Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Birmingham:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Senate to recognise that AUKUS expresses Australia's ambition for enduring peace and prosperity in our region, and to reject criticism from former Prime Minister Pa ul Keating that it is the worst deal in our history.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

The proposal is supported. With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clocks in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Senate to recognise that AUKUS expresses Australia's ambition for enduring peace and prosperity in our region, and to reject criticism from former Prime Minister Paul Kea ting that it is the worst deal in our history.

I move this motion noting that this is a matter of, indeed, utmost importance for this parliament and for the nation in terms of the operation of the AUKUS agreement and its impact upon the defence of Australia.

One of the most frequent criticisms of politics is that of so-called 'short-termism', the view that governments take decisions focused too much on the next election cycle in the near or short term rather than using longer-term perspective. In this case, what we have very clearly is long-term decision-making for Australia in our national interest, guiding the type of defence strategy and defence industry strategy that our country needs to see us through the decades ahead. Those of us on this side are very proud to have been the authors and architects of the AUKUS agreement. We acknowledge and give credit to the other side for having delivered on the process that we put in place—the 18-month Nuclear Powered Submarine Task Force process—and ensuring that, within that, we are taking the steps forward under AUKUS, and that it is delivering a long-term strategic plan for Australia's defence capability, contributing to a long-term strategic plan for our Defence industrial capability and helping to strengthen our alliances and partnerships with key nations with whom we share an interest in the preservation of shared values and support for the international rules based order.

The AUKUS agreement and Australia's pursuit of enhanced military capabilities is unquestionably about underpinning the stability, peace and prosperity of our region across the Indo-Pacific. It is intended to make a contribution to the defence of Australia and to the defence of Australian interests. Our interests are served by upholding the international rules based order that has underpinned stability and peace across the world, in the main, since the Second World War era. Our interests as Australians are based upon preserving respect for those laws and rules that enable open shipping lanes, freedom of navigation and overflight, and, of course, for our access throughout our region, along with that of every other partner nation within our region.

AUKUS was possible as an agreement because the coalition made Australia a credible partner and ensured that we made the difficult decisions that had to be made. We made Australia a credible partner by restoring Australia's investment in our defence budgets. When we came to office in 2013, Australia's defence spending had dropped to 1.56 per cent of GDP—the lowest level since the pre World War II era. We restored that to two per cent of GDP, notwithstanding the pressures of balancing the budget pre-COVID and the competing priorities. We had an eye firmly focused on the long-term interests of Australia and made the decision to make sure we prioritised that restoration. We made the investment decisions to establish a continuous shipbuilding strategy, also ensuring Australia was a credible partner for nations like the United States and the United Kingdom to work with on a program such as AUKUS.

We also made the difficult decisions to switch to nuclear powered submarines. That was one of the biggest and most difficult decisions that a government could make, given the program that was already underway in terms of conventionally powered—diesel powered—submarines and the challenge of the technology and ambition associated with nuclear powered submarines. We made that decision because of changed strategic circumstances and changes in technology and the detectability of submarines and in the operation of their powering. It's clear that only a coalition government was capable of making and able to make that decision. While those opposite in government have delivered on what we did, it is clear from the remarks of Mr Keating, Mr Garrett and former Senator Cameron that Labor could never have led such a decision. We did lead such a decision. We're proud to have done so. We continue to give bipartisan support, because we want to see it succeed.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last week, the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, along with the US President, Joe Biden, and the UK Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, announced the most significant investment in Australia's national security in our country's history.

We will be building eight next-generation nuclear powered submarines here in Australia, in the state of South Australia, in Adelaide. But it will be a whole-of-nation effort, requiring workers in every state and territory. It will create around 20,000 direct jobs, and, with construction beginning this decade, we will train more engineers, more scientists, more technicians, more submariners, more administrators and more tradespeople. At its peak, building and sustaining nuclear powered submarines in Australia will create up to 8½ thousand direct jobs in the industrial workforce alone. With hundreds of thousands of components, nuclear powered submarines will present a unique opportunity for Australian companies to contribute not only to the construction and sustainment of Australia's new fleet but to the supply chains of partner nations. Australia's scientific, education and training institutions will also play a central role. Australians have already commenced training and working on UK and US nuclear powered submarines, and in UK and US facilities. This will mean that Australia has a trained and experienced sovereign workforce for the arrival of Australia's Virginia class submarines from as soon as the early 2030s.

The cost of this endeavour is estimated to be between $268 billion and $368 billion, making it the largest investment in defence ever undertaken by Australia, and it's something that I think we should be very proud of. Some people may see that figure and wonder if this investment is really necessary, but the short answer is: yes, it is necessary. We are in a situation where we have the fastest and most significant naval build-up that we have ever seen at our back door, in the Indo-Pacific. As Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence Richard Marles said last week, we would be condemned by history if we did not take our changing strategic circumstances seriously and take steps to improve our defence capability. But the Australian Greens seem like they want to disregard protecting our sovereignty and protecting our people, who we are elected to look after.

While I don't think it is at all improper for people to ask questions about how the government is spending money, it's important to call out the irresponsible commentary that seeks to downplay the change in strategic circumstances that we find ourselves in. The lines that are coming out from some that AUKUS is somehow unnecessary or even provocative are complete nonsense. We should be very, very clear: Australia and our allies are not the provocateurs here. We are not seeking to change the status quo. We are not seeking to undermine the international rules based order. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for every international actor, and, when these actors commit to unprecedented military spending and naval build-up, it is incumbent upon Australia to respond.

We are increasing our defence capability by deepening our cooperation with our close allies, by working together so that we can design, build and deploy defence assets greater than the sum of our individual nation's knowledge and capability. It will complement the Albanese government's wider agenda to revitalise Australia's manufacturing, ensuring that we are a country that makes things here, including identifying defence capability as a priority funding area for the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund.

Australia's defence industry and workforce will be vital partners in the AUKUS submarine program over the next four decades and beyond, delivering critical defence capability and supporting an industrial and skills expansion of national economic significance. So, while I think almost all Australians would agree it's deeply unfortunate that we live in a world where these steps are necessary, we should also recognise the increased cooperation between ourselves and our closest partners as a good thing.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

STEELE-JOHN () (): The AUKUS political deal being debated today—dreamt up by Scott Morrison and by Boris Johnson, of all people, and sanctified by President Joe Biden—is, of course, a tremendous waste of public funds. It sees Australia go all in to the tune of $368 billion on the purchase of eight nuclear powered submarines that won't be delivered until I'm 60-odd. And, for this, the Australian people will get the privilege of becoming a nuclear waste dump for the refuse of these machines and will see their public money subsidise British and US defence manufacturers. It is a waste of public funds. It puts us at risk.

But, this afternoon, what I want to comment upon is this. It is one of the most catastrophic foreign policy decisions an Australian government has ever entered into, and it fundamentally undermines our ability to be considered as independent actors in our region. This deal forever shackles us to the United States of America. It removes the question in the minds of any of our regional neighbours as to whether, when the United States says, 'Jump,' we answer, 'How high, and would you like a backflip, sir?' I find it to be outrageous in the extreme and hypocritical in no end that both parties have spent this week criticising Paul Keating—a man with more right to comment on these things than most people in here—for his observations, yet you all have remained silent in relation to John Winston Howard, a man who should be before the Hague for his involvement in the war in Iraq.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it's appropriate, particularly as I look up in this chamber at the young people in the gallery, for an understanding of the history of Australia and our relationship with other nations to point out that when Australia was faced with invasion by a totalitarian regime of the imperialist Japanese government we called out, 'Help!' to the Americans, and they said, 'We've got your back.' Young men and women lost their lives. The United States spent money, capital and lives helping to defend Australia and the region, and much of the prosperity and peace that has existed in the world for the 60 or 70 years since is because of the sacrifice and support of the people of the United States.

The Defence strategic updateand I acknowledge Senator Reynolds, who was then Minister for Defence, for her work in bringing that about—took a serious, unbiased look of the circumstances facing Australia. It is clear that we face circumstances today that we have not faced since those dark days of World War II: grey zone activities and various economic coercive measures as well as the military build-up in our region. The AUKUS agreement, far from being just about nuclear submarines, is about a system of collaboration and support between like-minded nations—nations that are characterised by the rule of law and that wish to work together to increase their collective resilience to stand against totalitarian states. As well as the submarines, it covers a whole range of things, such as precision-guided munitions, undersea capabilities that are autonomous systems, quantum technologies, artificial intelligence and autonomy, advanced cyber, hypersonic and counterhypersonic capabilities, various forms of electronic warfare, and innovation and information sharing. That is partly because of the lessons we learned during COVID, when we found that supply chains were incredibly vulnerable and often very narrowly sourced to nations such as China, where the Chinese Communist Party are coercive in their behaviour. We need to have supply chains and technology with allies that will enable us to maintain peace and stability in the region.

I'm attracted to the philosophy of President Roosevelt of the United States, who coopted an African saying: 'Speak softly and carry a big stick.' He described his style of foreign policy as 'the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis'. As practised by Roosevelt, so-called 'big stick diplomacy' had five components. First, it was essential to possess serious military capability that would force an adversary to pay close attention, to calculate the risk. The other qualities—and these are not talked about as much, but they were important—were to act justly towards other nations, never to bluff, to strike only when prepared to strike hard and to be willing to allow the adversary to save face in defeat.

History teaches us that there are authoritarian powers that see weakness and a lack of commitment as a reason to act. The war in Ukraine that we're seeing at the moment with the illegal and brutal invasion by Russia is a case in point. But we can also look back through history. The invasion of the Falkland Islands by Argentina on 2 April 1982 was because General Galtieri had seen that the British government were actually looking for potential ways to cede the Falkland Islands back to Argentina, if the people of the Falklands agree The assessment by people in strategic think tanks was that a military response to an invasion was impossible. He saw that weakness. For domestic political reasons he acted. He invaded. We know that history in part was because of the collaboration of the US and the UK and the industrial base in the UK that was able to co-opt a number of civil assets, particularly ships, to use in that conflict.

So AUKUS, far from being a tragedy, is actually about the exercise of intelligent aforethought and decisive action sufficiently in advance of any likely crisis so that any adversary will see that we have both the intent and the means to actually preserve the global rules based order that has led to peace and prosperity for tens of millions of people in the world.

Ralph Babet (Victoria, United Australia Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Strengthening our nation's ability to defend itself is something that we in this place should all support. I would like to thank every Australian who has served or is serving us in our defence forces. We respect and honour you. I congratulate the PM for continuing the work of the former government to boost our defence capability by the acquisition of nuclear subs. The UAP's policy of acquiring nuclear subs we took to the federal election, and we are pleased to see it become a reality.

The sum of $368 billion is obviously huge, and we will do our best to hold the government to account. We must ensure this significant investment of taxpayer money delivers the largest increase in defence capability possible. We must ensure that it increases defence capability and protects our people and our sovereignty. We hope that the project is delivered on time and on budget.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a significant moment for our nation's history when Prime Minister Albanese, President Biden and Prime Minister Sunak, last week in San Diego, announced the support for the AUKUS deal on the nuclear submarines. This will be the single biggest investment in Australia's defence capability in history. AUKUS represents a transformational moment for our nation, our Defence Force and our economy as well. It will strengthen Australia's national security and contribute to regional stability in response to unprecedented strategic challenges. Australia actively seeks to contribute to creating a set of conditions that would make it unthinkable for any one country to choose conflict over coexistence. We will always be better off in a world where rules are clear, mutually negotiated and consistently followed.

But we must also contend with the implications of a changing region. In the context of deteriorating strategic circumstances in the Indo-Pacific region, we must act decisively to ensure the security and stability of the region. Australia's nuclear powered submarine capability will enable AUKUS partners, in collaboration with like-minded countries, to better contribute to a sovereign and resilient Indo-Pacific region and deter aggression more effectively. AUKUS is a multigenerational commitment amongst the trilateral partners to broaden our ability, promote stability and contribute to deterrence in the region. Embarking on this vital effort will further strengthen our already deep-seated relationships with the United States and the United Kingdom and provide further opportunities to work with partners in the region.

With the AUKUS agreement, the Albanese government is making record investments in defence, skills, jobs and infrastructure. Starting this year, the Australian military and civilian personnel will embed with the Royal Navy and the US Navy and with the UK and US submarine industrial bases to accelerate their training and development. Training and development will be supported by longer and more frequent visits by nuclear powered submarines. The first nuclear

powered submarines built by Australian workers at Osborne in South Australia are expected to be delivered in the early 2040s, with the next subs to be delivered on a regular drumbeat following.

The phased approach will result in $6 billion invested in Australia's industrial capability and workforce over the next four years. AUKUS will create around 20,000 highly skilled and high-paid direct jobs over the next 30 years across industry, the Australian Defence Force and the Public Service. At its peak, up to 4,000 Australian workers will be employed to design and build the infrastructure for the submarine construction yard at Osborne. A further 4,000 to 5,000 direct jobs are expected to be created to build nuclear powered submarines in South Australia when the program reaches its peak. In Western Australia, around 3,000 direct jobs will be created through the expansion, with an additional 500 direct jobs to sustain Submarine Rotational Force—West from 2027 to 2032. This whole-of-nation effort also presents a whole-of-nation opportunity for new jobs, new industries and new expertise in science, technology and cyber. Businesses right across the country, in every state and territory, will have the opportunity to contribute to and benefit from these opportunities over decades to come.

I was in Rockhampton last week and met with the mayor and other leaders there. I also met with the delegation of mayors from the Central Queensland region late last year. They know the opportunity that an increase in defence spending can provide for their communities. They are optimistic about the opportunity it can create in Central Queensland. Central Queensland has well-known, well-established defence industries in places like Rockhampton and further north in Townsville. It has also been a manufacturing hub for decades, and these skills can continue to be utilised to contribute to our defence industries.

The AUKUS agreement will provide even greater opportunities for increased defence spending to benefit communities across the whole of the country. Funding for this commitment will amount to around 0.15 per cent of GDP per year, averaged over the life of the program, which supports the Prime Minister's commitment during the election campaign to see defence spending lift to over two per cent of GDP. These transformational partnerships with the UK and US will deliver our Australian Defence Force a superior capability, not just for our generation but for generations to come.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a Greens MP and senator, I didn't come into politics to agree with the likes of Bob Carr and Paul Keating. But hard politics can make unlikely allies, and the fact that we agree on the need to end the reckless $368 billion-plus AUKUS submarine deal proves just how broad the feeling is in mainstream Australia against this.

We should be building a safe, peaceful future for Australia and our region, and instead the Albanese Labor government is seeking to permanently handcuff us to the United States military's aggressive war-fighting plans. The Albanese government has now officially adopted a hand-me-down coalition war plan from Morrison and Dutton and jettisoned any pretence of a foreign policy based on peace and diplomacy. That is a national strategic surrender by Labor to the coalition. So is it any wonder they feel uncomfortable when the hard truths are also coming from their side, from the likes of Keating? (Time expired)

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak about the AUKUS submarine deal. This government is in way over its head with this deal. Not only is it spending hundreds of billions on submarines, instead of investing in our communities, but also it is leaving us, as a country, to deal with high-level radioactive waste which needs to be safely stored for tens to hundreds of thousands of years. Nobody knows how to deal with radioactive waste for that amount of time or how to communicate with future generations in thousands of years to explain the dangerous inheritance they will have received—from you. These nuclear submarines are putting our waters, countries and communities at risk.

First Nations people in this country have passed down knowledge for thousands of years that this is poison. Uranium needs to stay in the ground, as it creates sickness and death. We should not go anywhere near these nuclear submarines. (Time expired)

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

YNOLDS () (): It is true today, as it has always been, that there is no democracy for any of us without both peace and prosperity, and the maintenance of both peace and prosperity is not a task for one country alone. Our nation's security and our prosperity, and also our peace, have always relied on supporting others in their time of need, and also on other nations supporting us in our times of need and in times of war.

For over 100 years—122 years, in fact—there has been a debate that has raged in this nation about our nation's strategic policy, from our reliance on imperial forces through to our reliance on the United States, in particular, and other allies. The debate then shifted between what's called continental defence—the defence of Australia—which was a predominant strategic objective here in Australia under Labor and after the Vietnam War, and the internationalist approach, with its expeditionary and collaborative defence, which we have inevitably moved back to because we all realise that no one nation has ever done it alone and no one nation can do it alone.

I'm very proud of the AUKUS agreement that was struck and also the first project, the nuclear submarine project, because, as defence minister, I initiated that with Scott Morrison, including the possibility of moving to nuclear powered submarines in collaboration with the Americans and with the British. I'm delighted to see that that has now come to fruition on a bipartisan basis. As Senator Fawcett said, AUKUS is so much more than nuclear submarines. AUKUS is all about us working together, combining our industrial military bases through the NTIB arrangements and through better ITAR arrangements, so that we can work together with those who are our friends and allies and those who we trust and can operate with. The AUKUS agreement is with the United States and United Kingdom, but, when we were in government—and it's still the case under the new government—there were many other nations that we were talking to in terms of new arrangements.

It is a stark fact that the world that we knew post World War II has gone. There are nations now who do not adhere in any way to rules based order under the economic and security constructs that were set up after World War II, and that necessitates a new way of working with our allies. It also requires this new government to clarify, when they put out the Defence strategic review, that they fully understand the implications of AUKUS and also this new submarines deal, because the minister's talked about porcupine defence, which is continental defence that's now associated with Taiwan, and that's a very different circumstance to what we face here in terms of the defence of Australia. The submarines can be used for the defence of Australia in terms of our sea lanes, but they are so much more than that, and AUKUS is so much more than that.

Labor is clearly divided on the way forward on this, with Paul Keating's comments last week. He is clearly still a proponent of the defence of Australia strategy, and I'm sure that still has resonance in the government benches. But make no mistake: by committing to AUKUS and by committing to the new submarines, this government has, I think very wisely, committed itself to an expeditionary form of defence of Australia, to an internationalist approach and to a collaborative approach, which, clearly, Paul Keating and others are not yet agreeable to. In the Defence strategic review, it is critically important that this government confirm the strategic underpinnings, because, if they are not committed to this and to the methods that are now needed domestically to deliver this, then it will spell disaster for our nation. (Time expired)

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.