MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Ms STEGGALL (Warringah) (16:04): 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. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): This discussion has now concluded.