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

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Wentworth proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The government's transparency about the risks to the delivery of AUKUS and how Australia's national and security interests will be protected especially in light of recent changes to contract terms.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

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

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians are losing faith in AUKUS, if they ever had it. It is time for the government to be transparent on the risks to the delivery of AUKUS, how they are going to address them and how they're going to keep Australians safe. The government's first duty is to protect its people. Defence is one of the most important issues facing our country in this ever-changing world. The cornerstone of the Morrison government's, and now the Albanese government's, future defence strategy has been AUKUS.

I have real questions about whether the AUKUS nuclear submarine program is really, truly what Australia needs for its future, but, putting those concerns aside, having some submarines is better than having no submarines. But it seems that there is a significant danger that we will not have the submarines that we need, in terms of both the Virginia class submarines and the AUKUS class submarines, as well as capability gaps emerging in our Collins class submarines, which means that we may be significantly underprepared in this area. This is no way to run a defence force.

Let's look at the evidence. There are three key elements of the Australian submarine program: firstly, continuing the Collins class submarines over a period of time to bridge gaps; secondly, the purchasing of Virginia class nuclear-powered submarines before we get the AUKUS submarines; and, thirdly, the SSN-AUKUS submarines. Each of those three elements is currently experiencing significant problems.

Firstly, let's look at the Collins class submarines. The recent ANAO report was scathing about the current ability of the Collins class submarines extension-of-life program. There are real concerns about what we're going to get and our ability to deliver it and the costs of these.

Secondly, let's look at the Virginia class submarines. The USA is continuing to deliver submarines at around half the rate that is required for the President to be able to sign off that submarines given to Australia are not a reduction in the USA's own capabilities. The President has the ability not to fulfil the commitment to the Australian government, on the basis of that issue. But the USA is not producing submarines at the rate that means that the President can, in good faith, sign off on assigning Virginia class submarines to Australia.

Now—just over the weekend—the government has agreed with the US that we're not going to get one new Virginia class submarine; we're actually going to get three second-hand submarines. My question to the government is: if that was such a great idea and if that was such an important strategic pivot, why didn't you work this out three years ago? It's hard to believe that this is actually what Australia wants. It feels very much like we are being dictated terms by the US.

The US has undertaken the Colby review of the AUKUS arrangement. Apparently there are recommendations in the Colby review which do our alter our arrangements with the US. But we don't know, and the Australian parliament doesn't know, and certainly the Australian people don't know, what those recommendations are and how they affect AUKUS in this country.

Thirdly, let's move to the SSN-AUKUS boats. A recent UK parliamentary committee has warned that Britain risks being unable to meet its obligations under AUKUS because of the risk to the SSN-AUKUS boats.

The real question is on this. We have all the elements of the Australian submarine strategy at risk right now—all of them. We have had reassurances from the government, and from previous governments, that this is in Australia's interests and is setting us up for the future. All three elements are under significant strain right now.

It is time for the government to be honest about that—to be transparent about the risks and clear on how it is going to mitigate those risks. There are other options as to submarines. They are not that great that it is better to have them as submarines. But, given the real risks to the delivery timescales, as well as the delivery costs, of this program, it is up to the Australian government to be transparent and honest about this.

This is why you are seeing people like the former head of the Australian Defence Force, former Admiral Barrie, get behind a public inquiry into AUKUS, because there is so little faith amongst the public about AUKUS, on its original strategic intent but, absolutely, right now, on whether it can be delivered. It is up to the government to be transparent to the Australian people. There are problems there—we know that; we can read the news. It is time for the government to be honest about that and how it is going to keep Australians safe into the future.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wentworth for putting this important issue on the agenda, because it does give me an opportunity to provide an update on the AUKUS submarine program, consistent with our approach of providing maximum transparency and accountability to the Australian people for what will be the largest and most complex industrial manufacturing program ever undertaken in our nation, and, importantly, the largest-ever capability uplift in the Australian Defence Force, to ensure that we keep Australians safe into the future.

We live in an era of increasingly contested space and less predictability in our region, the Indo-Pacific. The war in Ukraine, the conflict in the Middle East and the use of coercive tactics have all put huge pressure on the international rules and norms that nations like Australia have relied upon in the past for our security and certainty. These norms and these rules are now under increasing threat. This was a point that was identified in the two defence strategic plans that have been outlined by our government since we came to office in 2024 and 2026. The National defence strategy confirms and reaffirms that Australia's security depends on strong partnerships and alliances and the importance of a strategy of denial to deter any aggression towards Australia into the future.

At the apex of that strategy, which our government has adopted based on the independent advice of the reviewers under the Defence strategic review, is the acquisition of nuclear-propelled conventionally armed submarines. That is the key to our strategy of deterrence within our region. This capability upgrade is required to meet the increased security challenge that our nation will face into the future. So our government has decided that we should acquire the best submarine capability possible to keep an island nation like Australia, which relies upon shipping for our commerce and international trade as an important part of our economy, safe into the future and, most importantly, to keep Australians safe. That has to be the No. 1 objective of any Australian government—to keep Australians safe. Delivering AUKUS will help us meet that commitment of keeping Australians safe. Nuclear-propelled conventionally armed submarines are the best capability possible for Australia to acquire. Nuclear propelled submarines have a longer range and endurance and greater stealth, which means that they can go undetected for longer periods of time than diesel electric submarines, which simply cannot match those same capabilities.

Now, to acquire this capability, the defence minister and the defence department have worked on a plan to acquire this technology as quickly as possible to ensure that there are no capability gaps on Collins class subs coming to the end of their life and when we acquire the nuclear propelled technology. That plan has been publicly announced; it's available for any Australian to see. It was announced by the Prime Minister in March 2023, with the American president and the UK prime minister, in San Diego, and it outlines our multiphase plan to acquire this technology into the future, the stages that we will undertake and how we will do it. It is all publicly released. In fact, it's available on the Australian Submarine Agency website.

The plan has begun. We've begun the phases of development and delivery of the AUKUS plan. Phase 1 is the Submarine Rotational Force-West. This is where we start to train with the United States Navy and the UK navy on familiarity with the technology that Australia will acquire in future years. This required some very large infrastructure upgrades to the base in the south of Perth at Garden Island. Those infrastructure upgrades have been completed. When I was the assistant defence minister and I had responsibility for the Defence estate, I visited Garden Island on many occasions to see that work being undertaken to ensure that we had the wharf space and that we had the facilities to cater for the Virginia class and Astute class submarines rotating through Australia and training with our Navy on a regular basis. That has been completed and those rotations are beginning to take place.

The second phase of the AUKUS optimal pathway is the purchase of three Virginia class submarines in the early 2030s. These will be sovereign Australian submarines commanded by the Royal Australian Navy. This program was approved, importantly, by the US Congress in December 2023. So Australia has the approval to acquire the Virginia class capability into the future. A further announcement was made about that on the weekend by the defence minister.

Finally, Phase 3 is Australia acquiring the capability to construct these important, most complex submarines, which will add to our sovereign manufacturing capability. When we talk about a Future Made in Australia, there is no greater example of a Future Made in Australia than our nation acquiring the capability and the means to manufacture our own conventionally armed nuclear-propelled submarines right here in Australia at the Osborne shipyards in Adelaide—a project that will create 20,000 jobs in numerous industries across our country, providing us with a great technology and capability uplift that we've never seen in our Defence Force in the past. We'll be able to build those submarines based on the UK Astute class design but incorporating the best technology that the US submarine technology agency has on offer. Work has already commenced on constructing that shipyard to ensure that we have that capability into the future.

All of this is backed and underpinned by an extension of the Collins class diesel-powered submarines that we have at the moment, and I can tell you that that work has commenced. I've been down to the Osborne shipyards, and I've seen firsthand the work that is commencing on the extension of the lifetime of the Collins class submarines, and they will extend well into the period in which we acquire the Virginia class American technology of the three submarines so that there is no capability gap that Australia has when it comes to our undersea capability and defending the Australian people should something go wrong.

Then, on the weekend, the defence minister, at the IISS Shangri-la Dialogue, again, with his UK and United States counterparts, announced the finalisation of the Submarine Rotational Force-West implementation arrangements, which are very important—again, another step in delivery of the project—and the type of Virginia class submarines that we will acquire three of in the early 2030s. They will be in-service submarines from the same block of manufacturing out of the shipyards in the United States.

This is the most sensible and indeed the optimal pathway that our nation should adopt to acquire this technology for a number of reasons. Firstly, it ensures consistency. That is important when it comes to training the Australian Defence Force to operate those submarines. If we have the same three block types of submarines then it ensures consistency in the training of our submariners to operate those submarines, and that is what we are going for—consistency to ensure that we can deliver the program. It also ensures maintenance consistency as well, and having the correct maintenance program to keep those submarines in the water for as long as possible will be important in reducing costs to the program. We'll be ensuring that we're not operating four different classes of submarines through the life of this project. We wouldn't have the Collins class and two types of Virginia classes before we acquired the SSN-AUKUS technology manufactured in Australia. Instead, we will have three classes—Collins, consistency when it comes to Virginia class and then our own manufacturing capability. I would point out that the Virginia class' in-service type is a massive upgrade in capability for Australia. We are still acquiring an upgrade in capability.

In terms of transparency, the Australian Submarine Agency publish a corporate plan, and they provide an annual report to the parliament that ensures the Australian people know about the decisions that we are making in respect of delivering that optimal pathway and ensuring, most importantly, the principal objective of this government, keeping the Australian people safe into the future.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the member for Wentworth's matter of public importance, and I acknowledge the need for transparency across all areas of government, and this is particularly important when there are large amounts of taxpayer money being spent. However, I recognise that, in matters of defence and in the interests of diplomacy with our most important international partners, this is not always possible or indeed wise.

The AUKUS partnership will outlast current governments and administrations. History has shown that there are no greater partners or friends of Australia than the United Kingdom and the United States of America. As we've seen, elements of AUKUS will change. That is the reality. But we must hold the course. We no longer have the luxury of time to change our minds. The reality is we are the smallest of the three partners, and, while we disagree amongst ourselves, other nations are building capacity and readying themselves for potential conflict. If anything can be above politics in this place, let it be this because nothing is more important than defending our nation.

The benefits of AUKUS to my home state of South Australia are immense. AUKUS cements South Australia as the defence state. Australia's AUKUS submarines will be built in Adelaide, South Australia. And, at its peak, AUKUS will deliver 1,000 highly skilled jobs for South Australians. It's anticipated that there will be thousands more jobs in adjacent industries over the next two decades. We need advanced manufacturing in South Australia. We've watched it decline over the last 20 years, particularly with the closure of the Holden plant in 2017. That was a defining moment in my state.

Major defence projects are turning that decline around. The latest ABS data show South Australia has the highest concentration of defence employment of any Australian state, with six defence jobs per 1,000 people. South Australia is home to more than 400 businesses that provide goods and services directly to Defence and to deliver into the supply chains of contractors both in Australia and around the world. South Australia's defence industry contributes more than $2 billion of gross value to the state's economy, and that figure has doubled over the past five years. For my state of South Australia, this is indeed a critical industry.

Significant investments have been made in education, and this is really important to ensure our young people are job ready for the submarines that are coming. A $28 million National Security TAFE Centre of Excellence will be established at TAFE SA Regency Campus to support upskilling of the state's current and future technicians for AUKUS. There'll be five new technical colleges, with three more to be built, more than a thousand additional university places that are defence and STEM related and a new TAFE trades workshop in my electorate in Mount Barker, so that we can build the workforce of tradespeople needed to construct thousands of new homes each year to house our defence workforce.

AUKUS is the cornerstone of South Australia's future economic development. With the benefits of the Defence partnership and associated defence industry, it will be wide ranging, even having an impact in my electorate of Mayo. We have Aerotech at Brukunga. We have Zenith Custom Creations at Mount Barker. I've had a tour of both of those facilities, and they are extraordinary. We have Connexus, a specialist defence recruitment firm that operates a regional base on the South Coast of my electorate, at Middleton, and it offers opportunities to many ADF veterans who have come home to our region, are looking for employment and have enormous skills that we must tap into, ensuring that they have a great future career beyond Defence.

I'm hopeful that AUKUS will offer even more employment and business opportunities to my constituents in Mayo. It's hard to describe the scale of the opportunity that it offers South Australia. It will change our state for generations to come. I believe AUKUS is too big to fail, and it's too important for South Australia. And while I absolutely acknowledge the very important commentary made and this matter of public importance by the member for Wentworth, I can't understate how valuable AUKUS is to my state of South Australia and to our nation.

Claire Clutterham (Sturt, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Our national defence strategy is clear: Australia faces its most challenging circumstances since the Second World War while remaining deeply connected to the global economy. In that environment, AUKUS is not optional; it is essential. But with that importance comes a clear responsibility to be transparent about the risks, honest about delivery challenges and unwavering in protecting Australia's national security interests.

The Albanese government has been up-front: AUKUS is a complex, multidecade endeavour. And of course there are risks, whether they relate to delivery timelines, industrial capacity or evolving program settings. It's a huge endeavour, and it's perfectly normal that there might be changes or bumps along the road. But what is also clear, and what this government has been clear about to the Australian people, is that at every single decision point the US government has demonstrated its support of AUKUS. It has demonstrated its support of its partnership with Australia.

The recent determination that Australia will receive three block IV Virginia class submarines instead of two block IV and one block VI has been painted as disastrous when it is not. It was another decision point where a decision was actively made to keep moving forward. It means that the Australian submariners who'll be crewing the three Block IV Virginia class submarines and the Australian workers, some of whom will be in Western Australia and South Australia, who will be maintaining the three Block IV Virginia class submarines will be crewing and maintaining one platform in this class, not two. This streamlines operations and maintenance and is more cost-effective for the Australian people at the same time as remaining fit for mission.

Despite the US actively deciding to continue to partner with us with respect to AUKUS at every single decision point, there are still those calling for us to pull out of the partnership because of the current approach of the US administration to foreign policy, which is not always what we are accustomed to. But I have two comments on this. Firstly, we need to look at our relationship with the US through the lens of ANZUS, which will shortly celebrate 75 years, on 1 September next year, and is a deep and sustainable alliance. We can't look at it through the lens of just one administration and the challenges that may present. Secondly, these challenges are a reason to pursue AUKUS, to obtain the sovereign capability we need in order to deter and defend with as much sovereign self-sufficiency as we can—Australian boats, Australian crews, Australia first.

We are shaping AUKUS to serve our national interest, including through stronger industrial safeguards, workforce development and ensuring that capability is delivered in a way that meets Australia's strategic needs. Nowhere is this clearer than in South Australia. AUKUS is the centrepiece of A Future Made in Australia, and South Australia sits at its heart. At Osborne, up to 4,000 Australian workers will design and build the submarine construction yard itself. At its peak, between 4,000 and 5,500 direct jobs will be created to build the nuclear powered submarines, right here in my state. Nationally, AUKUS will support around 20,000 direct jobs over the next 30 years—secure, highly skilled, future-focused jobs. These are not abstract numbers. These are careers for electricians, engineers, fabricators, apprentices—young Australians who will build the most advanced fleet this country has ever operated.

And this is more than just submarines. Through AUKUS pillar 2 we are also investing in cutting-edge technologies. The first signature project developing advanced sensors and systems for uncrewed undersea vehicles demonstrates how Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States will collaborate to detect, deter and respond to threats to critical infrastructure, like undersea cables and pipelines. So AUKUS is not just a defence program; it's a generational opportunity about building capability, creating jobs and securing a future—one where our state, my state, is central to keeping Australians safe. That is what sovereign capability looks like. That is what self-sufficiency looks like. That is what a future made in Australia looks like.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to the member for Wentworth for raising this matter of public importance. We all agree that nothing is more important than having the real capacity to defend our nation. The AUKUS pact is the largest defence spending commitment since the Second World War, yet it has not received the level of scrutiny or open debate in this place that it warrants. It is estimated that the defence deal will cost Australia at least $370 billion. Under the initial AUKUS agreement, Australia was set to receive two used Virginia class nuclear powered submarines from the United States plus one new model as early as 2032. Yet, as we heard on the weekend, all three nuclear powered submarines that Australia will receive will now be second-hand.

While the government has described this decision as placing a premium on simplicity as opposed to being linked to production challenges in the US, this decision, like much of AUKUS, remains shrouded in secrecy. That secrecy has been a problem since the beginning. The 2021 announcement blindsided France and caused significant diplomatic fallout for Australia and the United States. That pattern has continued, leaving many more questions than answers. Defence experts and many in my community are asking: Can the submarines be delivered on time and on budget? Do we need nuclear submarines, or would conventional alternatives be more suitable to replace the Collins class fleet? How and where will nuclear waste be managed? And, perhaps most importantly, does this deal genuinely serve Australia's defence and strategic needs? The lack of transparency means the public may never get a clear answer.

Other countries have subjected AUKUS to scrutiny. The UK House of Commons defence committee has released its report on the AUKUS defence pact after a year-long review into the partnership. The Pentagon has also reviewed whether AUKUS aligns with the US president's America-first agenda. Australia has had no equivalent process. Instead, the government has established a new committee to monitor AUKUS's work, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence, but much of its activity will be conducted in secret. Its membership is restricted to Labor and coalition MPs only, and it will only have limited ability to report publicly. This approach risks creating a small group of insiders with access to curated information who avoid public debate and scrutiny. In the absence of a government led inquiry, civil society has stepped in. An independent public inquiry supported by non-profit organisations and unions and chaired by former environment minister Peter Garrett will hold hearings and deliver a report later this year. This is good, but it should not be left to civil society to perform the scrutiny role of government.

There are also serious questions about the feasibility of the plan to arm Australia with nuclear powered submarines, particularly under the ambitious timelines outlined. The United States is—

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) | Link to this | Hansard source

It's secret technology, the best technology.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you please stop interrupting?

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) | Link to this | Hansard source

Keep going.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, thank you.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Please.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

The United States is already struggling to meet its own submarine production targets and faces a shortfall in its fleets. Critically, under US law, it cannot sell submarines to Australia if doing so undermines its own capability, yet Australia has already contributed billions to the US and UK industrial bases. This raises a deeper strategic issue. A core principle of national security is sovereignty—the ability to maintain and operate our own military capabilities. Under AUKUS, Australia is spending vast sums on assets over which it will not have full control while becoming more tightly bound to US strategic objectives. There are concerns that this could expose Australia to greater risk, including a potential conflict between major powers without any guarantee of US support.

There are also local impacts to consider, including proposals for defence industry expansion and nuclear infrastructure, particularly in places like Port Kembla. There is still no plan for nuclear waste. No site has been identified, despite a commitment from the defence minister in 2023 to outline a process for identifying waste sites within 12 months.

Australia must always take its national security seriously. In an increasingly uncertain strategic environment, it is both reasonable and necessary for governments to invest in defence capability and pursue strong international partnerships. Agreements like AUKUS reflect an effort to prepare for future challenges. (Time expired)

Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

In my office hangs a quilt proudly crafted by Aussie Hero Quilts, and I just want to give a special shout-out to Jan-Maree and the team at Aussie Hero Quilts on 15 years of giving back to our veterans across this great country. It tells the story of my family, whose connection to military service stretches across generations. Woven through that quilt are reminders of Australians who served far from home, alongside men and women from nations that remain our closest partners today. My grandfather fought in Papua New Guinea during the Second World War, serving alongside American forces in defence of our freedom. My great-uncle fought in that same campaign but never returned home. His name is now etched into history at Lae War Cemetery. My great-uncle Doug flew missions over Europe as a tail gunner, fighting shoulder to shoulder with the British in the battle against Nazi Germany. Those stories are not unique. Across Australia, countless families carry memories of sacrifice and service. You see it in the RSLs in the cities and the humble cenotaphs in rural towns.

The relationship Australia shares with the United States and the United Kingdom was not built overnight and is not insignificant. Its foundations were laid over generations through shared sacrifice and commitment to preserving peace and stability. Today, AUKUS represents a continuation of that story, not a reflection on the past alone but a practical investment in the future that our nation wants to build. Much of the discussion surrounding AUKUS understandably focuses on Defence capability, yet limiting the conversation to the subtext of this MPI misses the broader significance of what AUKUS creates. At its core, AUKUS is helping position Australia to become a more capable, more skilled and more prosperous nation. The agreement is already driving investment into industries that will support economic growth for decades to come.

Advanced manufacturing, engineering, cybersecurity and artificial intelligence are no longer concepts reserved for research papers and university lecture theatres. They are becoming real industries that will employ Australians and create opportunities in communities across the country. Young Australians entering the workforce today will have access to career pathways that scarcely existed a generation ago. Students in STEM can see a future where their skills are developed and applied here at home. Tradespeople will play a central role in building and maintaining some of the most sophisticated industrial projects our nation has ever undertaken. Businesses large and small are positioning themselves to participate in supply chains that stretch across allied nations and connect Australian expertise to global markets.

Equally important is the contribution AUKUS makes to stability throughout our region. Across the Indo-Pacific, countries are seeking certainty at a time of growing strategic complexity, and Australia has always played a constructive role in supporting a stable and open region. Our partnerships with the United States and the United Kingdom strengthen our capacity to continue fulfilling that responsibility. Those partnerships are not only strengthening our national security but also creating enormous opportunities for Australian workers, apprentices and industries. South Australia will sit at the centre of this nation-building endeavour, with Australia's future conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines to be constructed at Osborne. The Albanese government has committed billions of dollars to transform the precinct into one of the most advanced shipbuilding hubs in the world. Construction of the new submarine construction yard and the Skills and Training Academy will support up to 4,000 jobs as the infrastructure required for this historic project takes shape. Once submarine production is under way, thousands more highly skilled workers will be needed, with between 4,000 and 5½ thousand direct shipyard jobs expected to be created.

Australian workers are already gaining the expertise needed for this task, with personnel from ASC undertaking specialised training at Pearl Harbour Naval Shipyard in the United States. Significant investment in surrounding infrastructure will ensure South Australia has the roads, services and facilities required to support this growing workforce. What we are witnessing is not simply a Defence project but a generational investment in Australian skills. Australian manufacturing and Australia's future prosperity. That is precisely what AUKUS seeks to achieve. It strengthens Australia's security.

Workers are gaining access to skills that will remain valuable for decades. Communities will benefit from investment that supports long-term economic growth. At the same time, our nation is contributing to a region that remains peaceful, stable and open. Right now we have a moment in time that is calling for a Team Australia effort. Everyone needs to get on board for the sake of the security of this country and our region. To those opposite, who brought this MPI up, maybe think a little bit harder next time.

Dai Le (Fowler, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I also thank the member for Wentworth for bringing this MPI on AUKUS. This is not a new concern for me. I have been calling for an urgent review of AUKUS and its benefits to our national interests since my first term. Hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars have been and will be sent offshore with no clear guarantee of delivery while raising taxes at home, letting domestic manufacturing collapse and cutting essential services like the NDIS in the name of financial sustainability. When the Treasurer handed down this budget, Australians were told to tighten their belts. We were told the NDIS needed to be reined in and that supports for people with disability needed to be cut back to keep the system sustainable. And yet in the very same budget this government locked us into one of the largest, most open-ended defence commitments in our history.

Consider the figures: $512.5 million for the Australian Submarine Agency this year, between $71 billion and $96 billion over the next decade, and up to $368 billion by the mid-2050s—$368 billion. And Australia does not have a single nuclear powered submarine to show for it. None. Not one. Let me put $368 billion into perspective. Spread across every person in this country, that is more than $13,000 each. For a four-person household in Fowler, that is over $50,000, close to three-quarters of what a typical household in my electorate earns in a whole year. A student finishing year 12 this year will not see the first Australian built submarine until they're well into their 30s and will still be paying for it in their 40s—if the subs arrive.

Consider what that money actually buys. Recent reports confirm that the first submarines Australia will receive under this $368 billion commitment will be second-hand: three used Virginia class boats, handed down from the United States Navy—not one of them new. The first is not expected until 2032 at the earliest, and, when they finally arrive in the 2030s, the capability can be questioned. Analysts warn that these older vessels are less capable than new ones, that the United States is keeping its best submarines for itself and that it is already struggling to build enough for its own fleet. So the people of Fowler are entitled to ask: how confident can we be that ours will arrive at all?

I ask this government directly: Where is the sustainability test for AUKUS? Why does fiscal discipline fall so heavily on a person with disability in Cabramatta and not on a $368 billion commitment with no guarantee of delivery? If this government can scrutinise disability support down to the dollar, it can scrutinise a $368 billion submarine deal.

In Fowler, families are frightened about these NDIS reforms. They include a 30 per cent cut to social and community participation supports—the funding that helps people with disability take part in daily life, stay connected and avoid isolation. In multicultural communities like mine, the impact will be even greater because participants already face language barriers, cultural barriers and the struggle to find culturally appropriate providers. I'm deeply concerned that the people pushed out first will be those who already find the system hardest to access.

This is not about saying defence does not matter; it does. But national security must serve the national interest, and that is measured not only by what we promise overseas; it is measured by what we build and sustain here at home. By the government's own figures, Australia has committed around $4.6 billion to the United States submarine industrial base and around $4.6 billion more to the United Kingdom, with a further $310 million paid just this February. That is close to A$9 billion flowing offshore, with no guarantee of a single submarine in return. Meanwhile, our manufacturers here at home are buckling under rising energy, labour, freight and insurance costs. So what does sovereign capability mean if we send billions overseas to build up the industries of other nations while failing to back the industries we need right here?

That is why scrutiny is essential. This government must explain whether AUKUS remains deliverable and how much of this money will actually build Australian capability and support Australian jobs. If AUKUS really serves our interests, it should withstand scrutiny. That is why I support the urgent need for this government to scrutinise Australia's ongoing AUKUS arrangements—to ensure they remain in Australia's best national and security interest.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure and pride to speak about AUKUS, which is a core pillar of this government's national security policy to protect our nation. When you look at AUKUS, the announcements that have been made and what's in store for the future, it is exactly the type of defence strategy that governments should be very proud of. AUKUS will shape and grow the economy for decades to come. It will increase economic complexity, with skilled jobs.

In South Australia, it is very much welcomed. It is welcomed because South Australia has a proud history of manufacturing. Right up until 2013, we were developing and producing cars, until they were ousted by the former government. So it was a welcome announcement to be told that we will make the submarines in South Australia. It will cost $2 billion in infrastructure alone for the submarine construction yard, which has started and will be completed at some point in the very near future. Four thousand people will be employed just to construct the construction yard, let alone the people that will be employed for cutting-edge, high-technology submarine building, including welders and a whole range of trades.

When you think of AUKUS, it is a massive project. It's a nation-building project. It's a project that, of course, will have its hiccups along the way. When governments undertake projects as big as AUKUS, there'll always be hiccups along the way. We're dealing with unforeseen elements. We're dealing with things that are completely out of hand. But that's not to say that this will not get completed, and that's not to say that this will not benefit the economy. Most importantly, there's the strategic defence of our nation. It will strengthen the bilateral relationships and defence relationships with the United States and the UK, ensuring that we are protecting our nation and that the security of this nation is top-notch.

When I think of AUKUS, I think of the cutting-edge technology, research and development and the creation of jobs. There will be thousands of people working in the shipbuilding industry, whether it be submarines or manufacturing industries. That will feed into submarine production. We're talking generation after generation after generation of decent paid jobs for working Australians to continue that proud history of manufacturing in South Australia that we once had. Back then, it was car manufacturing. Many said that we couldn't build assembly lines in the thirties and forties, when General Motors was being developed. They're the same arguments we're having now. Yet automobile production produced a great economy for South Australia for 70, 80 years. AUKUS and shipbuilding and submarine building in South Australia will continue to give jobs to South Australians for generations to come. It will ensure that they're not just plain jobs but cutting-edge jobs, with training, technology and a whole range of other things that go with it.

One of our biggest problems will be finding workers. There are estimates that up to 20,000 will be required for the AUKUS build itself, plus the manufacturing that will be feeding into it. That's a pretty good problem to have if you're a government, I reckon. It could be, as we've seen in past history with different governments, the other way around, where you've got thousands out of work. This is a pretty good problem to have. Those who are not supporting it or who are perhaps having a go at AUKUS should have a good think about where this is taking us as a nation in terms of our defence, security, economic capabilities and the creation of jobs, which are so important to Australia and also for the strategic partnership with the United States and the UK in terms of defending our nation.

When you look at governments, what are we here for? No. 1, to provide security to the nation, to make the Australian public feel that they are secure at a time of need, when we're under threat; and No. 2, to keep an economy going with jobs for people to put bread and butter on the table. This is exactly what AUKUS is doing. It covers two areas, plus the research and development and the cutting-edge technology that will go into the future for many years to come.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

This week, Defence Minister Marles announced a significant change to the AUKUS plan. Australia will now receive three second-hand Virginia class submarines—not the two used vessels and one new and more capable unit that we had previously agreed on. The defence minister is claiming this as a win, saying that it reduces complexity. He has claimed it won't materially change the overall cost of AUKUS. He's happy that we're paying just as much for less. We're being asked to accept that the most expensive defence procurement in Australian history will give us second-hand submarines. The new Virginia class subs are more capable and they are easier to maintain. They have a 33-year lifespan. We have no idea how much service life the third vessel that Australia is getting will have left.

Meanwhile, the US is not building submarines fast enough for its own navy, let alone ours. The US Navy has admitted that it will not reach a production rate of two Virginia class boats per year until 2032. Even that rate would be insufficient for it to supply Australia. The US Congressional Research Service has openly considered scenarios in which no Virginia class submarines are ever transferred to Australian command. The US Navy's own 30-year shipbuilding plan, released weeks ago, does not account for submarines built for AUKUS. In fact, the entire document mentions AUKUS only once, in a footnote. What the government has not said and what it consistently declines to acknowledge is that there are not just practical problems with the delivery of these submarines but legal ones too.

Under the United States federal law, the President of the United States must certify before any submarine transfer that its sale will not degrade American capacity and national security interests and that the US is making sufficient investments to meet both its own military requirements and its AUKUS commitments. If that certification cannot be made, no transfer can be made. There is no mechanism to compel the US to make that transfer, and there is no fallback.

In 2025, the United States undertook a review of the AUKUS arrangement. Elbridge Colby, who led that review, had previously raised concerns that the United States lacks the capacity to spare us warships. We don't know what that review concluded.

It's reported that by June 2027 we will have spent $11 billion on AUKUS. This is a program whose delivery is far from guaranteed and whose legal preconditions for delivery rest entirely on another government. If AUKUS were the NDIS, this government would by now have announced fundamental cuts in order to 'secure its future' so that it could grow in a more sustainable way.

I support the principle of AUKUS. The partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States is vitally important for our national security. Our strategic circumstances in the Indo-Pacific require significant investment in our defence capacity. But supporting the principle of AUKUS is not the same as unconditional acceptance. The change announced on Saturday represents a meaningful reduction in the capability and longevity of Australia's submarine fleet. Last April, I called for a parliamentary review of AUKUS. I'm glad to see that former Labor minister Peter Garrett is now independently undertaking one, but it's a national embarrassment that a former Labor minister is crowdfunding for an independent inquiry into AUKUS. It feels like it's only a matter of time before we find ourselves crowdfunding for the submarines themselves!

The biggest defence procurement in our history, spanning three decades and up to, or more than, $368 billion requires transparency from this government about timelines and risk and an honest accounting of what is being delivered and what is not. This government should commit to a full parliamentary review of pillar 1 of AUKUS—its delivery timeline, its costs, its risks and its strategic rationale—such is the basic obligation of oversight that this parliament owes to the Australian public on a commitment of this scale.

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Peace and stability, technology sharing arrangements—yes, I am indeed talking about AUKUS. I thank the member for Wentworth for raising this matter. Scrutiny of a program that is this significant, a program that represents the single biggest industrial project in Australia's history, is exactly what this parliament is for, so I will be direct about where this project stands and what its delivering.

Australia is operating in the most complex and contested geopolitical environment since World War II. We all remember when Russia illegally and immorally invaded Ukraine. Australians felt the impact of that war. Then we saw the conflict between Israel and Palestine and the immense suffering. Every life matters—Palestinians and Israelis—in particular civilians, including women and children. Now we have the recent events in the Middle East that have disrupted global fuel supply chains and reminded us how much Australia depends on open sea lanes and stable trade routes. Peace and stability are good for humankind and are good for nations.

In that environment, AUKUS represents a fundamental shift in Australia's Defence capability—the single biggest increase in our military capability since the establishment of the Navy more than a century ago. I also think that it needs to be stressed that AUKUS is not an alliance; it's a technology-sharing partnership. This is about building our capability, from design to building to actually operating these submarines.

The question before us today is whether this government is fundamentally being transparent about the program that's being delivered. I will address this now. This government established the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence so that parliament can be briefed and scrutinised on classified Defence matters in a secure setting. Of course, the AUKUS program is subject to Senate estimates through the scrutiny process. This combination of transparency and accountability mechanisms has been built into the program from the start.

Now let me turn to the delivery, because the most substantive answer to these questions about transparency is the clear account of where this program stands. At HMAS Stirling, south of Perth, we have seen visits from nuclear powered submarines with increasing complexity in every maintenance package. In 2024, the USS Vermont arrived at Stirling and received a significant package of maintenance work carried out by Australian workers. Earlier this year HMS Anson, a UK Astute class submarine, docked at Stirling and received significant maintenance. Australian workers are maintaining allied nuclear powered submarines in Western Australia right now. This is a capability this country did not have four years ago.

The Submarine Rotational Force-West is on track to be stood up from the end of next year. From 2027, 500 direct jobs will support the sustainment of nuclear powered submarines at Stirling. The government is investing $8 billion to expand HMAS Stirling, creating around 3,000 direct construction and infrastructure jobs for Western Australians. At Henderson, $12 billion has been committed as the first major down payment on what will be a $25 billion Defence precinct, underpinning continuous naval shipbuilding in WA for decades to come. Western Australian companies, VEEM and Camco among them, have already qualified for AUKUS nuclear powered submarine supply chains under the Defence Industry Vendor Qualification Program. The Jobs for Subs program is recruiting and upskilling over 200 new entry-level positions through ASC.

Through the Nuclear-Powered Submarine Student Pathways program, Commonwealth supported places have been allocated as follows: 320 to Curtin University, 56 places to the University of Western Australia and 50 places to Murdoch University. This will be building a pipeline of skilled West Australians into this program that will be needed. Across the country, AUKUS will create around 20,000 direct jobs over the next 30 years. Yes, it's very exciting! In WA, at Stirling and Henderson and across the supply chain, the Defence industry is on track to provide 10,000 jobs—the biggest diversification in WA ever.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

The government must provide much more information and establish that AUKUS remains firmly in Australia's national interest. AUKUS is too significant, too costly and too consequential to be exempt from the regular parliamentary scrutiny and review. Supporting a strong Defence Force and capable submarine fleet does not mean abandoning scrutiny. Major strategic investments require ongoing oversight, transparency and accountability. The recent changes to the AUKUS pathway raised legitimate questions about cost, capability, delivery risk and whether Australians are receiving what was originally promised. Australia faces the most challenging strategic environment in decades. We need credible defence capabilities, strong alliances and long-term planning.

The very announcement of AUKUS and the lack of transparency from the start have been problematic. The Morrison government announced AUKUS and two days later the Labor opposition agreed to it—no debate, no scrutiny, no questions. Since then, there has been nothing but ongoing uncertainty in the face of substantial costs. AUKUS has the two pillars. Pillar 1 is the agreement between Australia, the US and the UK to acquire conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines, while pillar 2 focuses on jointly developing advanced defence technologies, including AI, cyber, quantum, undersea systems and hypersonics.

Pillar 2 has been all but abandoned. There is no detail. This week, uncertainty around pillar 1 increased, while Australia is now expected to receive three second-hand US Virginia class submarines rather than at least one new vessel. Australia is now reportedly expected to receive only second-hand Virginia class submarines from the US, rather than developing the capability pathway many Australians understood was originally being pursued. For every MP here celebrating capability or production and construction in their local area, the question is: how much is that really going to happen?

Despite $2.76 billion to date having been paid to the US, there is also no guarantee Australia will receive these submarines on the proposed timeline, if the United States' production capacity does not increase, or on the necessary timeline for our defence capabilities. The US government undertook a review of AUKUS and its capability to deliver the submarines. Neither the review findings nor how the practical terms of the AUKUS agreement have changed have been made public. If the arrangements have shifted, parliament and the Australian people deserve to know the implications for cost, delivery, sovereignty and capability building. The UK has also undertaken parliamentary scrutiny of AUKUS, and that process identified significant risks. Australia should not be less rigorous than our partners in examining a commitment of this scale.

The recent budget also included a $50 billion increase over 10 years, or $14 billion over four years to the defence AUKUS budget, with little information or transparency about the cost blowouts or increases. Australians have the right to understand, in a tight budgeting environment, how we are simultaneously hearing discussions about tightening expenditure elsewhere, including in the NDIS, other areas and social programs, but there is no accountability against these increased costs for defence. The argument is not against defence spending; it's an argument around transparency, prioritisation and evidence based decision making.

The government's narrow focus on AUKUS continues a myopic approach to national security, treating military capability as the whole answer while neglecting the broader drivers of regional instability and climate risk. Climate resilience is a national security issue, yet it is all but ignored by both sides of parliament. Extreme weather is damaging infrastructure, disrupting supply chains and increasingly diverting defence personnel from core deployments into disaster response for communities. The UK recently released its national security assessment, which highlighted the increasing likelihood of collapse of vitally important natural systems, bringing mass migration, food shortages, price rises and global disorder, thereby threatening national security and prosperity. Yet, the Albanese government has not released the ONI report.

National security requires transparency and accountability. Supporting AUKUS does not mean accepting it on blind trust, and the Australian people do not do so. You do not have a clear social licence if we do not have accountability and transparency on how much is being spent and what will be delivered. What assurance will be given to the Australian people? If the US does not meet that building capacity, how will we meet Australia's capability needs in that environment? I call on the government to provide much more transparency and accountability around how those funds are found, what they are going to and what plan B is for our defence and security.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

This discussion has now concluded.