Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. People in Goldstein are constantly raising with me their concerns about the stability of the Australia-US relationship under the Trump administration and whether it's sensible to be spending billions on the AUKUS deal when even the US Congressional Budget Office says the submarines may never be delivered. What is your Plan B?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My plan is to implement the AUKUS arrangements that we are committed to. I'll do that for a range of reasons. I'll do that primarily, though, for one reason, which is that it is in the Australian national interest for us to have the best defence assets that are possibly available to Australia. When we have briefings, I am happy to arrange for appropriate briefings for the member for Goldstein on these matters. If you are an island continent located where we are, the best asset you can possibly have is a submarine. But. importantly, you have to then ask yourself: what is the best form of submarine in terms of stealth and in terms of capacity to go long distances while not having to snort and rise to the surface and what is the best way that you can ensure that you are not detectable? The answer to that is nuclear powered submarines. That is something that we have supported because we think it is absolutely essential for Australia's national interest.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister was asked about the AUKUS deal and the relationship with the US. He is giving exactly the answer to the question that the member asked. But members are entitled to raise one point of order on relevance and the member has the call.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is on relevance. The question went to either the capacity or the willingness of the US to deliver such subs.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, the Prime Minister is directly talking about the topic he was asked about. He couldn't be more directly relevant. If he were talking about other agreements or other deals, he wouldn't be relevant, but, whilst he's talking about the topic he was asked about, he's within the standing orders.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The AUKUS arrangements also have within them pillar II, and what that's about is the capacity for us to lift up our capacity for advanced manufacturing, for really the most high-tech manufacturing that you can have. One of the things about the defence industry is that there are spin-offs as well. I'm very committed to a future made in Australia. That's why the National Reconstruction Fund, for example, has a component in it about innovation for defence industries. Working with the United States, which is the most advanced in terms of, obviously, the largest military in the world, with the defence industries that they have, there are already Australian companies, such as Austal, for example, that are located there in the United States—a fantastic operation, of course, based in Western Australia primarily. That will bring great benefit to Australia.

With regard to the support for the AUKUS arrangements in the United States and the UK, I've met with over 100 congresspeople and senators in the United States. There was overwhelming support from both Republican and Democrat people who are elected representatives. I have raised this issue in the discussions I've had with President Trump as well, and he has expressed his support, as, of course, has Prime Minister Starmer in the United Kingdom, who I had a talk with less than two weeks ago. So we will continue to put in place these arrangements because it is in Australia's national interest, and I'm confident that an important part of the defence of this country is the AUKUS arrangements.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

on indulgence—I think that was a pretty good answer, and I wanted to support the Prime Minister on what I think is an issue of national significance and importance. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have rightly pointed out that we live in the most precarious period since the end of the Second World War. It's based on intelligence and the advice of the best people in uniform, not just here in Australia but in Europe and in other allies' intelligence networks as well, so it is appropriate that we make this investment. I think the Prime Minister, when he was the then Leader of the Opposition, made a brave call in supporting the then government's decision to go with the AUKUS nuclear propelled submarine. It is a safe technology. It provides the stealth capacity that the Prime Minister pointed out. It gives us the best in class of the technology, and it allows us to project and to provide defences to our country in a very uncertain century. I think to question that is not wise and not in our national interest, and I think it is important for the Australian public and for our allies to hear that there is and there always will remain a bipartisan position when it comes to the submarines. As the first line of defence, it will underpin our national security for decades and decades to come.