From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Salinger Morris. It's Thursday, February 26th. When three Chinese warships sailed within 150 nautical miles of Sydney. Last week it was enough to make global headlines. Then our defence force chief admitted just yesterday that the Australian military didn't actually know that these ships were conducting a live firing exercise there until 40 minutes after it had begun. Today, international and political editor Peter Hartcher on what it means that China is stepping up its aggression towards us. At the same time as Donald Trump is treating his allies like a mob boss running a protection racket. So, Peter, I have to start by welcoming you back because you have been away from us for three months. And it must be said, the world has become no calmer in that time. So. So, Peter, can I blame you?

From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Salinger Morris. It's Thursday, February 26th. When three Chinese warships sailed within 150 nautical miles of Sydney. Last week it was enough to make global headlines. Then our defence force chief admitted just yesterday that the Australian military didn't actually know that these ships were conducting a live firing exercise there until 40 minutes after it had begun. Today, international and political editor Peter Hartcher on what it means that China is stepping up its aggression towards us. At the same time as Donald Trump is treating his allies like a mob boss running a protection racket. So, Peter, I have to start by welcoming you back because you have been away from us for three months. And it must be said, the world has become no calmer in that time. So. So, Peter, can I blame you?

Yes, absolutely. As soon as we stop talking about it, the world just goes to hell in a handbasket. Of course. Samantha, this is what I thought.

Yes, absolutely. As soon as we stop talking about it, the world just goes to hell in a handbasket. Of course. Samantha, this is what I thought.

This is what I thought.

This is what I thought.

Well, I was accosted by people in the street, readers saying, you know what's happened? Where have you been? You know, thinking that either I'd come down with some awful disease that I'd retired, that I'd gone to work somewhere else? Truth is worse than all of those. Is that, well, I shouldn't make light of a disease, but I've been writing a book.

Well, I was accosted by people in the street, readers saying, you know what's happened? Where have you been? You know, thinking that either I'd come down with some awful disease that I'd retired, that I'd gone to work somewhere else? Truth is worse than all of those. Is that, well, I shouldn't make light of a disease, but I've been writing a book.

Yes, I know, I know this is true. And I've had numerous moments in the last three months where I was like, I don't understand what's happening. I need hartcher. So let's get into the latest thing I don't understand which is the subject of your latest column. And in particular, there's one of the most alarming sentences in it that I absolutely have to ask you about. And that is Australia is, quote, so exposed that we face the next decade near naked. So tell us, how did you come to this conclusion. What does that mean?

Yes, I know, I know this is true. And I've had numerous moments in the last three months where I was like, I don't understand what's happening. I need hartcher. So let's get into the latest thing I don't understand which is the subject of your latest column. And in particular, there's one of the most alarming sentences in it that I absolutely have to ask you about. And that is Australia is, quote, so exposed that we face the next decade near naked. So tell us, how did you come to this conclusion. What does that mean?

Okay, two points really. And they've converged on, on us, on the world, on Australia in this last week or two. We're naked or near naked, as I said, exposed on the one hand economically to a trading partner. Our major trading partner, whom we now know has proved definitively that it's unreliable and politically vindictive. China. And on the other hand, we are dependent on a country for our security. A country that no longer believes in alliance relationships or treaties or any sacred obligations of the US government. And that, of course, comes straight from Donald Trump. Just briefly, on the economic side, we had a trade dependency on China before they imposed their political trade bans of 40% export dependency on China, 40% of everything we sold overseas went to one country. Obviously imprudent. The Chinese government has shown us how stupid we were by imposing those $20 billion plus worth of trade bans. Purely political. And even after that, even after that, how have we responded to that very painful lesson? Well, our trade dependency on China did go down mainly because it was forcing it down, but now it's gone back up again, not quite to the previous level, but we still export a third of everything to this one country, China. We know, knowing that those exports can be shut off at a moment's notice. Now that is just stupid. This is a stupid country. And instead of trying to diversify our trade exports, trying to diversify our sources of of wealth, the government instead is celebrating the fact that the Chinese have been kind enough to remove the trade bans, which were illegally put on us in the first place. This is just a startling example of Australia's traditional enemy, not China, not any nation state complacency. And just briefly, if I may, Samantha, on the security side, the countries that Donald Trump is treating most harshly are US allies. It's it's unbelievable that the US would make territorial claims on NATO treaty allies of the US. It's it said it wants territory from Denmark in the form of Greenland, and wants to incorporate the entire country of Canada as the 51st state. These are both NATO treaty allies. He's kept open the use of force to take Greenland, and he's said he will. He's prepared to use economic force to take Canada. This is simply outrageous. So if he's treating allies like that, how confident can we be that if we need the US Navy in an emergency, that it will be there?

Okay, two points really. And they've converged on, on us, on the world, on Australia in this last week or two. We're naked or near naked, as I said, exposed on the one hand economically to a trading partner. Our major trading partner, whom we now know has proved definitively that it's unreliable and politically vindictive. China. And on the other hand, we are dependent on a country for our security. A country that no longer believes in alliance relationships or treaties or any sacred obligations of the US government. And that, of course, comes straight from Donald Trump. Just briefly, on the economic side, we had a trade dependency on China before they imposed their political trade bans of 40% export dependency on China, 40% of everything we sold overseas went to one country. Obviously imprudent. The Chinese government has shown us how stupid we were by imposing those $20 billion plus worth of trade bans. Purely political. And even after that, even after that, how have we responded to that very painful lesson? Well, our trade dependency on China did go down mainly because it was forcing it down, but now it's gone back up again, not quite to the previous level, but we still export a third of everything to this one country, China. We know, knowing that those exports can be shut off at a moment's notice. Now that is just stupid. This is a stupid country. And instead of trying to diversify our trade exports, trying to diversify our sources of of wealth, the government instead is celebrating the fact that the Chinese have been kind enough to remove the trade bans, which were illegally put on us in the first place. This is just a startling example of Australia's traditional enemy, not China, not any nation state complacency. And just briefly, if I may, Samantha, on the security side, the countries that Donald Trump is treating most harshly are US allies. It's it's unbelievable that the US would make territorial claims on NATO treaty allies of the US. It's it said it wants territory from Denmark in the form of Greenland, and wants to incorporate the entire country of Canada as the 51st state. These are both NATO treaty allies. He's kept open the use of force to take Greenland, and he's said he will. He's prepared to use economic force to take Canada. This is simply outrageous. So if he's treating allies like that, how confident can we be that if we need the US Navy in an emergency, that it will be there?

Which really brings us to the timeliness of your latest column, because, of course, Chinese warships recently completed live fire drills off the east coast of Australia. And then yesterday, after your column was published, news broke that those three Chinese warships were tracked operating east of Hobart. And the head of the ADF has just said that this move suggests they may proceed through the Australian Bight. So how alarming is that?

Which really brings us to the timeliness of your latest column, because, of course, Chinese warships recently completed live fire drills off the east coast of Australia. And then yesterday, after your column was published, news broke that those three Chinese warships were tracked operating east of Hobart. And the head of the ADF has just said that this move suggests they may proceed through the Australian Bight. So how alarming is that?

In itself, it's an entirely legal manoeuvre for any country's navy to sail in the high seas and even to enter that country's exclusive economic zone, which the Chinese task group has done again. We're told it's 250km off the coast of Tasmania, which is within our 300 kilometre exclusive economic zone. But it's the first time that the Chinese Communist Party has sent its naval assets so far south down the Australian coast. It's the first time they've conducted live fire exercises off the Australian coast.

In itself, it's an entirely legal manoeuvre for any country's navy to sail in the high seas and even to enter that country's exclusive economic zone, which the Chinese task group has done again. We're told it's 250km off the coast of Tasmania, which is within our 300 kilometre exclusive economic zone. But it's the first time that the Chinese Communist Party has sent its naval assets so far south down the Australian coast. It's the first time they've conducted live fire exercises off the Australian coast.

Drama involving Chinese warships in the Tasman Sea has escalated with the second live firing drill this afternoon. It comes just a day after a similar incident, in which.

Drama involving Chinese warships in the Tasman Sea has escalated with the second live firing drill this afternoon. It comes just a day after a similar incident, in which.

Several international flights have now diverted on their path between Australia and New Zealand. And that's directly because of this Chinese task force.

Several international flights have now diverted on their path between Australia and New Zealand. And that's directly because of this Chinese task force.

You have to ask yourself, why would they travel 13,000km from home to conduct live fire exercises at extremely short notice off the coast of Sydney, which happens to be the largest city in Australia? I think it's pretty obvious tactic of intimidation and yet they've broken no laws, so it's political act of intimidation within the rules based order, which we always claim to defend and protect. So we can't complain. And we haven't really. But it is it is appointed outreach. So they've managed to unnerve Australia and Militarily and politically carry out an act of intimidation with less than 1% of its navy, which is, of course, the world's biggest by far, now much bigger than the US.

You have to ask yourself, why would they travel 13,000km from home to conduct live fire exercises at extremely short notice off the coast of Sydney, which happens to be the largest city in Australia? I think it's pretty obvious tactic of intimidation and yet they've broken no laws, so it's political act of intimidation within the rules based order, which we always claim to defend and protect. So we can't complain. And we haven't really. But it is it is appointed outreach. So they've managed to unnerve Australia and Militarily and politically carry out an act of intimidation with less than 1% of its navy, which is, of course, the world's biggest by far, now much bigger than the US.

And then on top of that, we also have just learned that the ADF actually didn't even know that these live firing exercises were taking place in the Tasman Sea until some 40 minutes after they began. I mean, that's not good, right?

And then on top of that, we also have just learned that the ADF actually didn't even know that these live firing exercises were taking place in the Tasman Sea until some 40 minutes after they began. I mean, that's not good, right?

It's looking like a pretty embarrassing performance. Uh, the good news is that the the Australian Defence Forces were tracking the ships from the moment they entered Australian well, near approaches in the north, in the Coral Sea and south. But the fact that they were firing missiles into a busy flight corridor that connects Sydney with New Zealand and a busy approach, um, without the ADF knowing this is embarrassing and it looks incompetent, and that they had to wait for a notification from a commercial pilot, a Virgin Airlines pilot, to find out. Of course, it also reveals some of the intentions of the Chinese task group that they deliberately didn't notify the Australian or New Zealand governments in advance. They're deliberately letting us know that they could fire. Live missiles are within easy reach of our coast. Those missiles, depending on which ones they use, have a range of either 1000km or 2000km so they could easily reach. Well, of course, Sydney, but also Melbourne from there and anywhere in between fire live missiles without us even knowing. So this is the point. This is the point. We have been exposed as vulnerable, and it's partly because of our own failure. And even worse, now we hear from the the Navy, from the Defence Force in Senate estimates hearings in Canberra that the Defence force, the Australian Defence Force, doesn't know whether this group is accompanied by a submarine. It's the reason we have invested billions of dollars in the six Collins class subs is so that we we can monitor and know what's going on underwater in our littoral, and either the Defence Department doesn't, does know and doesn't want the Chinese to know that they know, which seems unlikely and more likely because they're answering questions on the record to senators, and they have a sacred obligation to be truthful. It's more likely that they just don't know. Which again, points to a failure. We really have to question the vigilance, the competence and the seriousness of the Australian military and the Australian government at a moment like this.

It's looking like a pretty embarrassing performance. Uh, the good news is that the the Australian Defence Forces were tracking the ships from the moment they entered Australian well, near approaches in the north, in the Coral Sea and south. But the fact that they were firing missiles into a busy flight corridor that connects Sydney with New Zealand and a busy approach, um, without the ADF knowing this is embarrassing and it looks incompetent, and that they had to wait for a notification from a commercial pilot, a Virgin Airlines pilot, to find out. Of course, it also reveals some of the intentions of the Chinese task group that they deliberately didn't notify the Australian or New Zealand governments in advance. They're deliberately letting us know that they could fire. Live missiles are within easy reach of our coast. Those missiles, depending on which ones they use, have a range of either 1000km or 2000km so they could easily reach. Well, of course, Sydney, but also Melbourne from there and anywhere in between fire live missiles without us even knowing. So this is the point. This is the point. We have been exposed as vulnerable, and it's partly because of our own failure. And even worse, now we hear from the the Navy, from the Defence Force in Senate estimates hearings in Canberra that the Defence force, the Australian Defence Force, doesn't know whether this group is accompanied by a submarine. It's the reason we have invested billions of dollars in the six Collins class subs is so that we we can monitor and know what's going on underwater in our littoral, and either the Defence Department doesn't, does know and doesn't want the Chinese to know that they know, which seems unlikely and more likely because they're answering questions on the record to senators, and they have a sacred obligation to be truthful. It's more likely that they just don't know. Which again, points to a failure. We really have to question the vigilance, the competence and the seriousness of the Australian military and the Australian government at a moment like this.

And it brings me to my next question, because, you know, for you, our lack of building up a military or defence strategy that meets China's aggression and our historic reliance on the United States that you've mentioned to protect us. This has led to Australia having lapsed into its quote. I'm quoting you here, traditional complacency, unquote. So I'd really love your opinion. When was the last time that our government wasn't complacent with regards to either the rising threat of China, or broadly with regards to how we approach our foreign policy?

And it brings me to my next question, because, you know, for you, our lack of building up a military or defence strategy that meets China's aggression and our historic reliance on the United States that you've mentioned to protect us. This has led to Australia having lapsed into its quote. I'm quoting you here, traditional complacency, unquote. So I'd really love your opinion. When was the last time that our government wasn't complacent with regards to either the rising threat of China, or broadly with regards to how we approach our foreign policy?

The last time would have been 2017, when we had the Sam Dastyari affair, where that labor senator was revealed for the price of just a few dollars, to have sold his soul and his political allegiance to a foreign government. That being, of course, the Chinese government, the Chinese Communist Party, for a few dollars from a Chinese billionaire who was then living in Australia and has since been declared persona non grata. And that is Huang Jamoh.

The last time would have been 2017, when we had the Sam Dastyari affair, where that labor senator was revealed for the price of just a few dollars, to have sold his soul and his political allegiance to a foreign government. That being, of course, the Chinese government, the Chinese Communist Party, for a few dollars from a Chinese billionaire who was then living in Australia and has since been declared persona non grata. And that is Huang Jamoh.

Me that I should leave if my ongoing presence detracts from the pursuit of Labor's mission. It is evident to me that we are at that point, so I will spare the party any further distraction.

Me that I should leave if my ongoing presence detracts from the pursuit of Labor's mission. It is evident to me that we are at that point, so I will spare the party any further distraction.

So when that happened, the Prime Minister at the time, Malcolm Turnbull, reacted correctly and was not, cannot be accused of complacency. He gets full marks. First of all, he introduced foreign interference laws. They need updating. By the way, this government has said they're in the process of updating them. Let's see them. Foreign espionage laws are and tight as well. Tightened up the foreign investment laws against state owned corporations from any country. But obviously that's a particular problem for China.

So when that happened, the Prime Minister at the time, Malcolm Turnbull, reacted correctly and was not, cannot be accused of complacency. He gets full marks. First of all, he introduced foreign interference laws. They need updating. By the way, this government has said they're in the process of updating them. Let's see them. Foreign espionage laws are and tight as well. Tightened up the foreign investment laws against state owned corporations from any country. But obviously that's a particular problem for China.

What we need to ensure is that the rise of China is, if you like, conducted in a manner that does not disturb the security and the relative harmony of the region upon which.

What we need to ensure is that the rise of China is, if you like, conducted in a manner that does not disturb the security and the relative harmony of the region upon which.

Publicly declared in the Parliament that Australia was confronting China's attempts to infiltrate, the ASIO boss was tasked with defeating Chinese espionage and influence in Australia, and said so publicly and outed it as a major threat, and in fact has said that the risk of espionage against Australia now is greater than it was during the Cold War. So this was a government that took it seriously, responded seriously in the early days of the Albanese government, looked promising, by the way, because they conducted a thing called the Defence Strategic Review, which was a brilliant, in my view, blueprint for what Australia needed to do. But what the government has now done is failed to fund it fully or act on it with sufficient urgency. And that to me is again a failure.

Publicly declared in the Parliament that Australia was confronting China's attempts to infiltrate, the ASIO boss was tasked with defeating Chinese espionage and influence in Australia, and said so publicly and outed it as a major threat, and in fact has said that the risk of espionage against Australia now is greater than it was during the Cold War. So this was a government that took it seriously, responded seriously in the early days of the Albanese government, looked promising, by the way, because they conducted a thing called the Defence Strategic Review, which was a brilliant, in my view, blueprint for what Australia needed to do. But what the government has now done is failed to fund it fully or act on it with sufficient urgency. And that to me is again a failure.

Okay, so beyond, I guess, strengthening our foreign interference laws, what else would it take for a country to move away from? And I've got to say ouch here, from what you've called, quote, Pollyanna Australia like, does it require a broad cultural shift in our mindset?

Okay, so beyond, I guess, strengthening our foreign interference laws, what else would it take for a country to move away from? And I've got to say ouch here, from what you've called, quote, Pollyanna Australia like, does it require a broad cultural shift in our mindset?

It does. We as as I said, our traditional enemy is complacency, and it's a moment where we need to abandon that. Perhaps we're just in a moment of of shock absorption, where we're taking in all the changes that are occurring. But if the mentality of the country is going to change, it has to come from the top. It has to come from the leadership. And we're not seeing that. We're seeing we've seen complacency fed by the Albanese government with this line that the relationship with China has been stabilised. Well tell that to the Chinese navy task force sitting off the coast of Tasmania. Or tell it to the pilot of the Chinese Air Force jet who fired flares at an Australian Air Force plane from within 30m just two weeks ago, could easily have been a fatal accident or a fatal incident. They don't think that doesn't look very stabilised, if you ask me. So that is just feeding our national complacency. So first of all, we have to confront the reality of what we face. And the second part of that, of course, is that while we are, we are confronting a hostile China. We are also confronting an unreliable America. I called it in the column, a buccaneering America trying to shake down allies, trying to shake down now trying to shake down Ukraine for mineral rights. All of this stuff, it's just very revealing about the nature of the US under its government, current government. And Trump has said openly that he wants to get a big deal on disarmament with China and Russia. Okay. That's a terrific goal. It's a noble goal and we all want that. He's talked about the US halving its defense budget. If he could get the others to agree and to be serious in pursuit of that, that that could be a breakthrough moment. And that's one of the only remaining advantages that the US has over China is its military. So, you know, this is a pretty bullheaded approach to conducting an arms negotiation with a sophisticated enemy. And that's what China is. So the other and the other point about that is if he's looking to cut a big deal with China, at what cost? And over the heads of which allies? The allies that he's treating like dirt in Europe, the Ukrainian ally that he's shaking down like a protection racket. And what what will Australia what would he do to protect Australia's interests? Presumably not very much if he's looking for a big deal. So we need leaders who are prepared to prosecute the actual agendas, as well as declare publicly to the country what the problem is. I think the Trump bit we've largely got and the government's doing its best to deal with that. The China bit we definitely have not got.

It does. We as as I said, our traditional enemy is complacency, and it's a moment where we need to abandon that. Perhaps we're just in a moment of of shock absorption, where we're taking in all the changes that are occurring. But if the mentality of the country is going to change, it has to come from the top. It has to come from the leadership. And we're not seeing that. We're seeing we've seen complacency fed by the Albanese government with this line that the relationship with China has been stabilised. Well tell that to the Chinese navy task force sitting off the coast of Tasmania. Or tell it to the pilot of the Chinese Air Force jet who fired flares at an Australian Air Force plane from within 30m just two weeks ago, could easily have been a fatal accident or a fatal incident. They don't think that doesn't look very stabilised, if you ask me. So that is just feeding our national complacency. So first of all, we have to confront the reality of what we face. And the second part of that, of course, is that while we are, we are confronting a hostile China. We are also confronting an unreliable America. I called it in the column, a buccaneering America trying to shake down allies, trying to shake down now trying to shake down Ukraine for mineral rights. All of this stuff, it's just very revealing about the nature of the US under its government, current government. And Trump has said openly that he wants to get a big deal on disarmament with China and Russia. Okay. That's a terrific goal. It's a noble goal and we all want that. He's talked about the US halving its defense budget. If he could get the others to agree and to be serious in pursuit of that, that that could be a breakthrough moment. And that's one of the only remaining advantages that the US has over China is its military. So, you know, this is a pretty bullheaded approach to conducting an arms negotiation with a sophisticated enemy. And that's what China is. So the other and the other point about that is if he's looking to cut a big deal with China, at what cost? And over the heads of which allies? The allies that he's treating like dirt in Europe, the Ukrainian ally that he's shaking down like a protection racket. And what what will Australia what would he do to protect Australia's interests? Presumably not very much if he's looking for a big deal. So we need leaders who are prepared to prosecute the actual agendas, as well as declare publicly to the country what the problem is. I think the Trump bit we've largely got and the government's doing its best to deal with that. The China bit we definitely have not got.

We'll be right back. So do you think what's needed then for a government to really sort of quit being complacent and and to do what you've just suggested. Does it need an electorate? I guess that is sort of really awake to what you definitely see as this is the threat from China or this really vulnerable moment that we're in.

We'll be right back. So do you think what's needed then for a government to really sort of quit being complacent and and to do what you've just suggested. Does it need an electorate? I guess that is sort of really awake to what you definitely see as this is the threat from China or this really vulnerable moment that we're in.

The Australian public has pretty much figured out the Chinese Communist Party's intent. The Lowy Institute conducts an annual poll in which, a few years ago and continuing to this day, 70% of Australians said that they imagined the Chinese government would become a military threat to Australia within the next 20 years. They got that right, but that's that's public opinion. So in terms of alerting the public, you're pushing on an open door, but you have to give the public a specific agenda about what to do about it. It means drawing in the private sector, getting the private sector to cooperate on national security, improving supply lines with petrol, oil, aviation fuel on one hand, pharmaceuticals on another, and a bunch of other things to improve. Supply line security would be a really smart and urgent beginning if Australia's petrol oil supplies run out. At the moment it's only got we've only got about six weeks supply for all our pharmaceuticals, and most of our pharmaceuticals run out within 6 to 12 months, so they're just a couple. There are many more examples of our glaring national vulnerability, and I'm.

The Australian public has pretty much figured out the Chinese Communist Party's intent. The Lowy Institute conducts an annual poll in which, a few years ago and continuing to this day, 70% of Australians said that they imagined the Chinese government would become a military threat to Australia within the next 20 years. They got that right, but that's that's public opinion. So in terms of alerting the public, you're pushing on an open door, but you have to give the public a specific agenda about what to do about it. It means drawing in the private sector, getting the private sector to cooperate on national security, improving supply lines with petrol, oil, aviation fuel on one hand, pharmaceuticals on another, and a bunch of other things to improve. Supply line security would be a really smart and urgent beginning if Australia's petrol oil supplies run out. At the moment it's only got we've only got about six weeks supply for all our pharmaceuticals, and most of our pharmaceuticals run out within 6 to 12 months, so they're just a couple. There are many more examples of our glaring national vulnerability, and I'm.

Just wondering what response you've had to your latest column, because we know that you have had one very vocal detractor. He's not an uncommon one for you, but he is, of course, our former prime minister, Paul Keating. So tell me about what his response has been and whether it's been mirrored by other people or whether they are worried.

Just wondering what response you've had to your latest column, because we know that you have had one very vocal detractor. He's not an uncommon one for you, but he is, of course, our former prime minister, Paul Keating. So tell me about what his response has been and whether it's been mirrored by other people or whether they are worried.

Paul, has Paul wrote a letter to the editor which we published, which is a bit of fun. I always I always love that he he never plays the man, he just plays the ball. So the opening line of the letter to the editor in response to my column is Peter Hartcher has no shame.

Paul, has Paul wrote a letter to the editor which we published, which is a bit of fun. I always I always love that he he never plays the man, he just plays the ball. So the opening line of the letter to the editor in response to my column is Peter Hartcher has no shame.

That's right. He went for it. Yes, he went for it.

That's right. He went for it. Yes, he went for it.

Yes, he went for the man. Yes. He continues, I won't read you the whole thing. But the next bit, after a decade of aggressively urging Australia to put all its security bets on America, and as the bet is on the cusp of failing, he falls back to the mealy mouthed claim that Australia is to be blamed for not preparing for its own defence. This is the same person who has barracked for aukus, notwithstanding the fact that we have to wait 20 to 30 years for the submarines to protect us, and so on and so on. And the I didn't write this, but the editor of the newspaper appended a short note at the bottom. Editor's note Peter Hartcher has on many occasions advocated for greater Australian independence and defence self-reliance from both China and the United States. Which is true. This is true.

Yes, he went for the man. Yes. He continues, I won't read you the whole thing. But the next bit, after a decade of aggressively urging Australia to put all its security bets on America, and as the bet is on the cusp of failing, he falls back to the mealy mouthed claim that Australia is to be blamed for not preparing for its own defence. This is the same person who has barracked for aukus, notwithstanding the fact that we have to wait 20 to 30 years for the submarines to protect us, and so on and so on. And the I didn't write this, but the editor of the newspaper appended a short note at the bottom. Editor's note Peter Hartcher has on many occasions advocated for greater Australian independence and defence self-reliance from both China and the United States. Which is true. This is true.

We've spoken about that many a time.

We've spoken about that many a time.

Many times, many a time for for a full decade. But look, Paul's situation is that he's said that the correct Australian response Would be to withdraw from serious engagement with the US, to withdraw from any defence presence in the region and allow China to, quote, have its strategic space. Now, that sounds benign, but that essentially means that everybody just gives China what what it wants. Countries abandon international shipping and our commercial lifelines to China's control. So this is Paul's position. This is a position of appeasement and national surrender. And I don't think it's I don't think it's the country that anybody else really much wants to live in.

Many times, many a time for for a full decade. But look, Paul's situation is that he's said that the correct Australian response Would be to withdraw from serious engagement with the US, to withdraw from any defence presence in the region and allow China to, quote, have its strategic space. Now, that sounds benign, but that essentially means that everybody just gives China what what it wants. Countries abandon international shipping and our commercial lifelines to China's control. So this is Paul's position. This is a position of appeasement and national surrender. And I don't think it's I don't think it's the country that anybody else really much wants to live in.

Peter, I want to ask you about the economic coercion that China has tried on Australia because the country put punitive trade bans on many of our products, but we didn't cave. And in response, as you've written, China has learned its lesson. It's diversified, its foreign suppliers. And in particular, you point to the fact that China's state owned corporation has built a new mine in Guinea, and it's expected to produce its first iron ore by the end of this year. So have we learned the lesson that China has? Like, are we diversifying? Yeah.

Peter, I want to ask you about the economic coercion that China has tried on Australia because the country put punitive trade bans on many of our products, but we didn't cave. And in response, as you've written, China has learned its lesson. It's diversified, its foreign suppliers. And in particular, you point to the fact that China's state owned corporation has built a new mine in Guinea, and it's expected to produce its first iron ore by the end of this year. So have we learned the lesson that China has? Like, are we diversifying? Yeah.

The short answer is the Chinese government is preparing for the next crisis by diversifying its supply sources. And we have completely failed to learn the lesson of the last crisis and have lapsed into complacency, and are therefore just as vulnerable or almost as vulnerable to the next crisis. So the mine that you mention this is an important development. It's been 20 years in the making. It's had a lot of trouble getting getting itself on its feet. But backed by Chinese state owned corporations plus Rio Tinto, they've put about an estimated 20 billion USD into developing the first big new iron ore mine on the planet after Twiggy Forrest opened the Fortescue mines in the Pilbara. This is not as big as the Pilbara as far as we know, but it's big enough to reduce world prices pretty dramatically. And for that reason, it's been called a Pilbara killer. As you say, the first ore from that mine is expected to start flowing by the end of this year. Now, what does that mean for us? Well, the single biggest export we sell to China is iron ore. Most Australian exports to China are of iron ore. Now they've deliberately put state money into developing this alternative mine so that they can diversify away from Australian iron ore. What have we done? Well, after the trade bans were restored, were revoked and trade restored. Nothing. We've just. We're just vulnerable for. For it to happen all over again. So, you know, this isn't a smart. This isn't a smart thing to do. Samantha. So do you think.

The short answer is the Chinese government is preparing for the next crisis by diversifying its supply sources. And we have completely failed to learn the lesson of the last crisis and have lapsed into complacency, and are therefore just as vulnerable or almost as vulnerable to the next crisis. So the mine that you mention this is an important development. It's been 20 years in the making. It's had a lot of trouble getting getting itself on its feet. But backed by Chinese state owned corporations plus Rio Tinto, they've put about an estimated 20 billion USD into developing the first big new iron ore mine on the planet after Twiggy Forrest opened the Fortescue mines in the Pilbara. This is not as big as the Pilbara as far as we know, but it's big enough to reduce world prices pretty dramatically. And for that reason, it's been called a Pilbara killer. As you say, the first ore from that mine is expected to start flowing by the end of this year. Now, what does that mean for us? Well, the single biggest export we sell to China is iron ore. Most Australian exports to China are of iron ore. Now they've deliberately put state money into developing this alternative mine so that they can diversify away from Australian iron ore. What have we done? Well, after the trade bans were restored, were revoked and trade restored. Nothing. We've just. We're just vulnerable for. For it to happen all over again. So, you know, this isn't a smart. This isn't a smart thing to do. Samantha. So do you think.

This might be a wake up call, then? I mean, for either for our government or private businesses?

This might be a wake up call, then? I mean, for either for our government or private businesses?

Well, Rio Tinto won't mind, because, you know, they'll they'll they've got a chunk of the new mine as well as the old stuff here and everywhere else, Maybe this is a pain that we have to endure to get beyond that and develop a more purposeful, value added economy. Although I should acknowledge the Albanese government has been trying to do exactly that with its future Made in Australia agenda, some of which I think is is much needed and overdue, by the way. But it's it would be, as you say, a pretty rude awakening for a collapse in the iron ore price and the private sector. The mining industry is partly partly prepared for that. But look, if if it's not enough of a wake up call, having these sort of mercurial trade bans slapped on US industries being punished, livelihoods suffering, if that's not enough of a wake up call, what is? Maybe it's having a Chinese task group turn up and fire live missiles without us knowing off the coast of our major cities.

Well, Rio Tinto won't mind, because, you know, they'll they'll they've got a chunk of the new mine as well as the old stuff here and everywhere else, Maybe this is a pain that we have to endure to get beyond that and develop a more purposeful, value added economy. Although I should acknowledge the Albanese government has been trying to do exactly that with its future Made in Australia agenda, some of which I think is is much needed and overdue, by the way. But it's it would be, as you say, a pretty rude awakening for a collapse in the iron ore price and the private sector. The mining industry is partly partly prepared for that. But look, if if it's not enough of a wake up call, having these sort of mercurial trade bans slapped on US industries being punished, livelihoods suffering, if that's not enough of a wake up call, what is? Maybe it's having a Chinese task group turn up and fire live missiles without us knowing off the coast of our major cities.

Well, Peter, thanks for coming back to us.

Well, Peter, thanks for coming back to us.

It's always lovely to be here. Unfortunately, as you say, the world doesn't get much more cheerful week to week and year to year, but it's the reality we have to we have to live with.

It's always lovely to be here. Unfortunately, as you say, the world doesn't get much more cheerful week to week and year to year, but it's the reality we have to we have to live with.

At least you can help us perhaps understand it just a little bit better.

At least you can help us perhaps understand it just a little bit better.

Yes, well, I suppose forewarned is forearmed.

Yes, well, I suppose forewarned is forearmed.

Thanks, Peter. Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Julia Carcasole. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills. Our head of audio is Tom McKendrick. The Morning Edition is a production of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. If you enjoy the show and want more of our journalism, subscribe to our newspapers today. It's the best way to support what we do. Search The Age or Smh.com.au for subscribe and sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter to receive a comprehensive summary of the day's most important news, analysis and insights in your inbox every day. Links are in the show. Notes. I'm Samantha Selinger. Morris. This is the morning edition. Thanks for listening.

Thanks, Peter. Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Julia Carcasole. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills. Our head of audio is Tom McKendrick. The Morning Edition is a production of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. If you enjoy the show and want more of our journalism, subscribe to our newspapers today. It's the best way to support what we do. Search The Age or Smh.com.au for subscribe and sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter to receive a comprehensive summary of the day's most important news, analysis and insights in your inbox every day. Links are in the show. Notes. I'm Samantha Selinger. Morris. This is the morning edition. Thanks for listening.