James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Serendipitously, I would like to follow on from the previous speaker's comments to discuss the AUKUS announcement from a different point of view, particularly as a South Australian and particularly because I am very supportive of the opportunity that AUKUS provides. It is an exciting capability for the Royal Australian Navy and that, in and of itself, is something to celebrate. But now my fear and focus, particularly as a South Australian, is to ensure that the economic and industrial outcome matches the hype of the announcement last week. I do have very significant and grave concerns about the deal as it has been outlined and the lack of confirmation and certainty of the industrial outcome here in our country.

Other shipbuilding acquisition debates that we've had over the last decade or so have always centred around Australian industry content, and the relevance of that is always to ensure that, when we're talking about sovereign capability, we know that what we're constructing and producing is going to happen, in a substantial sense, within our nation, so that we have that sovereignty. I think the framework of AUKUS was exceptional. The Labor Party have now done the detailed work and come back with a deal. I hope I am wrong in having serious concerns as to whether or not they have the capacity and capability to ensure that the outcome for Australian industry and the Australian economy is what it needs to be.

Two things frighten me. The first is that we are talking about acquiring between three and five submarines from the United States, and I very much hope that it only needs to be three. I very much support acquiring three because it is completely not possible for us to manufacture in this country submarines on a time frame that give us the capability outcome. I will be very happy to see three Virginia class submarines acquired for the Royal Australian Navy on the timeline that is outlined. If it ends up being four or five, that, unequivocally, will be at the expense of the promised economic and industrial outcome to our nation. If we're buying five submarines for a Navy that is aspiring to have eight, then that is absolutely not going to meet the economic and industrial expectations that I have, particularly as someone who represents the people of Adelaide in this chamber.

The other thing that frightens me greatly is that, on the timings that were released as part of the announcement, the AUKUS submarine will first be produced in the United Kingdom a full five years before we finish the construction of our first AUKUS submarine here in Australia. What that means to me is that there is an enormous risk that the vast majority of the economic value of submarine construction, which is through the supply chain, will see an enormous advantage going to firms in the United Kingdom by virtue of the simple fact that they will have already been supplying five years earlier into the supply chain for the UK AUKUS program. If we're not dramatically involved in the supply chain for, potentially, three submarines, that is not the outcome that is being championed, particularly in my home state of South Australia.

I'm not suggesting that that is necessarily going to occur. I am very concerned that there is a significant risk that it will occur, and it's incumbent upon me and everyone else to watch this very, very closely as the years unfold. Frankly, either scenario is still in the hands of future decision-making and what our government in this country does to make sure we secure the economic outcome. We have to make sure that Australian industry content is a part of all of these discussions and negotiations. We are paying, purportedly, billions of dollars to shipyards not in this country, and we're purchasing three to five submarines not built by Australians. What I am intent on doing as the member for Sturt is ensuring that the economic and industrial value of this matches the great outcome for the Royal Australian Navy.

See this speech in context