MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Ms LE (Fowler) (15:43): 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.