The Australian government is undeterred by criticism by Pacific nations of its coal exports.
Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said in a wide-ranging interview on Television New Zealand, that “if we were not exporting, those exports would be replaced by other countries that were filling a market which was seeking coal, and those coal replacements would have greater emissions than the coal is providing.
“Which is why these things might sound simple ... but when you actually scratch beneath the surface, it may well end up with a country with an increased emissions contribution [from] the replacement product that those countries will be importing.
“And of course, [those] countries are responsible for their own emission reduction.”
Just last week, Tuvalu’s climate minister Maina Talia said Australian Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek’s decision to allow the expansion of three coalmines called into question Australia’s claim to be a “member of the Pacific family,” and that undermined its bid to co-host the 2026 U.N. climate summit along with island nations. Other Pacific leaders expressed similar views.
While Australia was committed to Net Zero by 2050, Marles admitted that that did not include its coal exports.
“In the global system of the responsibilities that we have under the Paris Accord, exports don’t form part of that ... our focus and our responsibilities are on our own emissions,” he said.
AUKUS Submarines Critical to Australia’s Sea Lines
Marles, who is also defence minister, added that AUKUS was “critically important for Australia” due to its need for a “highly capable long-range submarine, precisely because of our geography and prominent ocean approaches to Australia.”
“Because if you think about our sea lines ... the physical connection of our trade, which is a huge part of our national prosperity, our national income, [they] go over massive distances. To protect them, to be able to give any thought to who might seek to disrupt them, who might seek to coerce our country, having a long-range capable submarine is fundamental to us,” he said.
While Australia already had long-range submarines, they were diesel-electric and, in the future, would become “increasingly detectable” as they would be required to surface to charge their batteries.
“A nuclear-powered submarine doesn’t need to do that,” Marles said. “So, in fact, just to maintain the capability that we had, say, in the year 2005 as we advance into the 2030s and beyond, we need to move down the path of nuclear propulsion. A long-range submarine capability is a significant definition of Australia’s military capability.”
He also brushed aside Boris Johnson’s claim that Australia had been talked out of buying French submarines to “punish” French President Emmanuel Macron for vocally opposing Brexit.
“Boris Johnson’s going to say what he’s going to say, I can only answer as I have, that our need to have these submarines is completely founded on our strategic landscape and our own strategic need,” Marles said.
He dismissed concerns that the UK and Australia may be unable to build the AUKUS submarines on time and within budget.
“This will be a massive national endeavour,” he said. “From an industrial point of view, the building of these submarines in Australia will represent one of the biggest industrial undertakings in our history. So, I’m not seeking to underestimate the challenge at hand, but I’m also confident that we will be able to achieve this.”
Addressing another concern of Australia’s Pacific neighbours, Marles said the country has “no intention of heading down the path of becoming a nuclear state.”
New Zealand’s Increased Military Capability Welcomed
Marles welcomed New Zealand’s intention to increase its military capability.“We certainly welcome a more capable New Zealand; that is very much in the interests of Australia, and anything we can do to assist New Zealand in becoming more militarily capable is to our benefit,” he said.
“We want the closest, the tightest relationship with New Zealand that we can have. We want that to be across the board: in terms of politics and our economy, but very much in the space of defence.”
When asked why New Zealand should consider joining Pillar Two of AUKUS, the non-nuclear component of the pact, when doing so risked antagonising its largest trading partner, China, Marles said he did not think that would be the result.
He pointed out that Australia’s largest trading partner was also China, with which there was a significant economic relationship.
“At the same time, we can’t ignore the fact that China is a source of security anxiety, and we will disagree with China where we must ... So I don’t think these things actually work opposite to each other,” he said.
