Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 19 November, from Senator McKim:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

With the election of Donald Trump in the US, Australia must end the attempted acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines, estimated to cost over $360 billion, and the AUKUS agreement must be cancelled."

Is the proposal supported?

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

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

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

I move:

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

With the election of Donald Trump in the US, Australia must end the attempted acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines, estimated to cost over $360 billion, and the AUKUS agreement must be cancelled.

Half of Australians want to scrap AUKUS, and they're saying loud and clear that we need to end this $368 billion nuclear submarine gamble, it turns out, with President Trump and the US. This deal was toxic from day one. Then Prime Minister Morrison introduced it as a political wedge, and Labor just rolled over. It turns out a short-term political sugar hit and fear of the coalition were more important to Labor than Australia's long-term national interests. So now Prime Minister Albanese has a $368 billion nuclear gamble, and the cards have turned up trumps—just the wrong sort of Trump. If you go back two years, when it was all still shiny and unknown, barely 20 per cent of Australians wanted to dump AUKUS, but the closer we look, the closer the parliament looks and the closer they look, the worse it gets. Every week that goes by, more and more people are realising how dangerous and irresponsible the two pro-AUKUS war parties are. This week, we saw 48 per cent of Australians come out and say they want to renegotiate our way out of AUKUS. Not even 20 per cent are in love with this pro-nuclear deal that Labor and the coalition have come up with.

What do we get out of AUKUS? We don't get submarines, I can tell you that much. Every single AUKUS agreement this government has signed has a get-out-of-jail-free card for the United States if they don't like it. Just recently, the head of the US Navy's Virginia class submarine program—they're the submarines Albanese is begging the US to give us a couple of—dropped a truth-bomb on AUKUS by making it clear that the US are making nowhere near enough nuclear submarines for themselves. So why would they give any to us? Let's do some maths. The US is making about 1.1 to 1.2 Virginia class submarines a year. To make enough submarines to give some to Australia, they need to make 2.33. In case those in Labor aren't following along—because your defence minister sure isn't!—making one submarine a year is less than making two. What do you think will happen when President Trump, son-of-President-Trump or whatever the future US president is looks at a US military that has about half the number of submarines it was meant to have? Do you think they'll sign off on giving Australia some? Of course they won't, which is exactly why they've been putting all these escape hatches in the AUKUS clause. If that isn't bad enough, we have no way of getting back the $10 billion we've already forked out to the US and the UK, even if they decide to give us no submarines.

The question isn't, 'Will we get nuclear submarines?' The question the Australian public is asking is, 'How many tens of billions of dollars will Labor and the coalition fork out to the United States and the UK before the US jumps out?' The only thing we will get from AUKUS is a big, fat target on Australia's main cities and tonnes and tonnes of toxic nuclear waste. Last time we were sitting, the war parties teamed up to ram through legislation that will see nuclear waste dumped right next to Adelaide and Perth. Who is Labor doing this for? Why are they making major cities nuclear targets, making toxic waste dumps and forking out public funds to the US? It's not in the national interests of Australia. It's not in our defence interests. In fact, the only people winning and grinning over this are the likes of Donald Trump, who keeps getting bucketloads of Australian dollars shovelled towards him. And that's Trump, who controls multiple US spy bases in Australia. That's Trump, whose commander in chief is in charge of thousands of US marines in Darwin. That's Trump, who is in control of US nuclear-capable bombers sitting there in RAAF Tindal in the Northern Territory. It's Trump who has control of nuclear-powered submarines coming through Australia's ports—ports that the Labor government is spending $7 billion to build for US nuclear submarines. In what world does any of this make us safer? It is long past time to scrap AUKUS.

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

I also join to speak on this urgency motion moved by Senator McKim and the Australian Greens. I must say it is quite absurd for Senator Shoebridge and the Australian Greens to come into this place to lecture us about national security. The Greens, as we know, have a history of jumping to false conclusions. I do trust that the Australian people will see through these very much misleading statements that have been made not just today but on an ongoing basis.

The Greens allege that the trilateral AUKUS treaty that was signed in August last year was secretive and 'driving us further into US war plans with China'. This is simply false—a baseless claim. The full agreement was tabled in the parliament in the first sitting after it was signed, in line with all the signed treaty processes that every Australian government has gone through since Federation. The Greens also know that the government has also ruled out Australia disposing of any intermediate and high-level radioactive waste from the United Kingdom and the United States of America, yet they continue to spread misinformation on this very issue. Suggestions by the Australian Greens, including Senator Shoebridge, that this is a one-sided deal dismiss the fact that the United Kingdom and the United States have also agreed to share their prized military capabilities and technologies with our country, something that the Greens always choose to ignore.

The Albanese government is united with our AUKUS partners in our commitment to a peaceful, stable and prosperous Indo-Pacific region, and this will not change. In all the government's engagement with the United States across the full political spectrum, there has been a very consistent message in support of AUKUS. Furthermore, our trilateral security partnership is yet another example of the government's proud record on positively engaging in international affairs, defending Australia's national interests and, more importantly, creating Australian jobs, and we will continue to accelerate the delivery of the capabilities to ensure that the ADF can keep Australians safe and our region secure. That is our No. 1 priority. It's also worth mentioning that this is the single biggest investment in Australia's defence capability in history.

AUKUS is a key pillar of our national security policy, and it is really good to see that there is bipartisanship on this matter. But again what we hear from the Australian Greens is talking down our national security and talking down Australia's standing in the Indo-Pacific, rather than actually working with colleagues in this place on how we can have a much more secure, safe region. What we hear from the Australian Greens is that they are anti jobs, anti defence and anti national security, yet they are pro misinformation. That is their No. 1 priority—to try to spread mistruths within the Australian community in the lead-up to the federal election.

The fact that AUKUS is a key transformative matter for Australia's defence policy and for enhancing our capability is something that is really important for future strategic challenges. It's not just about developing capabilities to acquire and sustain conventionally armed nuclear powered submarines; it's also, as I mentioned earlier, about jobs, which are at the front and centre of this policy. The AUKUS plan for Australia will see around 20,000 direct jobs created here in Australia, right across the industry, in many places, like South Australia, Western Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and other parts of the country.

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

In New South Wales?

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

The whole supply chain, Senator Shoebridge. Yes, New South Wales will also benefit. All those small SMEs in defence industry will benefit greatly. But again Senator Shoebridge is talking down the industry and Defence. He is talking down all the fine men and women who put on that proud uniform every single day, defending our national security, like the men and women who were here in the public gallery earlier today. All those individuals who are spending millions of dollars—

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, Senator Ciccone. Senator McGrath?

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

On a point of order in terms of the interjections from Senator Shoebridge: Senator Shoebridge was heard in silence. Senator Ciccone has had constant interjections since he commenced speaking. While he does not need a member of the opposition to come to his defence, I would ask that you call Senator Shoebridge to order, because interjections are disorderly.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator McGrath. Before I allocate the call, I do want to remind senators that they have also had their opportunity to make their contributions. If they need an adjournment speech, they should take up that opportunity.

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

Thank you very much, and I do thank Senator McGrath for that. As I was saying, AUKUS will allow for deeper information and technology sharing and greater integration across security and defence related matters.

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

If comedy, hubris and, I guess, wishful thinking could be used in defence of our great nation, many of you in this place could single-handedly keep Australia safe. Between alarmist descriptions of nuclear subs as floating Chernobyls and the insistence that we cancel the AUKUS agreement, Australia's enemies could all just die from laughter. How would we defend ourselves, defend this country from the myriad threats that we face in this world—a world that teeters on the edge of war? Is the plan to just potentially glue ourselves to the road? Is that the plan? Or maybe tie ourselves to a post in front of an advancing army? Is that the plan? If only world affairs were that simple. But this is no time for Australia to be led by simpletons—no time, with major threats to our north. There are wars and rumours of war as well. Just how prepared are we? How prepared are we as a nation? Australians watching at home: we've got only six submarines, only one of which is fully operational, I'm told. Our Defence Force numbers are below minimum fighting strength, and a recent report indicated that we have enough ammunition to fight for just around a week. We need our allies more than ever, and we have no better, no stronger ally than the United States of America. What a pity, then, that some in this place just simply prefer to hate on their political rivals rather than taking seriously the defence of our nation.

Now, I get it why some in this place dislike the great Donald Trump, because he loves free speech. He loves economic growth, democracy, small government, lower taxes and affordable reliable power—all of the things that far too many of you in here detest, in my opinion. While foreign powers build their armies and shore up their alliances, we in Australia are led by small, petty men and women whose ignorance and refusal to accept reality could get us all killed. History shows us that peace comes through strength and strength alone. The sooner we have serious people leading our country, the sooner we will have a fighting chance of defending our nation. People at home: make better choices at the ballot box. The election is just around the corner. It is time for you to vote one, UAP. Vote one, Babet.

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

The election of Donald Trump earlier this month is a sobering reminder that the foreign policy of the United States is fickle and tumultuous. Yet both major parties—the previous government, with Scott Morrison, and this Labor government—have persisted with an unpopular, unrealistic and dangerous AUKUS political pact that signs Australia up to the foreign policy whims of Donald Trump.

Here are three things that Donald Trump has promised to do when he takes office. One, he has announced that he will immediately withdraw the US from the climate Paris Agreement again. This would send a message to the world that fighting climate change isn't essential, and it will send progress back decades. Two, he supports a nationwide abortion ban that will completely dismantle a woman's right to choose. Three, he has hand-picked billionaires for the top jobs of his administration that will make the mega-wealthy richer, while the price of everyday goods goes up higher and ever higher.

It beggars belief that Mr Albanese and his Labor government think it is acceptable for Australia to spend billions of dollars on the AUKUS political pact, to sign us up for 40 years of being in lock step with the decisions of the United States, all with the promise of getting a few outdated submarines that aren't even guaranteed to be delivered. Our community is concerned about the incoming Trump administration. We are concerned about the effect on our economy, on global peace and on climate change. We want a review of the AUKUS political pact and the decision to spend billions of dollars on nuclear submarines. We want a calm and reflective reconsideration of the US alliance in this era of Donald Trump.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So many Australians have been pretty anxious since the results of the US election. The majority of Australians, actually, when they're asked about how they would have voted and how they would have felt about the results, say they would have rejected the Trump election. They didn't want Trump to be elected—and rightly so—because he's extreme, he's unstable, he's irrational, he's dangerous, he's nasty, he's a felon, he's a crook, he assaults women, he attacks minorities and he takes away women's rights but gives all the power to his billionaire mates. Yet this is the person that Australia is now hooking our wagon to under the AUKUS agreement.

When Australia first signed up to this and the Labor Party followed the Liberal Party in lockstep, Paul Keating of course called this 'the worst deal in history'. That's how dudded Australia was, according to the former Prime Minister. He said, 'AUKUS turns Australia into the 51st state of America.' Now the United States of America has a dangerous, right-wing nut job back at the helm. Of course, we know what's going to happen. The Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, is already parroting Trump's lines, his dangerous rhetoric and his nasty strategies. We urge the Labor Party: stop, think and act. It's time to get out of AUKUS before it's too late.

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

I rise to speak on this urgency motion of the Greens, which I think demonstrates some intellectual dishonesty, because anyone who studies geopolitics and our national security will understand this: it matters little who is in the White House; competition in the Indo-Pacific will persevere no matter who is the President of the United States.

As we know, AUKUS is not just about submarines. It's mostly about signalling that we have allies and friends that will come to our aid and provide us with what we need to be able to contest any battle. Those battles may arise even if Australia is not involved in a war on one side or the other. If there is contestation in the Indo-Pacific, more than anything we are going to need to protect our ships bringing in goods that we need to run our country, like fuel and medicines, as well as our ships getting our exports out of the country. We are a nation girt by sea, as the poem says, that trades with the world. To protect that trade and to ensure our economic survival and our ability to thrive, we must be able to protect our sea lanes of communication.

So cancelling AUKUS because of who is in the White House is just nonsensical. Yes, the submarines are important, but the Greens seem to ignore that there is a second pillar to AUKUS. Pillar 2 is all about quantum computing, AI and hypersonic things—things that we will use, that will benefit Australians in their everyday lives and that have nothing to do with the military. They are things that are going to propel Australia in the competition for technological advances faster than anything we could do just on our own. So, yes, nuclear submarines act as a capability and are capable of deterring aggressors from taking any action against us because they know we can hold them at risk, so AUKUS must stay.

Steph Hodgins-May (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's be very clear, AUKUS under Trump will mean nuclear waste, taxpayer waste and a big fat nuclear target on Australia. It will be $368 billion on nuclear submarines in a cost-of-living crisis where people are struggling to pay for groceries and rent, $368 billion on nuclear subs when almost half of Australians want this reviewed after the election of Trump and $368 billion on nuclear subs that we might, but very likely won't, see by the 2040s. By then we will probably need submarines to navigate rising sea levels because we did not invest in renewables. Labor say we need to tighten our belts, even with cuts to JobSeeker and the NDIS, but somehow they have got $368 billion to spend on something Australians do not want. And let's not forget the nuclear waste, because, clearly, what Australia needs is a more toxic nuclear waste to dispose of.

AUKUS is not making us safer; it is tying us to conflicts that we do not want and decisions we do not make. Do we really want our defence policy shaped by a demagogue like Donald Trump, who once suggested nuking hurricanes? Albanese is busy buttering up Trump—and Dutton is trying to beat him. Meanwhile, Australians are struggling to afford basic needs. Imagine what $368 billion could do: build affordable housing, provide life-saving health care and drive a renewable energy revolution. These are the real foundations of a secure nation. This is not just bad policy; it is a betrayal. Australians deserve leaders who will prioritise their wellbeing over weapons deals. The Prime Minister must remember who he works for. He must pull the plug on AUKUS and instead invest in housing, health care and renewable energy—things Australians need today for a safer, fairer tomorrow.

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not surprisingly, the residents of Port Adelaide are asking: What is the plan, Labor? What is the plan for the disposal of nuclear waste from AUKUS submarines? Apart from the monster spend—$365 billion—which could fix the cost-of-living crisis, put dental and mental into Medicare, wipe student debt and fund our schools properly, what is the plan for nuclear waste disposal out of AUKUS? Well, there is not one, as the residents of Port Adelaide learned this week. They have had no consultation despite Labor's legislation to allow nuclear waste to be stored at the Osborne shipyard, an area in which 30,000 residents live that is on a waterway. This week, the local council voted unanimously against it. They have not had any consultation, not so much as a letter.

South Australians know about being kept in the dark on nuclear issues. We lived through the fifties and sixties of the British atomic nuclear bomb testing, which cost too many First Nations people their health, their land and their lives. We have lived through the last two decades and two proposals to foist Australia's nuclear waste on our state and, in 2016, an outrageous proposal to take the world's high- and intermediate- level waste. We have said no, no and no again. AUKUS cannot be another nuclear Trojan horse to trick and con our community.

Margaret Brodie and her First Nations community say no. Eileen Darley and her local community say no. Claire Bowen, the Mayor of the City of Port Adelaide and Enfield, says no. South Australians say no again and again to AUKUS and its nuclear waste proposals, which have no proposals for waste disposal.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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