A former Labour leader's broken ranks with his Party, in supporting AUKUS pillar two.
Former Defence Minister Andrew Little has claimed the current Government is right to investigate the military intelligence-sharing agreement with the US, the UK, and Australia.
Little says the nation needs to update its defence technology to address possible threats.
"There are threats in our region that are new, and are real - and we have to equip our Defence Force. Where we get that technology to equip them is the question, and in that respect, AUKUS is probably relevant."
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now I wanted something different. Former Defense Minister Andrew Little
has weighed in on the old Orchest Agreement Aucus argument. Rather,
he's very much broken ranks with the Labor Party that
he was once the leader of. He's told a security
conference today that it would be reckless not to at
least think about signing up and Andrew Little's with us. Now, Hey, Andrew,
why would it be reckless?
Speaker 2 (00:21):
And I want to said it will be reckless not
to think about where we secure a defense technology from.
I actually said ORCUST is probably irrelevant because we're only
going to get our future defense techton technology needs from
our long standing trusted partners. Three of them happened to
be the three UCHESST partners. So whether we do it
with them together or individually and indeed with others, that's
(00:45):
actually the question. I guess what I'm trying to do
is focus at debate on what is important, which is
we do need to upgrade our defense technology. There are
threats in our region that are new and are real,
and we have to equip our defense force. Where we
get that technology to re equip them is a question,
and the net respect UCUS is probably irrelevant.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
Do you see any downside in signing up to UCUS.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Well, but there's nothing to sign up to unless you
know Whinston Peters was right a few months ago when
you said there is nothing to sign up to. When
I spoke to counterpart defense ministers a year ago, none
of them could say actually what Aucust entail Uchust pillar
two entailed. So there's nothing there. But we have a
big question for us. We got threats in our region
(01:30):
that we have to deal we be honest about and
deal with. And b we've got you know, we're about
to make decisions on the next generation of defensive vestments,
make sure that they meet our needs.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Let me just get this right. But you're basically answering
my question by saying it's hard for us to actually
say whether there is a downside because we actually don't
know what the thing is just yet. We're only in
the exploratory phase.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Is that right, exactly?
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Okay?
Speaker 2 (01:52):
And then and the three Aucust panners can't tell us
what Orchest pillar two means or.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Entails that information? Do they just themselves not know yet?
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Well a year ago that didn't know they when I
spoke to each of them into which they have a
different view about what it means, what it would what
it would mean from anybody else participating. I'm not sure
a lot has changed. If you listen to what Wiston
Peter said back in May, it doesn't feem a lot
has changed. I mean the reality is to their orchessite.
So like the submarine, part of the whole deal is
there's a real possibility that will never happen because US
(02:24):
Congress has to agree, and who knows what will happen here.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
What do you make of these people who say that
China is not a threat to us? Do you agree
with them?
Speaker 2 (02:32):
No? I don't. That's one of the point points us
making today actually is you know, we have to be
honest and say China is a threat. They might be
the biggest trading partner, but they are security threats too
and we have to gear ourselves up.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
To that to And are they a threat to New Zealand?
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Yes, they were there threats generally because of the way
they conduct themselves. They don't care about international law, they
conduct cyber attexts, they use their diaspora in ways that
I know the country does. That is a threat to us.
That there might not be a physical threat right now,
but when it suits them to do so we're seeing
in the South China see they can get aggressive. That
(03:10):
is the reality of trying and we have to goal
to be honest about that.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
What are they What is the biggest threat that we
face from either I mean are they going to are
they going to launch missiles at us? Or are they
more likely to just block our ships?
Speaker 2 (03:23):
It could be any range of things. I mean, they
want a presence, they want they want a physical presence
in the Pacific. That's what they're working on. In the end,
they want to feed their people and they want to
export their goods to the world and all the rest
of it. That's that's that's the kind of economic side
of it. But they're an authoritarian country. They are not
a democracy. They're politicians and their community leaders aren't accountable
(03:44):
in the way that you know they are in democracies,
and the way they conduct themselves. They flatting of international
law when it says them to do so. That's the
stuff that we've got to be a realistic of that
and means that they could turn at any time and
taken more aggressive fro dancing into.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
This, Andrew, when you say I strongly disagree with those
who argue that China is benign presidents and poses no threat.
Are you talking about Helen Clark and Don.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
Brash, Well, I'm saying that, or of anybody who says that
China is, including them though, well, I think they're things
to be what they if they're not saying, they're implying.
So yes, I disagree with them.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
And do you disagree with the stance that the current
Labor Party is taking right now on opposing Ucers.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
I'm not quite sure what the stance is then, I've
tried to foster a debate about it. Don't want to
have a debate about, you know, what our best interests
look like in the future. I think we do need
to have more public debate. I think that's a good thing.
I just don't think we should be naive about what
the reality of these security threats are that we face.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
It feels like Chippy and David Parker and the Labor
Party at the moment are just trying to sort of
create a bit of drama, like this current government is
not doing anything very different to what they what you
guys were doing with Orcus. Is that fair?
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Yeah, I think, Look at it's hard to know, So
I just think there are plenty of people who will
also say we need to have a good debate and
a good examination of defense national securities. And I agree
with that totally. And you know, the governments that pronounced
their defense capability plan soon, that's an important document for them.
We should have a debate about them. We should have
(05:18):
a debate about our our national security threats. And that's
where the government really needs to play a role to
make sure that that debate is will involved.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
Now, what you're saying is not particularly helpful to Labor
at the moment, given they are opposing anything to do
with Aucust. So did you think about it? Are they?
Are you aware that you might be annoying them?
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Well, I mean the point I've made is that I
think August is are relevant because no one knows what
August Pillar two is about. So that's why I think
the important part of it, the date we have to
have is what are our defense and security threats and therefore,
what do we need to do about those? Where do
we get our defense technology from that equips us to
deal with those threats? That fair to walk debates should
(06:00):
be about. And in that respect, ORCUS is irrelevant.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
Andrew, it's good to talk to you. Thank you so much,
made Andrew Little, former defense Minister. For more from Heather
Duplessy Allen Drive, Listen live to news talks. It'd be
from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Now I wanted something different. Former Defense Minister Andrew Little
has weighed in on the old Orchest Agreement Aucus argument. Rather,
he's very much broken ranks with the Labor Party that
he was once the leader of. He's told a security
conference today that it would be reckless not to at
least think about signing up and Andrew Little's with us. Now, Hey, Andrew,
why would it be reckless?
Speaker 2 (00:21):
And I want to said it will be reckless not
to think about where we secure a defense technology from.
I actually said ORCUST is probably irrelevant because we're only
going to get our future defense techton technology needs from
our long standing trusted partners. Three of them happened to
be the three UCHESST partners. So whether we do it
with them together or individually and indeed with others, that's
(00:45):
actually the question. I guess what I'm trying to do
is focus at debate on what is important, which is
we do need to upgrade our defense technology. There are
threats in our region that are new and are real,
and we have to equip our defense force. Where we
get that technology to re equip them is a question,
and the net respect UCUS is probably irrelevant.
Speaker 1 (01:04):
Do you see any downside in signing up to UCUS.
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Well, but there's nothing to sign up to unless you
know Whinston Peters was right a few months ago when
you said there is nothing to sign up to. When
I spoke to counterpart defense ministers a year ago, none
of them could say actually what Aucust entail Uchust pillar
two entailed. So there's nothing there. But we have a
big question for us. We got threats in our region
(01:30):
that we have to deal we be honest about and
deal with. And b we've got you know, we're about
to make decisions on the next generation of defensive vestments,
make sure that they meet our needs.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
Let me just get this right. But you're basically answering
my question by saying it's hard for us to actually
say whether there is a downside because we actually don't
know what the thing is just yet. We're only in
the exploratory phase.
Speaker 2 (01:50):
Is that right, exactly?
Speaker 1 (01:52):
Okay?
Speaker 2 (01:52):
And then and the three Aucust panners can't tell us
what Orchest pillar two means or.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
Entails that information? Do they just themselves not know yet?
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Well a year ago that didn't know they when I
spoke to each of them into which they have a
different view about what it means, what it would what
it would mean from anybody else participating. I'm not sure
a lot has changed. If you listen to what Wiston
Peter said back in May, it doesn't feem a lot
has changed. I mean the reality is to their orchessite.
So like the submarine, part of the whole deal is
there's a real possibility that will never happen because US
(02:24):
Congress has to agree, and who knows what will happen here.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
What do you make of these people who say that
China is not a threat to us? Do you agree
with them?
Speaker 2 (02:32):
No? I don't. That's one of the point points us
making today actually is you know, we have to be
honest and say China is a threat. They might be
the biggest trading partner, but they are security threats too
and we have to gear ourselves up.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
To that to And are they a threat to New Zealand?
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Yes, they were there threats generally because of the way
they conduct themselves. They don't care about international law, they
conduct cyber attexts, they use their diaspora in ways that
I know the country does. That is a threat to us.
That there might not be a physical threat right now,
but when it suits them to do so we're seeing
in the South China see they can get aggressive. That
(03:10):
is the reality of trying and we have to goal
to be honest about that.
Speaker 1 (03:13):
What are they What is the biggest threat that we
face from either I mean are they going to are
they going to launch missiles at us? Or are they
more likely to just block our ships?
Speaker 2 (03:23):
It could be any range of things. I mean, they
want a presence, they want they want a physical presence
in the Pacific. That's what they're working on. In the end,
they want to feed their people and they want to
export their goods to the world and all the rest
of it. That's that's that's the kind of economic side
of it. But they're an authoritarian country. They are not
a democracy. They're politicians and their community leaders aren't accountable
(03:44):
in the way that you know they are in democracies,
and the way they conduct themselves. They flatting of international
law when it says them to do so. That's the
stuff that we've got to be a realistic of that
and means that they could turn at any time and
taken more aggressive fro dancing into.
Speaker 1 (04:00):
This, Andrew, when you say I strongly disagree with those
who argue that China is benign presidents and poses no threat.
Are you talking about Helen Clark and Don.
Speaker 2 (04:07):
Brash, Well, I'm saying that, or of anybody who says that
China is, including them though, well, I think they're things
to be what they if they're not saying, they're implying.
So yes, I disagree with them.
Speaker 1 (04:21):
And do you disagree with the stance that the current
Labor Party is taking right now on opposing Ucers.
Speaker 2 (04:28):
I'm not quite sure what the stance is then, I've
tried to foster a debate about it. Don't want to
have a debate about, you know, what our best interests
look like in the future. I think we do need
to have more public debate. I think that's a good thing.
I just don't think we should be naive about what
the reality of these security threats are that we face.
Speaker 1 (04:46):
It feels like Chippy and David Parker and the Labor
Party at the moment are just trying to sort of
create a bit of drama, like this current government is
not doing anything very different to what they what you
guys were doing with Orcus. Is that fair?
Speaker 2 (04:58):
Yeah, I think, Look at it's hard to know, So
I just think there are plenty of people who will
also say we need to have a good debate and
a good examination of defense national securities. And I agree
with that totally. And you know, the governments that pronounced
their defense capability plan soon, that's an important document for them.
We should have a debate about them. We should have
(05:18):
a debate about our our national security threats. And that's
where the government really needs to play a role to
make sure that that debate is will involved.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
Now, what you're saying is not particularly helpful to Labor
at the moment, given they are opposing anything to do
with Aucust. So did you think about it? Are they?
Are you aware that you might be annoying them?
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Well, I mean the point I've made is that I
think August is are relevant because no one knows what
August Pillar two is about. So that's why I think
the important part of it, the date we have to
have is what are our defense and security threats and therefore,
what do we need to do about those? Where do
we get our defense technology from that equips us to
deal with those threats? That fair to walk debates should
(06:00):
be about. And in that respect, ORCUS is irrelevant.
Speaker 1 (06:04):
Andrew, it's good to talk to you. Thank you so much,
made Andrew Little, former defense Minister. For more from Heather
Duplessy Allen Drive, Listen live to news talks. It'd be
from four pm weekdays, or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com