Division Description Changes — Matters of Urgency — Defence Procurement: Submarines — 20th Mar 2024

Change	Division
senate vote 2024-03-20#8 Edited by mackay staff on 2024-07-03 16:57:16	Title ~~Matters of Urgency — Defence Procurement: Submarines~~ Matters of Urgency - Defence Procurement: Submarines - Against AUKUS nuclear submarine deal Description ~~<p class="speaker">Matt O'Sullivan</p>~~ ~~<p>Senator McKim has submitted a proposal under standing order 75, which has been circulated, as follows:</p>~~ The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2024-03-20.158.2) introduced by NSW Senator [David Shoebridge](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_shoebridge) (Greens), which means it failed. ### Motion text > That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: That the Albanese government must not continue to spend upwards of $360 billion in public funds on the increasingly unlikely chance we might get AUKUS nuclear submarines, while abandoning our sovereignty and destabilising the region. <p class="italic">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:</p> <p class="italic">The Albanese Government must not continue to spend upwards of $360 billion in public funds on the increasingly unlikely chance we might get AUKUS nuclear submarines, while abandoning our sovereignty and destabilising the region."</p> ~~<p>Is consideration of the proposal supported?</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic"> <i>More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—</i></p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">David Shoebridge</p>~~ ~~<p>I move:</p>~~ <p class="italic">That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: That the Albanese government must not continue to spend upwards of $360 billion in public funds on the increasingly unlikely chance we might get AUKUS nuclear submarines, while abandoning our sovereignty and destabilising the region.</p> <p>AUKUS is sinking, and, if the ALP and the coalition continue down their war party path, we are all going to sink with it. A year ago this week, Prime Minister Albanese was over in San Diego coming up with his so-called optimal pathway for AUKUS after agreeing to the Morrison government's election stunt with a no-doc briefing—a two-hour no-doc briefing, courtesy of the former Morrison government. Who would sign Australia up to a $360 billion disaster zone with a no-doc briefing from former prime minister Scott Morrison? Who would do that? It turns out that the then opposition leader, now Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, took Morrison at his word. You can't make this stuff up.</p> <p>But we are now looking at the first anniversary of this optimal pathway of the AUKUS deal, and on any rational view it should be the last, because, despite the coalition and the ALP's blanket denial, the US will only provide Australia with any of their Virginia class nuclear submarines if they have got enough for themselves. If you want to know the first rule of dealing with United States, assume that they are always going to put their self-interest ahead of ours or any other part of the planet. That's a good starting point.</p> <p>The fact is that the Albanese government think that they are going to get three to five Virginia class nuclear submarines from the United States in the early 2030s when, at the exact same time, because of decisions that were made by the US in the 1990s, the US are going to have the lowest number of Attack class nuclear subs—significantly less than they need, they say, for their own purposes. In order to deal with that value of production, the US need to be knocking out of the US shipyards 2.3 of these Virginia class submarines a year to have enough submarines by the 2030s to supply the US Navy's needs and have a few left over to supply Australia with these multibillion dollar nuclear submarines.</p> <p>But what is actually happening? The US Navy, in their most recent budget, have budgeted not for 2.3 or even for two Virginia class submarines. The US Navy have acknowledged reality. They've budgeted for the production of only one Virginia class nuclear submarine in the coming 12 months—just one. They've done that because they know that there isn't the capacity in US dockyards and shipyards to produce more than one. To make enough nuclear submarines for Australia, they need to be knocking out 2.3; they're knocking out one. That's some awkward AUKUS maths there, isn't it. In the early 2030s, the US is going to be asked by Australia, 'Please, sir, can we have some nuclear submarines?' What's the US President going to say? They'll say: 'We haven't got enough for our own purposes. There's no way we're going to be giving them to Australia.'</p> <p>Hidden in plain sight in the legislation that's been approved for AUKUS in the US Congress is a kill switch that says, if there aren't enough for the US, there's no way in hell they'll give any to Australia. That is despite the Albanese government giving $4.7 billion of Australian public money to the US for US jobs and investment in US shipbuilding. This will include, by the way, investment for the US to build their next intercontinental ballistic class of nuclear submarine, the Columbia class.</p> <p>The question is: how many billions more will Australia sink into the disaster zone that is the AUKUS submarine deal, pillar I? How many years will be wasted before we finally jump on an off-ramp? The overwhelming majority of Australians don't want us tied unquestionably to the US alliance. They don't want us to spend billions of dollars chasing unicorns. Let's end the deal now, while we can. Let's save some dignity and save some sovereignty.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">David Fawcett</p>~~ <p>I rise to address this matter of urgency moved by Senator Shoebridge. I'd like to address the points raised—briefly, to start with, and then I will go into some detail. One of the points is that this is abandoning our sovereignty. Having worked in Defence for many years—in fact, I ran our flight test centre—I'm aware of the fact that for many of our systems we have a deep reliance on the original equipment manufacturer, from issues to do with software to spiral upgrade programs. For example, the Joint Strike Fighter would be almost impossible for us to operate in the absence of the combined logistics support system. This no more decreases or throws away our sovereignty than many of the systems that we are purchasing, because the cost to develop and completely own a system here in Australia would absorb more of the budget than Australians would be prepared to fund.</p> <p>The second point relates to stability in the region. One of the key reasons you have a strong defence force is in fact for deterrence, so that we keep the peace. History tells us that, if you want to deter an authoritarian regime from taking action, you need to: (a) have a strong capability; and (b) demonstrate clear intent that you are prepared to stand up and defend what is in your nation's and your people's interests. The brief that was put together by the Congressional Research Service that actually informed the members of the US Congress to support and vote for the NDAA, which authorises the AUKUS deal, highlights that selling the Virginia class boats to Australia would substantially enhance deterrence of potential Chinese aggression, particularly around North Asia and the Taiwan Strait in our region. So, far from destabilising the region, this would actually enhance stability in our region.</p> <p>Why is that important? This is the third point I'll come to. Senator Shoebridge's motion talks about $360 billion. That sounds like a lot of money, but you've got to remember that, when Defence cost these projects, they look at the out dollars over a period, and 30 years is the period involved here. That's about 0.15 per cent of GDP looking over those 30 years. To put that in context—$360 billion over those 30 years—we spend around $220 billion each year just on the welfare budget. Looking at the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare figures, on average that's around 10 per cent of GDP. So it's 10 per cent of GDP versus 0.15 per cent of GDP.</p> <p>Why is stability important? If we look at analysis by David Uren, one of Australia's premier economists, into the impact of tensions and conflict in the Taiwan Strait, he highlights that the detriment to the Australian economy would be a long-term decrease of six percent of GDP and a reduction of 14 per cent of per capita income even if Australia wasn't involved in a conflict but just if the conflict occurred. This is an investment of 0.15 per cent of GDP so that we maintain deterrence and the status quo to avoid conflict. That is something that will keep Australia's economy healthy to the tune of nearly six per cent of GDP. When you look at that cost figure, you've got to understand that it is actually a sensible long-term decision to have a strong military capability that acts as a deterrent.</p> <p>To the final point of Senator McKim's motion, and as Senator Shoebridge described, there are bottlenecks in the American system at the moment. In fact, the US has decided that, as part of managing their capability, they need to invest. They're looking to invest some $11 billion to increase the capacity at the two shipyards, General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls Industries, that make the Virginia. But they've realised that, if they just keep placing orders and there's already a backlog, then they're committing funds to something that cannot be delivered. The detailed analysis of that decision is that they've accepted the reality that, yes, there is a backlog. So they've said that they won't put the funding in against another vessel, because the reality is that it won't suddenly pop out, but they will invest $11 billion over a period to actually lift the capacity of those shipyards to reach the 2.33 that Senator Shoebridge referred to.</p> <p>Far from being a waste of money, this is an investment in the stability of our region and in our sovereign capability in partnership with like-minded nations to preserve the interests of Australia and our people.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Raff Ciccone</p>~~ <p>I, too, rise to speak on the urgency motion moved by Senator McKim. The AUKUS trilateral security alliance is a fundamental partnership between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. As the government has made very clear time and time again, AUKUS is the biggest single investment in Australia's defence capability in our history. It's a key part of the federal government's national security policy and one that protects our nation and its interests.</p> <p>We're facing the most challenging strategic circumstances since World War II. The federal government's approach is to build, maintain and operate conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines to ensure that our Defence Force is equipped and prepared to confront these challenges. Increasing our military capability is critical, and, put simply, AUKUS is great for our alliance and great for many jobs particularly in the state of South Australia but also right across the country. It will strengthen the ability of each government to support security and defence interests, deepening our ties and providing an added level of deterrence against threats in our region. It allows for deeper information sharing and technology sharing and supports our country's industrial requirements. It allows for integration across security and defence related science, industrial bases and supply chains, and it allows for more jobs across the country, with South Australia remaining the home of Australia's next generation submarines. In fact, the AUKUS plan for Australia will create around 20,000 direct jobs over the next 30 years across industries, the Australian Defence Force and the Australian Public Service.</p> <p>Nuclear powered submarines will be an Australian sovereign capability, commanded by the Royal Australian Navy and sustained by Australians in Australian shipyards. It's fair to say that the government completely rejects this motion, because the government has not wavered from its commitment to protecting Australian sovereignty. In fact, acquiring nuclear powered submarines strengthens our sovereignty, ensuring that our self-reliance will continue and Australia will remain standing on its own two feet.</p> <p>The government has already made significant progress in the past year needed to deliver under AUKUS. I want to run through it this afternoon. We passed the first tranche of enabling legislation back in June last year. We established the Australian Submarine Agency. We introduced four more tranches of legislation to support AUKUS pillars 1 and 2. We supported two cohorts of Royal Australian Navy personnel graduating from the US Nuclear Power School. We finalised the land exchange with South Australia to acquire land for the submarine construction yard in Osborne and began early works on the site. We launched the South Australia defence industry workforce and skills report and we allocated over 4,000 additional Commonwealth-supported places to universities across Australia to build the skills for our build.</p> <p>Importantly, the government is making practical progress under AUKUS pillars to advance capability, including 12 new initiatives announced by AUKUS defence ministers last December. This will ensure collaboration on the development of critical security capabilities, including undersea capabilities, quantum capabilities, artificial intelligence and autonomy, advanced cyber and electronic warfare. Further to that, the government is funding AUKUS pillars 1 and 2 to ensure we back in AUKUS with action.</p> <p>It is important to remind the Senate that the former government wasted the better part of nine years and left Australia with an acute risk of capability gap and no plan to fix it. The Albanese government fundamentally believes Australia's interests lie in shaping a region that is peaceful, stable and prosperous, where no country dominates and no country is dominated. We are committed to maintaining peace, regional development, positive relationships and stability across our region, and to a peaceful and nuclear-weapons-free Pacific.</p> <p>The Albanese government is using all elements of our national power to shape the world in our interests and to shape it for the better. The government has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the AUKUS alliance, and sovereignty is at the heart of national security. Protecting this will remain our priority.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Matt O'Sullivan~~
~~Senator McKim has submitted a proposal under standing order 75, which has been circulated, as follows:~~
The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2024-03-20.158.2) introduced by NSW Senator [David Shoebridge](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_shoebridge) (Greens), which means it failed.
### Motion text
> *That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: That the Albanese government must not continue to spend upwards of $360 billion in public funds on the increasingly unlikely chance we might get AUKUS nuclear submarines, while abandoning our sovereignty and destabilising the region.*
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:
The Albanese Government must not continue to spend upwards of $360 billion in public funds on the increasingly unlikely chance we might get AUKUS nuclear submarines, while abandoning our sovereignty and destabilising the region."
~~Is consideration of the proposal supported?~~
~~ More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—~~
~~David Shoebridge~~
~~I move:~~
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: That the Albanese government must not continue to spend upwards of $360 billion in public funds on the increasingly unlikely chance we might get AUKUS nuclear submarines, while abandoning our sovereignty and destabilising the region.
AUKUS is sinking, and, if the ALP and the coalition continue down their war party path, we are all going to sink with it. A year ago this week, Prime Minister Albanese was over in San Diego coming up with his so-called optimal pathway for AUKUS after agreeing to the Morrison government's election stunt with a no-doc briefing—a two-hour no-doc briefing, courtesy of the former Morrison government. Who would sign Australia up to a $360 billion disaster zone with a no-doc briefing from former prime minister Scott Morrison? Who would do that? It turns out that the then opposition leader, now Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, took Morrison at his word. You can't make this stuff up.
But we are now looking at the first anniversary of this optimal pathway of the AUKUS deal, and on any rational view it should be the last, because, despite the coalition and the ALP's blanket denial, the US will only provide Australia with any of their Virginia class nuclear submarines if they have got enough for themselves. If you want to know the first rule of dealing with United States, assume that they are always going to put their self-interest ahead of ours or any other part of the planet. That's a good starting point.
The fact is that the Albanese government think that they are going to get three to five Virginia class nuclear submarines from the United States in the early 2030s when, at the exact same time, because of decisions that were made by the US in the 1990s, the US are going to have the lowest number of Attack class nuclear subs—significantly less than they need, they say, for their own purposes. In order to deal with that value of production, the US need to be knocking out of the US shipyards 2.3 of these Virginia class submarines a year to have enough submarines by the 2030s to supply the US Navy's needs and have a few left over to supply Australia with these multibillion dollar nuclear submarines.
But what is actually happening? The US Navy, in their most recent budget, have budgeted not for 2.3 or even for two Virginia class submarines. The US Navy have acknowledged reality. They've budgeted for the production of only one Virginia class nuclear submarine in the coming 12 months—just one. They've done that because they know that there isn't the capacity in US dockyards and shipyards to produce more than one. To make enough nuclear submarines for Australia, they need to be knocking out 2.3; they're knocking out one. That's some awkward AUKUS maths there, isn't it. In the early 2030s, the US is going to be asked by Australia, 'Please, sir, can we have some nuclear submarines?' What's the US President going to say? They'll say: 'We haven't got enough for our own purposes. There's no way we're going to be giving them to Australia.'
Hidden in plain sight in the legislation that's been approved for AUKUS in the US Congress is a kill switch that says, if there aren't enough for the US, there's no way in hell they'll give any to Australia. That is despite the Albanese government giving $4.7 billion of Australian public money to the US for US jobs and investment in US shipbuilding. This will include, by the way, investment for the US to build their next intercontinental ballistic class of nuclear submarine, the Columbia class.
The question is: how many billions more will Australia sink into the disaster zone that is the AUKUS submarine deal, pillar I? How many years will be wasted before we finally jump on an off-ramp? The overwhelming majority of Australians don't want us tied unquestionably to the US alliance. They don't want us to spend billions of dollars chasing unicorns. Let's end the deal now, while we can. Let's save some dignity and save some sovereignty.
~~David Fawcett~~
I rise to address this matter of urgency moved by Senator Shoebridge. I'd like to address the points raised—briefly, to start with, and then I will go into some detail. One of the points is that this is abandoning our sovereignty. Having worked in Defence for many years—in fact, I ran our flight test centre—I'm aware of the fact that for many of our systems we have a deep reliance on the original equipment manufacturer, from issues to do with software to spiral upgrade programs. For example, the Joint Strike Fighter would be almost impossible for us to operate in the absence of the combined logistics support system. This no more decreases or throws away our sovereignty than many of the systems that we are purchasing, because the cost to develop and completely own a system here in Australia would absorb more of the budget than Australians would be prepared to fund.
The second point relates to stability in the region. One of the key reasons you have a strong defence force is in fact for deterrence, so that we keep the peace. History tells us that, if you want to deter an authoritarian regime from taking action, you need to: (a) have a strong capability; and (b) demonstrate clear intent that you are prepared to stand up and defend what is in your nation's and your people's interests. The brief that was put together by the Congressional Research Service that actually informed the members of the US Congress to support and vote for the NDAA, which authorises the AUKUS deal, highlights that selling the Virginia class boats to Australia would substantially enhance deterrence of potential Chinese aggression, particularly around North Asia and the Taiwan Strait in our region. So, far from destabilising the region, this would actually enhance stability in our region.
Why is that important? This is the third point I'll come to. Senator Shoebridge's motion talks about $360 billion. That sounds like a lot of money, but you've got to remember that, when Defence cost these projects, they look at the out dollars over a period, and 30 years is the period involved here. That's about 0.15 per cent of GDP looking over those 30 years. To put that in context—$360 billion over those 30 years—we spend around $220 billion each year just on the welfare budget. Looking at the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare figures, on average that's around 10 per cent of GDP. So it's 10 per cent of GDP versus 0.15 per cent of GDP.
Why is stability important? If we look at analysis by David Uren, one of Australia's premier economists, into the impact of tensions and conflict in the Taiwan Strait, he highlights that the detriment to the Australian economy would be a long-term decrease of six percent of GDP and a reduction of 14 per cent of per capita income even if Australia wasn't involved in a conflict but just if the conflict occurred. This is an investment of 0.15 per cent of GDP so that we maintain deterrence and the status quo to avoid conflict. That is something that will keep Australia's economy healthy to the tune of nearly six per cent of GDP. When you look at that cost figure, you've got to understand that it is actually a sensible long-term decision to have a strong military capability that acts as a deterrent.
To the final point of Senator McKim's motion, and as Senator Shoebridge described, there are bottlenecks in the American system at the moment. In fact, the US has decided that, as part of managing their capability, they need to invest. They're looking to invest some $11 billion to increase the capacity at the two shipyards, General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls Industries, that make the Virginia. But they've realised that, if they just keep placing orders and there's already a backlog, then they're committing funds to something that cannot be delivered. The detailed analysis of that decision is that they've accepted the reality that, yes, there is a backlog. So they've said that they won't put the funding in against another vessel, because the reality is that it won't suddenly pop out, but they will invest $11 billion over a period to actually lift the capacity of those shipyards to reach the 2.33 that Senator Shoebridge referred to.
Far from being a waste of money, this is an investment in the stability of our region and in our sovereign capability in partnership with like-minded nations to preserve the interests of Australia and our people.
~~Raff Ciccone~~
I, too, rise to speak on the urgency motion moved by Senator McKim. The AUKUS trilateral security alliance is a fundamental partnership between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom. As the government has made very clear time and time again, AUKUS is the biggest single investment in Australia's defence capability in our history. It's a key part of the federal government's national security policy and one that protects our nation and its interests.
We're facing the most challenging strategic circumstances since World War II. The federal government's approach is to build, maintain and operate conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines to ensure that our Defence Force is equipped and prepared to confront these challenges. Increasing our military capability is critical, and, put simply, AUKUS is great for our alliance and great for many jobs particularly in the state of South Australia but also right across the country. It will strengthen the ability of each government to support security and defence interests, deepening our ties and providing an added level of deterrence against threats in our region. It allows for deeper information sharing and technology sharing and supports our country's industrial requirements. It allows for integration across security and defence related science, industrial bases and supply chains, and it allows for more jobs across the country, with South Australia remaining the home of Australia's next generation submarines. In fact, the AUKUS plan for Australia will create around 20,000 direct jobs over the next 30 years across industries, the Australian Defence Force and the Australian Public Service.
Nuclear powered submarines will be an Australian sovereign capability, commanded by the Royal Australian Navy and sustained by Australians in Australian shipyards. It's fair to say that the government completely rejects this motion, because the government has not wavered from its commitment to protecting Australian sovereignty. In fact, acquiring nuclear powered submarines strengthens our sovereignty, ensuring that our self-reliance will continue and Australia will remain standing on its own two feet.
The government has already made significant progress in the past year needed to deliver under AUKUS. I want to run through it this afternoon. We passed the first tranche of enabling legislation back in June last year. We established the Australian Submarine Agency. We introduced four more tranches of legislation to support AUKUS pillars 1 and 2. We supported two cohorts of Royal Australian Navy personnel graduating from the US Nuclear Power School. We finalised the land exchange with South Australia to acquire land for the submarine construction yard in Osborne and began early works on the site. We launched the South Australia defence industry workforce and skills report and we allocated over 4,000 additional Commonwealth-supported places to universities across Australia to build the skills for our build.
Importantly, the government is making practical progress under AUKUS pillars to advance capability, including 12 new initiatives announced by AUKUS defence ministers last December. This will ensure collaboration on the development of critical security capabilities, including undersea capabilities, quantum capabilities, artificial intelligence and autonomy, advanced cyber and electronic warfare. Further to that, the government is funding AUKUS pillars 1 and 2 to ensure we back in AUKUS with action.
It is important to remind the Senate that the former government wasted the better part of nine years and left Australia with an acute risk of capability gap and no plan to fix it. The Albanese government fundamentally believes Australia's interests lie in shaping a region that is peaceful, stable and prosperous, where no country dominates and no country is dominated. We are committed to maintaining peace, regional development, positive relationships and stability across our region, and to a peaceful and nuclear-weapons-free Pacific.
The Albanese government is using all elements of our national power to shape the world in our interests and to shape it for the better. The government has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the AUKUS alliance, and sovereignty is at the heart of national security. Protecting this will remain our priority.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~