Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) | Hansard source

Australia has long debated the future of our submarine capability. The decision that we've reached is that nuclear powered submarines are the answer. Since reaching that decision, very little has actually changed, but, in recent months, some voices have been demanding that we rethink the entire project over details that they find dissatisfying.

Let us be clear about what is at stake. Australia is an island trading nation with the third-largest maritime domain in the world. Almost all of our trade travels by sea. Our fuel, food, fertiliser, pharmaceuticals, manufactured goods and many other essentials arrive through maritime supply chains. The very foundations of our economy and our capacity to defend ourselves depend on secure access to the sea. That is not an understatement. It's an existential vulnerability, and any politician or commentator who dismisses the protection of Australia's maritime trade as insignificant or, far worse, as ridiculous is not just unserious about national security; they are negligent.

Let us also be clear about the capability that we are acquiring. Only six countries in the world operate nuclear powered submarines: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and India. By acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, Australia is recognising that the security of our nation deserves and demands capability equal to the most powerful nations of the world. Developing such a critical but exclusive capability was always going to demand patience, determination and commitment. Neither Australia nor our partners in the US and the United Kingdom have wavered on this commitment.

While we build the industrial base, workforce and infrastructure required to construct and sustain our own nuclear-powered submarines, we will acquire three Virginia class nuclear-powered submarines from the United States. These submarines are far more than a mere bridge between our Collins class and our AUKUS class. They are among the most capable submarines operating anywhere in the world. The Australian Submarine Agency has confirmed that each boat we receive will have more than 20 years of operational life to serve in the defence of our country. Their delivery will be marked in history as the day Australia takes its place as one of the premier maritime powers not just of the Pacific but of the world.

But it is worth reflecting on why our Navy will be operating these submarines before our own come into service. The coalition, while in government, first delayed and then abandoned the Japanese submarine option before signing the French contract for a conventional submarine that was much slower, less capable. Ultimately, it was cancelled at enormous cost to Australia's international reputation. After years of indecision, false starts and wasted money, this government's plan is forging ahead despite the mess that those opposite created. Then there are those whose foreign policy beliefs were shaped in a more benign era. Distinguished voices now animated by nostalgia are based in tragic and dramatic claims about the very purpose of AUKUS on the strategic needs of the past. With respect to these voices, the world has changed. Our region has changed and, as we speak, military modernisation across the Indo-Pacific continues at pace. Australia must respond to the world as it exists today and not as it existed in the past. Some of these voices have decided to form a so-called independent public inquiry into AUKUS. Although its contributors are certainly not lacking in experience, it is difficult to say what they expect to achieve.

After nearly five years since AUKUS was announced, now is the time for concrete action. Vague questions and concerns are not constructive. Unfortunately, the Australian Greens are at it again. Their position deserves to be called out for what it is. It is not principled opposition. It is not strategic caution. It is ideological hostility towards the United States, hostility that is so deep it overrides any serious consideration of Australia's national security. When the Greens dismiss defending Australia's sea lanes as ridiculous and then respond to expert rebuttal by mocking a former Royal Australian Navy officer, someone who spent decades at sea actually doing the job of protecting Australia's maritime trade, rather than engage in an argument, they simply showed their hand—no substance, no alternative, simply contempt for the expertise and for the serious work of keeping Australians safe. They now also emerge when there is work to criticise. But they have been silent for all the hard work of the planning and deciding of what yet has to be done. They decry the acquisition of the Virginia class, not because of reasoned capability concerns but because of their unrestrained anti-American ideology. The irony is profound.

As the Deputy Prime Minister, Richard Marles, has rightly argued, walking away from AUKUS would make Australia more reliant on the United States, not less. By working with our partners through AUKUS, Australia will ultimately develop a domestic nuclear-powered submarine industry that is truly sovereign. If we choose the other path, the path that others like the Greens are proposing, and build our foreign policy on the dislike of America or who is in the chair of the president of the day, we will find ourselves less capable and fundamentally less sovereign. Jennifer Parker, the naval officer that I referenced and who the Greens chose to mock, said it best and with considerably more grace than she was provided, I might add. She said, 'Serious people can disagree on how best to protect Australian supply chains, but what they cannot do is pretend that the problem does not exist.'

The case for the Virginia class submarines has not changed. Former defence secretary Dennis Richardson put it bluntly at a Morgan Stanley summit in Sydney recently, describing the current debate as 'one of the greatest beat ups that I have ever seen in my life'. His assessment was simple: regardless of whether they have already seen service or are new, the three Virginias will give Australia greatly improved submarine capability compared to our current fleet. This is more than holding out for the future. It is a watershed moment itself. By acquiring three in-service Virginias as opposed to one new and two previously operated, Australia faces significant savings. Rather than operating two new hull classes, just using one will reduce complexity and streamline training and maintenance. This is not a downgrade. It is sound planning. These submarines will serve Australia well into the 2050s, and they will eventually retire, having served alongside the AUKUS class.

Our strategic environment has changed materially in the 21st century, and Australia must respond to the world as it is. We face a period of growing strategic competition that demands careful statecraft. Nuclear powered submarines are the only platforms that can provide Australia with the ability to deter threats to our maritime supply chains, on which our way of life depend. They alone have the speed, the endurance and the stealth necessary to effectively provide this deterrence. They are the bolt cutters that will ensure that we are never wrapped in chains.

Debate in this place is healthy. Scrutiny is essential, but scrutiny must be anchored in facts, and opposition must come with alternatives. This is a moment for strategic clarity. We are an island nation that is surrounded by three oceans in an era of intensifying competition. We need that deterrence, and we need sovereign submarine capability, and we need the industrial capability to build and sustain it here at home. This government, the Albanese government, is delivering that sovereign capability, and, before it arrives, our Virginia class submarines will ensure that we continue to maintain exceptional operational capability. This is the right plan for the security of our nation.