Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Marles, I table a ministerial statement on the AUKUS nuclear powered submarine pathway.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

This is a statement by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence. In taking note of this statement, I want to emphasise some points about what AUKUS means in the context of Australia's engagement in the world and our broader foreign policy. I understand that Senator Wong, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, will make more comprehensive remarks when she is back in the chamber next week.

The Australian government's intent in acquiring this capability is to make our contribution to the strategic balance of the region. Australia wants a stable region where no country dominates and no country is dominated. If that is to be the case, we all have a responsibility to play our part in the collective deterrence of aggression. Our region has been home to an unprecedented military build-up in recent years, meaning we must work hard and fast if we are to maintain equilibrium. Increasing our military capability sits alongside our diplomacy, which is about increasing the opportunities and benefits from peace and partnership—positive incentives for peace.

I come to this debate with a deep interest in the intersection between regional affairs, peace and security questions, and economic and industry policy. On the 20th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, I should note that I was a key figure in the organising committee for the anti-Iraq-War demonstrations in Sydney. National security debates are not the sole property of the security establishment, our defence forces or conservative commentators; they are for all Australians. There is no room for dogma or over-reliance on outdated ideological certainties. As well as positive incentives for peace, Australia must have an effective deterrent for conflict and aggression. By having strong defence capabilities of our own and by working with partners investing in their own capabilities, we change the calculus for any potential aggressor.

There are those in the building who like to beat the drums of war with a comic-book characterisation of regional powers, and there are those who like to believe that peace can come from passively hoping for the best. This government knows that part of maintaining peace is making sure that all countries are invested in that peace through effective diplomacy and that part of maintaining peace is making sure no state will ever conclude that the benefits of conflict outweigh the risks. The goal is not to be an aggressor and use the military capability. The goal is to make anyone thinking it's a good idea to use their military capability think again.

For those who are concerned about the diplomatic implications of the optimal pathway on nuclear powered submarines announced last week, I make the observation that our regional partners agree on the need for a stable region, and we appreciate that they have listened to our explanations of how AUKUS contributes to regional balance. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Development and the Pacific made more than 60 calls to counterparts in the lead-up to the announcement.

This is, of course, on top of ongoing diplomatic legwork put in by the Albanese Labor government, particularly our foreign minister, Senator Penny Wong, since the election—work that has been focused on rebuilding relationships with key partners, deepening trust and demonstrating Australia's growing contribution to the need for strategic equilibrium and guardrails to prevent competition between great powers turning into conflict. Our engagement has emphasised that Australia will continue to meet its non-proliferation obligations and commitments under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and remains fully committed to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. We are committed to ensuring that the rotational presence of UK and US submarines aligns with our longstanding commitments under the treaty. And, while we are not a party to it, Australia will continue to act in a manner that is consistent with the basic principles of the Bangkok treaty.

This is underlined by the fact that these boats will be nuclear powered, not nuclear armed, and that Australia will never seek to acquire nuclear weapons. In addition, I note that US Defense Secretary Austin has confirmed that the submarines visiting Australia on rotation will be conventionally armed. We are working openly and transparently with the IAEA to develop an appropriate, robust non-proliferation approach to underpin Australia's nuclear powered submarine program. This will enable the IAEA to provide assurance to the international community that Australia is continuing to meet its obligations, as Director General Grossi confirmed again last week.

For those who have expressed concern about regional reactions—and I note that Senator Shoebridge did in question time this week—let me offer some reassurance. Fiji's Prime Minister, Sitiveni Rabuka, has expressed his support for the AUKUS agreement. Samoa's Prime Minister, Fiame Naomi Mata'afa, here in Canberra this week, said that she understands Australia's rationale for acquiring nuclear powered submarines. The Philippines Ministry for Foreign Affairs says it has no objection to the development of the trilateral security pact and noted assurances made to contribute to the preservation of regional peace and stability. Japan's Prime Minister, Fumio Kishida, said:

… the undertakings of AUKUS will contribute to the peace and stability of the Indo-Pacific region amidst an increasingly severe security environment in the region.

Indonesia said:

Maintaining peace and stability in the region is the responsibility of all countries. It is critical for all countries to be a part of this effort.

Malaysia said:

Malaysia appreciates the readiness on the part of the three countries, which are our close partners … in engaging with Malaysia at various levels and in sharing the latest updates and future outlook of AUKUS prior to the announcement.

Vietnam said that peace, stability, cooperation and development in the region and the world is the common goal of every country. And France has said that, while it deeply regretted the Morrison government's decision to cancel the contract because it was announced in a particularly harsh way, it noted efforts underway to re-establish a solid partnership with the current Australian government, with close and regular contact between leaders and officials, including at the recent Australia-France 2+2 meeting.

As the Deputy Prime Minister has articulated, acquiring nuclear powered submarines is a game changer for our capability and posture. The Collins class is a potent, highly capable diesel electric submarine. The Australian government will extend the life of the Collins class from 2026 so that it remains a potent capability until its withdrawal from service. But, as we look to the 2030s and beyond, the reality is that diesel electric submarines will be increasingly detectable as they surface to recharge their batteries. That will necessarily diminish their capability. By the 2030s and 2040s, the only capable long-range submarine able to effectively operate in the environment in which we live will be nuclear powered submarines. These submarines have the capacity to remain submerged and deployed for months, making them incredibly hard to detect. As a corollary of their speed, stealth and endurance, nuclear powered submarines are a capability that will make Australia a more difficult and costly target for anyone who wishes us harm. And so it is a capability that will significantly enhance our contribution to peace and security in the region.

Maintaining peace requires effort. It demands effective diplomacy to ensure that everyone in the region benefits from that peace. Our intent in acquiring this capability is to contribute to the strategic balance of the whole region. We want—the Australian government wants—a stable region where no country dominates and no country is dominated.

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

The AUKUS political deal was a last-ditch attempt by Scott Morrison to cling on to power. Brought before the Australian people in the dying chapter of that benighted government, it was his final roll of the dice. His prediction was this: 'If I come together with some of the most outlandish and least trusted world leaders and propose to the Australian public and the parties in this place that we bind ourselves to the Americans and the British,' led at that time by Boris Johnson, 'under a project that will see hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the acquisition of nuclear powered submarines, necessitating a waste dump on Australian soil and nuclear submarines in our waters, then no Australian Labor Party that can call itself progressive will possibly be able to back that. No Australian Labor Party, bound as they are to a platform that includes support for nonproliferation, will surely be able to back that? They'll have to oppose it. It will sound so ridiculous, particularly being led by Anthony Albanese. They can't possibly back it. So they'll oppose it and we will have,' he thought, 'a khaki election. We'll have an election where I can say, "I'm Scott Morrison, defender of the people of Australia, and the other side want to put us at risk."'

What he did not count on was the fundamental spinelessness of the leadership of the current Australian Labor Party and the reality that the leadership of the current Australian Labor Party are not progressive. They have no desire nor ability to oppose the conservatives when it comes to questions of so-called national security. He had not counted on just how committed people like Minister Wong and Mr Albanese were to fundamentally binding themselves to the Liberal-National coalition, which on questions of national security you wouldn't trust to run a lemonade stand, so they could have the maximum possible chance of getting elected. So Mr Morrison's gamble to get himself a khaki election failed, and here we are today, buried, as the Australian people, under the $370 billion price of Labor's fundamental political spinelessness, where we as a nation are asked to trust, for the next 30 years, in the judgement of the United States of America.

Let us examine the record of this nation with which we are to link our foreign policy for the next three decades—to which we are to bind ourselves inexorably and indivisibly. Let's examine their record on matters of war and peace since the Second World War. There was the war in Vietnam: five million tonnes of bombs dropped on a nation. That was more than all of the bombs dropped by the United States in the entirety of the Second World War. There were the illegal bombings of Laos and Cambodia. There was the invasion of Panama. There was the support of coups all across South America—in Chile, in particular, and in El Salvador. There was the support of the Contras in Nicaragua, violent and vile as they were. And then it rolls wonderfully up to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Iraq was an illegal and immoral invasion which fundamentally undermined international law, left 500,000 people dead and 1.2 million people displaced, and created five million orphans. Australia's, Britain's and the United States's populations were led to war on the lies of a US president. And then, as if add a dark bow to the whole thing, there was Afghanistan, where America in its wisdom spent 20 years, trillions of dollars and countless lives to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.

This is the country that now, only two years out from living under a fascist president who led a coup against his own government in order to overturn the results of an election, and 18 months away from either his return or the potential election of President DiSantis—a competent fascist—the Australian Labor Party proposes that we bind ourselves to for the next 30 years. This is the judgement that we are being asked to trust, not because Penny Wong, Richard Marles or Anthony Albanese think it's a good thing—

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, Senator Steele-John, but I have the minister on his feet.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't want to interrupt Senator Steele-John, but it would assist both compliance with the standing orders and the civility of debate if he referred to people by their proper titles.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Steele-John, if you could refer to people by their proper titles, thank you, that would assist the chamber.

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

The fundamental point is this. The Australian public, without being asked to vote on the actual ramifications of this political deal, are being saddled by both major parties with a $360 billion, 30-year commitment to a nation that in the post-World-War-II period has demonstrated again and again that it does not have good judgement. It cannot and does not make decisions in relation to issues of war and peace in anybody's interest but its own. The people of Vietnam, the people of Iraq and the people of Afghanistan know that America is a very bad house guest. They begin a conflict in their national interest and they end it in their national interest.

The Australian people deeply understand the recklessness of that nation and have always been reflexively of the view that we should chart our own path, supportive of peace and independence in our region, precisely because we understand that the Americans, on these questions, will always act in their own interest and their interest alone. Once they are done with the Asia-Pacific, once this posturing no longer serves their purpose, they will leave. For the United States of America, the Asia-Pacific region is an area of current strategic interest. For Australians, it is our home. For the nations of the region, it is their home. Australians across the country are uniting in a common call for peace in the face of this reckless political deal that was cooked up by a man we rejected and that is now being continued by a government without the courage to call it out for what it really is and join the Australian people in that common cause for peace.

Question agreed to.