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

This motion, of course, seeks a referral to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee so that that committee can seek public submissions and review the AUKUS fiasco that both Labor and the coalition have taken Australia into. There are many reasons to review the AUKUS deal, but I think one of the most pressing is the recent critical minerals deal that is underpinned by AUKUS. As Greens, we recognise that the world's critical minerals and rare earths will be necessary for the renewable energy future. We recognise that Australia has an important role to play in the global supply of critical minerals and rare earths.

But, of course, when Donald Trump—who pats Defence Minister Marles and Prime Minister Albanese on their respective heads when he looks to Australia—the United States military and some tech bros in the United States look to Australia, to our critical minerals and to our rare earths, they see supplies for their weapons industry and supplies for their tech bros and they are absolutely not seeing Australia's critical minerals for the renewable energy future we need.

What has the Albanese government done? The Albanese government has said, 'Yes, absolutely.' They are absolutely willing to amend our nature laws to allow a so-called national interest exemption to allow First Nations land to be ripped apart, despoiled, so that critical minerals can be extracted and given to the Trump administration not for renewable energies but for their weapons and for their tech bros. AUKUS is ripping this country apart, and we're being sold to the US. That's why we need a review. (Time expired)

(Quorum formed)

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

AUKUS is a core pillar of the Albanese government's national security policy to protect our nation's interests and security and to keep Australians safe. As the National Defence Strategy affirms, we confront the most challenging strategic circumstances since the Second World War, and we do so at a time when Australia's economic connection with the world has never been greater. AUKUS is in the strategic interests of Australia, and our investment commitment to AUKUS is fundamental to our national security. AUKUS will be one of the greatest industrial endeavours Australia has ever undertaken, supporting industry, jobs and infrastructure over decades. Our investment in conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines is fundamental to making sure our ADF has a much greater capacity to protect and defend Australia.

Importantly, we are delivering AUKUS at pace. AUKUS is happening. Since the announcement in March 2023, we have seen tangible progress on all fronts. This is an agreement that Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom have been pursuing. We recognise that the investment is significant. It is an opportunity to build a future made in Australia, and we need to engage the industrial base of the entire nation. It will be the single biggest increase in our military capability since the establishment of the Navy more than a century ago and will be profoundly important to Australia's national security.

The Albanese government's plan to deliver AUKUS will create around 20,000 direct jobs over the next 30 years. This includes, at its peak, up to 4,000 Australian workers employed to design and build the submarine construction yard at Osborne in South Australia. A further 4,000 to 5,000 direct jobs will be created to build nuclear powered submarines in South Australia when the program reaches its peak. Around 3,000 direct jobs will be created to deliver infrastructure upgrades at HMAS Stirling in Western Australia, and 500 more jobs will be created to support the sustainment of nuclear powered submarines from 2027.Our focus is on sticking to this plan and seeing it through. That is how we will get this capability.

Senator Shoebridge wants to play peacenik and stand up to protest against Australia's defence industry when he's talking to Greens members. I wonder how many of you know about his own defence policy for the Greens, where he announced plans to turn Australia into a major missile manufacturer. The Greens have made it clear that they don't believe in our ADF and that they don't believe in AUKUS. The Albanese government has promoted regular parliamentary engagement and community consultation through regular oversight in existing parliamentary committees and scrutiny through the Senate estimates process. The Greens are welcome to support the Albanese government to reintroduce legislation to establish the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence. This committee will enable scrutiny of classified matters in a secure setting, ensuring enhanced transparency, accountability and oversight of Defence decisions, capability, development and strategic planning, including AUKUS.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just walked in and heard the remarks of Senator Chisholm. I heard him talk about the investment in infrastructure around Stirling and Garden Island. The problem, though, which any Western Australian and anyone in the area will know, is that it's all well and good and it is important investment and infrastructure on Garden Island, but what we need is the enabling infrastructure in and around that area. We've got significant bottlenecks when it comes to traffic getting onto and off of the island. You've got what is essentially just a goat track once you get across the causeway into Rockingham, and the road literally runs through suburban residential streets. Now, we've got all of this increased traffic—trucks and all the expected increase in traffic that's going to come as a result of AUKUS—and we're not seeing any progress at all for what is necessary. The truth is that this is something that has been talked about for a long time. In fact, the Hepburn-Stephenson plan was set out in the 1950s and actually designated what's called the Garden Island Highway, and there is still an easement that goes through the area that is able to be built up as a significant road to enable traffic to get in and off the island. Again, this government has done nothing with it. They announced a feasibility study in 2025. This is something that we've known about for a long time. The feasibility study should have already been done, and what we should be seeing right now are the graders and the road construction crew building the necessary infrastructure that's in and around that area.

In addition, further up the coast is the Henderson precinct. Again, there were big announcements about what's going on and the important investment of what needs to happen there on the land side of what's necessary to support the submarines, shipping and the defence precinct there at Henderson. But, again, the enabling infrastructure that's necessary to allow that to reach its full vision is not happening. You've got the Russell Road, Cockburn Road and Stock Road intersection. Again, that is a very significant bottleneck. You only need to go down there early in the morning on any day of the week—these operations run seven days a week—and you will see the significant congestion that is there with all the tradie traffic going in and out of Henderson already. That is without the $12 million of investment at Henderson. The government needs to step up to the plate here. They need the enabling infrastructure.

I'll finish with this point: AUKUS needs a social licence as well. The community impacted the most by all of the development and all the opportunities that are going on are in and around those areas of Garden Island and Henderson. Those communities ought not be frustrated by what's going on in their local community. They should be seeing the opportunity, because there are wonderful opportunities, particularly for young people to take up the trades, the skills and the jobs that are going to be required for decades ahead. They should be excited about it, but they're frustrated by the lack of enabling infrastructure that's necessary—the pressure that's been put on housing. Unfortunately, we're not seeing enough.

Premier Roger Cook is here, talking to the government. He and the state government need to step up, with all the planning and everything that needs to happen, and actually work together with the federal government to actually get stuff happening, because there's not enough happening. We've just got feasibility studies and planning that really should have been done over the last few years and is only now commencing. It's not good enough. I asked questions about this in estimates just a few weeks ago, and we heard that it's only just commenced. It's not good enough. They've got to hurry up and move on because the social licence is absolutely essential for this project, AUKUS, to realise its full potential.

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

AUKUS is set to rob Australians of $368 billion by the time it delivers—or, more likely, doesn't deliver. That's equivalent to over $13,000 taken from every Australian alive today—money that will go straight into the pockets of the US and UK weapons manufacturers. For what? Not a single guarantee that Australia will ever have full control of these submarines or ever have submarines at all. There's no guarantee they'll be built, and definitely no guarantee that they will make us safer. AUKUS isn't a defence strategy; it's a blank cheque to the American military industrial complex signed by the Australian taxpayers. That's why this should be referred to inquiry. The Australian people deserve to know exactly what they are paying for and what they're giving up.

We are told that this is about security, but the question is: security for who? Over the past fortnight, I have raised in this chamber the crisis facing community primary health, with bulk-billing GP services in my home state closing their doors due to a lack of government funding intervention. I've raised the housing crisis that's pushing families to sleep in cars and young people to give up on the dream of ever owning a home. I've heard from survivors of extreme weather events. Just today Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action were talking about the empty climate adaptation plan that was handed down with no funding attached, while floods, fires, droughts and heatwaves grow worse every single year. Talented early childhood education workers have sat in my office and told me there is no secured ongoing funding for the Early Years Support program that provides high-impact early childhood and development services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families across this country.

Prime Minister Albanese, I have an entire shopping list of things we could fix together with even a fraction of the money we are throwing at AUKUS. But what are we hearing? Nothing. Nothing about these critical services that Australians are crying out for, and yet we somehow have billions of dollars for nuclear submarines. Imagine if we spent that money on what actually keeps people secure, supported and cared for.

For $368 billion, we could fully fund universal early childhood education—multiple times over, in fact—providing every family in this country with free, high-quality care for every single child. I know there has been a resounding endorsement of that in New York today. We could properly pay educators what they are worth and raise quality standards across the board, improving educational outcomes and letting families participate fully in the workforce. That is what real security looks like—children learning, parents working, if they so choose, and families thriving. The Prime Minister himself committed to a legacy of universal child care, but frankly he has made more progress in securing photo opportunities with Donald Trump than he has in moving towards universal early education, a goal that parents, families and educators are so desperately calling for.

We could build hundreds of thousands of affordable homes, not just for American military personnel, as was Labor's first housing move in this new parliament, but for the everyday Australians, teachers, nurses and care workers who make this country function. We could invest in properly funding community health and properly building climate adaptation resilience. We could invest further in clean energy and in the programs that actually make people's lives better and this planet safer. Instead, this government has chosen to pour our collective wealth into a project that fuels an arms race and shackles our sovereignty to the whims of an increasingly unstable United States.

Prime Minister Albanese's meeting with President Trump was sold as a sign of strong friendship, but what it really showed is how much Australia is willing to give away for a photo opportunity. AUKUS doesn't even require the US to deliver these submarines. There is no binding commitment and no guarantee that the US will even have the industrial capacity to build them. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has offered Trump dibs over our critical minerals—the very minerals that are supposed to support our clean energy transition. Australia's critical minerals should be fuelling a green future, powering solar panels, batteries and electric vehicles, not fuelling the US military, one of the world's biggest polluters. Instead of leading on renewable technology, the government is binding us to a climate denialist agenda, where profits for billionaires and weapons manufacturers come before people and planet. That is not sovereignty; that is surrender.

Let's be very clear about what AUKUS really is. It is a one-sided deal that commits us to decades of US military ambitions in the Pacific. It increases the risk of conflict. It locks Australia into the United States and United Kingdom's nuclear technology and military plans, leaving us dependent on their decisions. It does not guarantee Australia any real control or oversight over how that technology is used. If the US or UK change their level of cooperation at any point, our ability to operate these submarines and our defence capability would be directly affected. That is not sovereignty. It is dependency, locked in for half a century at least.

We are being to surrender our sovereignty, our independence and our public wealth for a security promise that exists only on paper. But true security doesn't come from submarines or missiles. It comes from peaceful diplomacy and strong democratic values. It comes from stable communities, healthy and supported families and a planet that we can actually live on. Australians do not want their safety to depend on Donald Trump, a man who ridicules world leaders, escalates conflicts and mocks the idea of peace and climate action, or his administration. They don't want to see their taxes funding the US war machine while their local health clinics close. They do not want to see billions of dollars spent on submarines while they can't afford rent, groceries or medication. They want leadership that invests in people and planet, not in war. It's time to bring some transparency, scrutiny and sanity back into this debate via an inquiry, and it's time to put people, not weapons, at the heart of Australia's security.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to join my colleague and good friend Senator O'Sullivan in talking on this issue because it is of such vital importance to our home state of Western Australia. The first point I want to make is that the AUKUS arrangement, as is revealed in its name, is a deepening of the relationship between three countries that have had an extraordinarily strong relationship for decades. In the case of the United Kingdom, it has been for longer.

The relationship between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom and the defence relationship is a key pillar of security for not just Australia but also internationally, and it is vitally important that that coalition legacy is continued. However, sadly, under this government, while we have seen much rhetoric in support of the AUKUS arrangement—something that we absolutely support—there has also been a failure on the ground to progress the key underlying infrastructure that is required to make sure these arrangements can actually take place in a timely fashion in the timeframes that were originally envisaged by the coalition government that entered into these arrangements.

As Senator O'Sullivan rightly pointed out, there are some really basic roads that need to be built or changed to make sure that the scale of the infrastructure can actually be supported. We need to rearrange the Australian Marine Complex to ensure that the berth space, the wharf space, is actually there to carry out the sustainment-type operations that are required in Western Australia for this. We need governments to engage with all aspects of the private sector to ensure that all parts of the very complex system of private-military relationships that will be required actually exist.

For example, there is still debate and decisions to be made on the storage of low-level radioactive waste, and we have a facility in WA that's already approved, already supported, through active land use agreements and the like. It's owned by the company Tellus and is fully compliant to store radioactive material. That exists. Yet, as far as I know—and hopefully this has changed—no conversation has yet taken place with that company. I think it's really important that those sorts of discussions are entered into not in three or four years but now. In fact, they should have been started years ago, but, sadly, this government has been sitting on its hands.

In Western Australia, as my friend and colleague Senator O'Sullivan pointed out, whilst the Cook Labor government has finally seemed to have turned its attention to the needs on the ground, it is happening too late and not with the urgency that is required. Take housing, for example. It's an issue of vital importance when you consider that the relationship requires thousands of people to come to our country from the United States and the United Kingdom and be based in Rockingham and the surrounding areas, but no provision has yet been made. And, at the rate that this government can build houses, I doubt its ability to even get its head around the needs of that Defence housing in a timely way. At the rate they're going and with the amount they're spending to build a few houses under the Housing Australia Future Fund, it makes me deeply worried that they will be completely incapable of doing those basic infrastructure needs that are required to see this arrangement come to fruition not just over time but in a timely fashion that supports the ongoing deepening of our relationship.

But of course AUKUS is not just Pillar I; it's not just submarines. This is what many people either fail to understand or fail to reflect in their comments. It is a deepening of the defence relationship across a number of different areas, and this is something that, in an increasingly dangerous world, will be of vital importance to our safety and security in the years ahead. So we need governments, at both state and federal level, that are aware of risks, are aware of their responsibilities and are willing to actually make the decisions required in a timely fashion to make sure that AUKUS is all it should be. And, sadly, the Cook Labor government, in Western Australia, and the Albanese Labor government here are failing.

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

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