‘Irish convicts were the original boat people’

As Minister for Defense Industry and Minister for Pacific Island Affairs, Pat Conroy is at the center of debates over AUKUS, China’s designs on the Pacific, and Australia’s efforts to mend relations with its neighbors. POLITICO sat down for a wide-ranging interview with Conroy this month, just weeks after the Albanese government struck its second landmark treaty in the region. It was a big news month for Conroy, who announced an overhaul of defense procurement, promoted the new Australia-Fiji security pact, and toured AUKUS production and training sites in the U.S. Conroy is Australia’s longest-serving minister for the Pacific, and the only one to serve in the role while a Cabinet member. He represents the electorate of Shortland, in New South Wales, which covers the area south of Newcastle, and parts of the Central Coast. This interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Over Parliament’s winter recess we’ve had the Australia-Fiji treaty signed and the PNG treaty has come into force. Can you explain for an average Australian why these Pacific security moves are important? In the Southwest Pacific, or in the Pacific more broadly, we are in a permanent state of contest with other countries. That’s why you’ve seen an unprecedented level of engagement from the Albanese government in rebuilding relations. Alliances only work if all parties believe genuinely that there will be follow through. It’s a contested region, and we’re talking about potential war in our region. In the case of foreign interference or military attack, what lengths is Australia prepared to go to defend its specific allies? Well, the language in the alliances with Fiji and PNG make it clear that we will consult and act to meet a common threat. It’s the same language that’s in ANZUS. What does Australia expect in terms of China testing that resolve? We want to be the partner of choice for this region, and that’s contested. There are multiple sides in a contest pursuing their own interests. Penny Wong, Albanese are very keen to refer to “the Pacific family.” Under Scott Morrison we often had references to it as Australia’s backyard. It’s not our backyard, it’s not our neighborhood. We’re a proud member of the Pacific family — not our family, the family. That nomenclature is important because it signifies respect and I think a level of humility that Australia hasn’t always engaged in in this area. Back to your earlier question about the Wale proposal; We’ve signaled if that’s what he wants to drive, if that’s what the Pacific leaders decide to pursue, we will back it 100 percent. But ultimately it’s within their sovereign decision-making. What’s the deeper point of rugby league diplomacy, beyond adding a PNG NRL team or giving leaders a social outing? It’s fundamental. This is the first time in the history of the world a country’s used sporting diplomacy to this level. It’s an essential factor in building people-to-people connections. It interlinks our countries at fundamental levels. It’s about economic development in Port Moresby itself. It will also unite their nation. I call it “PM Marape’s Nelson Mandela vision,” just as in ’94, Mandela used rugby to unite in a post-apartheid South Africa. PM Marape sees this as one of the ways to uniting a very diverse country, a country of — I think it’s 800 languages spoken across 1000 tribes. Rugby league is one of the few things that unites all of them, so we’re helping him with his national project. Then introducing an NRL visa means that not only will Australians be traveling more to watch their teams get smashed by the Chiefs, you’ll see Papua New Guineans traveling to Townsville and Melbourne to watch the Chiefs play here. It seems to be — and is this part of the strategy? — that rugby league is something that uniquely Australia can offer in a contested area. We’re using every lever of statecraft to be the partner of choice, and that means picking things that are of high value to our Pacific partners that only we,