一样，我们将在他们进入深水之前把他们击沉，但在中国浅水区，中国人绝对装满了传感器和设备来探测大型潜艇，一艘8000吨的潜艇对中国来说一秒钟就会可见，所以我们的潜艇将易受攻击，我们的潜艇将在中国周边水域，那里的平台和传感器最集中，对，所以当美国人认为他们可以像桶里的鸭子一样击沉中国潜艇时，中国人也可以击沉我们的潜艇，因为我们在浅水区，我们可被探测到，对，所以这是一种奇怪的方式来保卫澳大利亚，让你的潜艇在中国大陆架上被击沉，追逐中国潜艇，而事实上有了柯林斯模型，如果数字正确，45或50艘常规潜艇在澳大利亚海岸周围说，把脚趾放在我们的手指上，我们会打掉你的灯，那是比与美国人在中国海岸的浅水区一起试图击沉更好的澳大利亚防御政策。

看你知道这个过滤器你可能知道这个，中国人在那里在那里ESC战斗计划他们八或十年前有，是他们能否在一次打击中击毁所有中国核武器，人们怀疑这能发生，你知道你也可以找到侧面并击毁他们，所以什么什么大国做的是他们在深水中有携带相同核武器的潜艇，这些潜艇不受打击影响，这被称为第二次打击能力，什么什么美国人试图做的是否认中国人第二次打击能力，我们这些傻瓜在那里帮助他们，你知道我们会在那里说哦不，我们将把我们的船置于中国浅水区的危险中，而不是什么什么是我们生活的目标，它是保护澳大利亚大陆，与任何人没有边界，浅水区，我们不需要8000吨潜艇，柯林斯是四，我们可以有50艘柯林斯级船和15艘在海上，我们将有比政府正在做的这些垃圾强大得多的防御。

所以你可能想再次调整你的耳机，基廷先生，而我们准备好下一个问题，来自《堪培拉时报》的凯伦·巴洛。

谢谢你，基廷先生，我想把你引向印度尼西亚，一个我住了两年的地方，你作为总理多次访问，1995年你与印度尼西亚签署了具有里程碑意义的安全协议，一年后在新加坡你谈到与中国在印度尼西亚的不确定性，你能谈谈AUKUS协议将对澳大利亚印度尼西亚关系产生什么影响吗？

嗯，我以前说过很多次，澳大利亚的战略面包涂在印度尼西亚群岛上，对他们的重大攻击，唯一能对他们进行重大攻击的人将是中国人，会影响我们，无论我们喜欢与否，对我们的重大攻击会影响他们，所以这就是为什么我与苏哈托一起把协议放在一起，对我们任何一个人的攻击就是对所有人的攻击，所以什么什么明智的政府做的是他们放置安全措施，你知道你不坐在那里等待有人打你的头，你想等一下我最好我最好在这里放一些防御，所以印度尼西亚是我们安全的核心，我们的长期安全，不是我期望让我重复我不期望任何中国军事攻击印度尼西亚群岛或我们，但尽管如此，一个运行防御政策的谨慎国家，这是我在职期间所做的，将是看到有那个群岛至少你知道能够不被入侵，让我们称之为负面力量。

但你看区别是什么，什么什么什么安东尼·阿尔巴尼斯本周所做的，他拧紧了美国人布置的用来遏制中国的长链中的最后一个枷锁，我们现在是它的一部分，一个针对中国的遏制政策，你知道我们有日本美国我们自己，和印度，对，购买这些潜艇，就像安东尼·阿尔巴尼斯拧紧枷锁以确保所有链条连接，那是我们在做的，而不是做更明智的事情说看我们的面包涂在东南亚，是东南亚重要，是印度尼西亚重要，让我们相处，当中国人不想攻击任何人，我不会攻击我们，他们不攻击美国人，他们不想攻击印度尼西亚人，所以这一切是什么，这只是一个问题，只有维持美国在东亚的战略霸权，这就是这一切的意义，你知道我回到我对劳拉提出的观点，如果美国在东亚没有大陆土地，它如何保护，它如何怀疑或争论它可以保持战略超级大国，因为如果一切变得糟糕，它将就像阿富汗和伊拉克，美国人将撤出，留下混乱，他们只会回到圣地亚哥10000公里，留下我们承担后果，你知道那将是结果。

ABC的安德鲁·普罗文有一个问题，神秘化你之前说中国没有威胁澳大利亚，但你如何调和这个事实，他们对中国煤炭木材葡萄酒龙虾大麦澳大利亚产品实施了制裁，在我们的太平洋邻国中使用了债务外交，南中国海的侵蚀，一些岛屿的有效吞并，巨大的军事建设，劳拉问过你，这怎么不是一个拜登官员本周说的对澳大利亚的未宣布的经济和商业抵制，对澳大利亚是军事威胁，通过军事威胁，这是一个威胁，对于对于中华人民共和国军队来占领澳大利亚，这就是威胁是什么，例如类似的威胁将是如果有人去占领塔斯马尼亚在我们身上，对，那那是威胁是什么，商业商业反应商业反应像你提到的事情，它们不是战略性的，它们不是威胁，你知道我是说看看我们在WTO对他们做的所有钢铁倾销和我们所有其他东西，你知道我是说你知道在在国际政治的摩擦中，这些事情出现，但它们不是威胁，你不能把威胁含义含义入侵与对葡萄酒征收关税混为一谈，或者也许你傻到认为，你知道你认为你傻到认为吗，基廷先生网络攻击，嗯，你认为美国人和俄罗斯人不在网络攻击中吗，谁谁在世界上不在网络攻击中，或者你认为我们不在，你知道只是从记住这个我们在亚洲最好的朋友是一个前印度尼西亚总统巴厘·尤多约诺，你知道他是我们最好的支持者，你知道那些白痴在ASUS窃听他的电话和他妻子的电话，我是说这是国家做的事情，如果你让安全机构傻瓜控制，你知道但你不能像你的问题暗示的那样，暗示攻击或对葡萄酒或大麦的关税等同于对国家的入侵，中国不威胁澳大利亚，没有威胁澳大利亚，不打算威胁澳大利亚，你可以有所有这些商业铁路你喜欢，我们可以有外交或成年人记住这一切发生在莫里斯·佩恩之后，你知道我们时代的伟大非部长上了《内幕者》节目，说我们将有武器检查武器类型检查的意愿伤害，以找出病毒的原因，就是从那一切开始的，你知道所以你不能在没有背景化的情况下提出问题，就像你知道我在背景化可能不是你的长处，但那是你应该做的。

奥利维亚·凯斯奥利维亚·卡斯利来自天空新闻，奥利维亚·卡斯利来自天空新闻，你在这个九页文件中描述了外交部长黄英贤和国防部长理查德·马尔斯严重不明智，与现在的参与者不同，你自90年代中期以来没有收到关于这个问题的军事简报，你可能在这个问题上脱节，鉴于你没有预见到中国的军事建设以及对邻国的恐吓，当你在职时，什么让你如此确定中国不是对澳大利亚的军事威胁？

因为我主要有一个大脑，我知道我能思考，我能阅读，你知道我每天都阅读，你知道我是说为什么中国想要威胁，有什么意义，他们得到铁矿石煤炭小麦，中国想要军事占领悉尼和墨尔本有什么意义

，他们能这样做吗？我是说他们能带来数量吗？那将需要一支庞大的运兵船舰队来做，你知道所以你不需要来自来自堪培拉愚蠢安全机构的简报来告诉你，你知道我是说我知道你在试图问一个问题，但问题太愚蠢了，很难值得回答。

嗯，所以你只是让他们继续他们的业务，无论是在斯普拉特利群岛还是你只是说哦兄弟他们不计划攻击澳大利亚所以一切都好？

是的，是的，你知道多大，你知道多大那个，嗯，我们一直在谈论的其他岛屿是什么，只是看，只是拿起来，只是上谷歌地图看看它，它大约和悉尼的百年纪念公园一样大，大约和悉尼的百年纪念公园一样大，这就是我们在这里谈论的，你知道我是说你知道天空新闻你必须，你知道你必须超越天空新闻提升你的声誉，你知道你可能在尽力做到这一点。

好，谢谢，然后彭博社的本·韦斯科特，非常感谢你的谈话，基廷先生，本·韦斯科特来自彭博社，我只是想问，你谈了很多关于正统威胁，那是对澳大利亚的入侵，但你知道正如我的同事们在这里说的，有许多其他不同类型的威胁，特别是对澳大利亚，我们是一个贸易国家，我们所有的财富大部分来自海外贸易，那你知道类似于美国在亚洲的利益，很多公平贸易来自亚洲，澳大利亚不应该，你知道与像美国这样的伙伴合作来保护贸易，这是它在地区的主要经济利益吗？

这是美国，永远不会在国会层面同意批准国际国际海洋法计划，你意识到这一点，对吗？美国拒绝或批准海洋法计划，对，所以这在那个问题上打了一个相当大的洞，不是吗？第二，第二，为什么中国人不能找到澳大利亚铁矿石的替代供应？他们还有30%的国家要建设，我们有最高品位的63%铁矿石，离他们的海岸10天航程，你认为他们不想要那个吗？你认为我们需要我们需要五角大楼的美国军队来确保我们的铁矿石船去中国吗？中国中国人，他们不每天出来欢迎我们这些该死的东西出现是一个奇迹，因为所有那些吨位在他们的狼上建造这些中国城市，中国的现代故事是一个城市化的故事，真的是城市地区是用钢铁建造的，钢铁只能在中国用澳大利亚的钢铁完成，所以为什么中国人想要中断他们与我们打交道的能力，你知道为什么我们会看到华盛顿的一些驴子来帮助我们。

是的，只是《澳大利亚人报》的马尔科姆，谢谢基廷先生，我想问你关于政府提议的超级税收优惠变化，以及你对此是否有立场。

我不做这个，这都是关于AUKUS的，我今天不做超级，我是说我从小就在做超级。

《悉尼晨锋报》和《时代报》的马修·诺特，我有，我确实有一个关于中国潜艇舰队的问题，预计到2030年将增长六艘核动力潜艇，他们每年建造20艘现役军舰，这甚至比整个澳大利亚舰队还多，在你看来，谁更具挑衅性，澳大利亚还是中国？

不是中国人在建造附属机构中做什么不是挑衅，为什么你使用挑衅这个词，那是错误的词使用，你知道他们他们是一个大国，他们有一个比美国更大的经济，他们花费大约40%的国家预算在国防上，美国花费比世界上它后面的九个州更多，所以为什么是挑衅，为什么你认为中国这样的大国建造海军是挑衅，为什么你会这么认为，我是说我根本不接受，你知道问题无效，只是侵略性的真相，你知道。

谢谢马修·诺特来自《悉尼晨锋报》和《时代报》有一个问题，嗨基廷先生，我们的最后两部分，如果可以的话，你今天对阿尔巴尼斯政府极其批评，包括部长理查德·马尔斯和黄英贤，你担心你今天的评论可能代表与党的根本决裂吗？你已经说过总理没有回应你向他通报情况的请求，其次，你有巨大的谩骂和批评技巧，我现在可以请你把其中一些转向中国共产党及其对维吾尔人的待遇，例如它对香港亲民主活动人士的待遇，你会像对你自己党和记者那样同样批评他们吗？在你上周与阿彻合写之后，在周一周二《先驱报》上那个令人震惊的演示中，我去了你应该感到羞耻，我我很惊讶你甚至有胆量公开站起来问这样的问题，坦率地说，你知道你应该做正确的事，把自己赶出澳大利亚新闻界，你知道我是说那是最恶劣的，最糟糕的，最有偏见的演示，你挑选了四位专家，你本可以挑选约翰·麦卡锡一位长期专家艾伦·金格尔，你挑选了四位中国鹰派，他们中最大的詹·詹宁斯，你知道戴维娜·李这些都是中国鹰派，你把他们呈现给老社区，好像他们有独立观点，而你完全知道你解雇了你你你选择了他们来做这件事，而你在这里问我关于维吾尔人的问题，你问我关于如果我对你说，我上次见到她时确实说过，这里有总理在那里，所有人都去了印度，你们中没有一个人问关于莫迪在克什米尔关闭穆斯林和亲印度政策的问题，什么都没有，但仍然有一个问题，基廷先生，关于中国对维吾尔人的待遇，对邪恶的待遇，我不是要为中国辩护关于最弱的，我是说关于中国对维吾尔人的冒犯性质有争议，有精神关于那个，但有一件事我们不能确定，如果中国人说但看你们监狱系统中土著人的拘留死亡呢？你知道那对他们来说不是一个有效的点吗？不是一个有效的点吗？换句话说，大国外交不能是关于深入这些国家的低社会内脏，就像他们不能对我们一样，你知道但《悉尼晨锋报》坦率地说已经失去了，因为它它它是一份没有诚信的报纸，而而而《时代报》像一只小狗一样可怜地跟在后面，你知道我是说如果我是你，伙计，我会遮住脸，再也不会出现在潜艇或记录上，那变得我们为我们的新闻业感到非常自豪，你知道我们认为那为全国辩论做出了重要贡献，但我能澄清一下吗，你认为关于中国在新疆一直在做什么真的有争议吗？它已经被联合国详细记录，联合国发布了一份详细报告，对，嗯，让我问你，你相信莫迪和他的印度党在克什米尔对穆斯林做什么吗？如果你对另一个关于中国的问题有看法，因为因为你不够诚实，不承认你支持的莫迪有同样的问题。

我能跟进马修关于你是否担心与党决裂的问题吗？党，当我看到安东尼·阿尔巴尼斯在，他请我吃咖喱，几个月前在他见习近平之前，我是他见G20的习近平之前最后一个教他的人，我说这些问题太大了，安东尼，对我来说是国家在党之前，你知道我不会让澳大利亚的长期战略利益被工党的垃圾妥协，你知道对问题的理解，换句话说，你知道我本来期望他来自左派和黄英贤来自左派站出来表明立场，看看看看工党在中国的伟大历史，1972年承认中国，霍基是胡耀邦，你知道中国共产党书记和赵紫
总理，你知道亚太经合组织领导人，亚太经合组织会议我做了亚太经合组织领导人会议，我说服中国人坐下来与香港和台湾，你能想象这些人中的任何一个让中国人在亚太经合组织坐下来吗？那变成了与这些人，然后然后有我倾向于处理印度尼西亚，凯文做了凯文·陆克文做了东亚峰会，你知道我们有这个巨大的自豪历史，但黄英贤放弃了整个事情，她五年前放弃了整个事情，不运行一个小目标政策，我绝不会让让自由党在国家安全上楔入我，因为我在同一个，我看起来有点告诉你这个故事，阿彻写了一本书，要求在背面评论，黄英贤打算与莫里斯·佩恩一起参加新书发布会，并打算把评论加到书的封底上，所以我与加雷斯·埃文斯和鲍勃·卡尔讨论了这件事，我说你必须告诉她，如果她去发布会并在书背面放一些东西，我会对付她，我认为卡拉也会，所以她没有去，但你看那就是那是这是一个小目标事情，这是我们已经得到的，你知道我们必须在她的政策管理中，你知道它它很糟糕。

梅芙·班尼斯特有一个问题，谢谢基廷先生，梅芙·班尼斯特来自澳大利亚联合新闻社，中国批评AUKUS安全协议是澳大利亚无视国际社会的关切，违反了不扩散条约，但中国军队本身拥有核动力技术能力，所以你认为中国是虚伪的吗？为什么澳大利亚不应该拥有同样的能力？

嗯，如果我们需要，我们会有同样的能力，我认为我认为那是答案，我们不会担心他们中国说什么，我是说中国袋，你知道如果我们知道，我们会有同样的能力，我的观点是我们不需要它，我们在澳大利亚防御中拥有45艘柯林斯级新时代潜艇要好得多，所以就像把你的脚趾放在我们的海滩上，我们打掉你的头，那是政策，换句话说，我们已经从防御澳大利亚政策现在转向了前向防御政策，旧的四防御政策，我们将与美国潜艇一起坐在中国大陆架外，试图对中国核武器潜艇进行鸭子射击，我是说这不是澳大利亚的防御，你知道所以如果我们需要核武器潜艇核动力，我们不会理会中国说什么，但事实是我们只是不知道他们。

下一个问题来自保罗·卡普，非常感谢基廷先生，尽管阿尔巴尼斯政府支持AUKUS，但它似乎在正常化与中国的关系方面取得了进展，我能请问这有什么价值吗？这是否表明尽管有AUKUS，生产性经济和政治关系是可能的？

什么关于你必须天真地思考，不是吗？我是说你必须，你知道你知道看我我在演讲中说了什么，我试着找到它，我说我的精炼词没有含糊其辞的稳定化谈话，强调含糊其辞的稳定化现在中国关系或诉诸更柔和或礼貌的语言，将向中国人掩盖我们对美国在东亚战略霸权的承诺的程度和意图，及其所有致命的含义，真的我是说所以换句话说，他们不会像斯科特·莫里森那样粗鲁，他们不会像莫里斯·佩恩那样粗鲁，他们会轻声说话，但顺便说一下，我们会把最后一个枷锁放在链条中遏制你，你知道他们在试图说哦想嗯，谢谢那个，我很高兴你对我们说话更友好。

我们只剩下几分钟了，基廷先生，下一个问题来自丹·贾瓦萨迪，谢谢你的着装，基廷先生，丹·杰维斯·巴迪来自《西澳大利亚人报》，我能问一下你认为你对AUKUS的看法在工党内有多广泛，无论是在基层还是在议员中，如果它广泛持有，为什么只有你一个人在说话？

嗯，通常因为我一直在倡导这些问题，你知道过去30年，那是合理的，我会说大多数工党人会分享我对此的看法，我会说在我们的那些分支中，当他们意识到我们离开英国230年后，在英国在整个这些年抛弃我们之后，我们将救助英国BAE系统和英国航空航天公司和潜艇公司，并为他们建造他们的海军，我认为平均当平均分支工党成员了解到这一点，你知道我是说就像你知道我认为对政府正在做的事情会有很大的反应，我是说工党内部没有授权，对总理阿尔巴尼斯、外交部长黄英贤和理查德·马尔斯正在做的事情没有授权，没有授权。

下一个问题来自朱莉·海尔，基廷先生，朱莉在这里来自《澳大利亚金融评论》，我有点困惑，我想请你澄清一下，如果可能的话，你说中国不是对澳大利亚的威胁，但你同意我们需要用柯林斯级潜艇回应他们的军事建设，你如何解释这个矛盾？

不是他们的军事，任何人的军事建设，换句话说，你有什么防御政策是关于谨慎的，你潜在地覆盖你的基地，柯林斯的重点是覆盖我们对抗任何来者，不是中国人，看记住这个，当我在80年代末与金·比兹利做柯林斯时，中国的防御无处，中国军事无处，我是说我不意味着任何地方，我意味着无处，但我们谨慎地建造了柯林斯级潜艇，以便我们可以假装国家，那今天仍然是一样的，事情是你宁愿八艘柯林斯级船还是九艘，或者抱歉15艘在海上永久或三艘核潜艇，你必须记住它们只发射传统鱼雷，不是外国的，所以我们在这里，澳大利亚巨大的海洋海域，我们有三艘船在外面，我希望你们中国人在你们的靴子里颤抖，我是说我肯定他们会在他们的靴子里嘎嘎叫。

基廷先生，我们没时间了，我收到一条消息说黄英贤实际上推出了彼得·哈彻的书《国家》，对你说的，我不知道她想要什么，但她没有把那个，我认为背面的贴纸，你知道我有很多人对我说请不要跳进去，请不要跳进去，那是我能克制住的所有克制，我没有。

嗯，你今天似乎跳进去了不少，所以谢谢你的观察，谢谢你今天加入我们在新闻俱乐部。

好的，非常感谢，谢谢。