Media
|
Transcripts
June 4, 2026
STEPHEN CENATIEMPO: There's been a bit of controversy over the AUKUS agreement centering on a major structural shake-up where Australia is now going to require three second-hand in-service US Virginia-class submarines instead of originally the plan, well the original plan was to have a mix of new and used vessels. To talk to us about this we're joined by the Shadow Minister for Defence Senator James Paterson. James, good morning.
SENATOR JAMES PATERSON: Thank you Stephen.
CENATIEMPO: Look, I want to talk more broadly about AUKUS for the moment and I have real concerns about this and I think Ed Husic has kind of belled the cat here. Now, he's probably got a different view on this than you, but is AUKUS still viable? Particularly given that well, now we're going to get used submarines rather than new ones. The US is transitioning away from Virginia-class construction to Columbia-class. And the UK doesn't seem to now have the capability to go through with the AUKUS-class submarines. Is this thing going to eventually come to fruition?
PATERSON: I absolutely still believe that AUKUS is on track, that we will get nuclear propelled submarines and that it is the most powerful and important capability for an island nation like Australia. But I am really worried with how Labor is mismanaging it, and I'm particularly worried with how they're mismanaging public support for AUKUS. I think most Australians want AUKUS to succeed, but most Australians are looking at the way in which Labor is failing to invest adequately in defence. They're changing the goalposts on things like AUKUS, they're not being transparent about it and that's causing them to be cynical and distrustful towards the government on something that is a multi-generational project that has to sustain political support over decades. And this failure to secure that social licence for a critical program like this could potentially undermine the program politically over the long term. I'm very worried about that.
CENATIEMPO: There's a number of critics of this. And we've now got this new people's inquiry led by a bunch of people who are anti-nuclear energy. So you can only imagine what their inquiry is going to say, led by former Labor Minister Peter Garrett, who as we all remember, was the leader of the Nuclear Disarmament Party. So, but ASPI have also been critical of the fact that there seems to be no plan B. They are suggesting in the short term, we should be leasing traditional powered submarines from Japan to at least get us through this initial phase. I mean, do we need to look at broadening our horizons here beyond AUKUS when it comes to the submarine program?
PATERSON: So there is a very grave risk of a capability gap emerging over the next two decades as we're effectively going to try and transition between three different types of submarines. We've got the current Collins-class submarines which are undergoing what's called a life of type extension that's been badly mismanaged by this government over the last four years and it may mean that they are not available or very few of them are available in the late 2020s and early 2030s. There are then risks on the delivery timetable of Virginia-class submarines, although I ultimately believe they will arrive. And then we have this hugely ambitious undertaking called SSN-AUKUS which is the construction of nuclear submarines in Australia in partnership with the UK which is one of the most ambitious industrial exercises we've ever undergone as a country and that will have risks as well. So capability gaps could emerge if there's any delays in each of those three programs and it could mean Australia is unable to engage in undersea warfare or in long-range stealth strike and so while I wouldn't advocate for a plan B, I think we've got to stick with plan A. What I am advocating for is prudent contingency plans of supplementary capabilities that could serve alongside our AUKUS submarines but also fill a capability gap if those capability gaps arise.
CENATIEMPO: So doesn't that suggest that the government's move towards used submarines is the right way to go? For a couple of reasons. Firstly, if they're already existing, then we can get them earlier. But secondly, we don't have to go through all of the shakedown operations that we would with new submarines. Isn't this a good move?
PATERSON: So the Vice Admiral, Jonathan Mead, who's the head of the submarine agency, appeared before Senate estimates last night, and he made a very logically defensible case for why you would want three Virginia submarines from the same block or the same generation, and why you'd want them to be in service. It's easier to manage, they are still complex, large beasts, but they're not as complicated as some of the newest Virginia class submarines that are coming off the line for a country like Australia, which has never operated a nuclear submarine before, this is a more manageable plan. The problem is that all the arguments he made and the government has been making over the last couple of days, you could have made it anytime over the last three years. But the government didn't. They told us that their original plan for two in service and one new submarine was the optimal pathway. It now turns out, apparently, that wasn't Australia's preference all along. We apparently always wanted the three in-service Virginia-class submarines. We just weren't transparent with the Parliament or the people of Australia about that, and I think that's a problem.
CENATIEMPO: Ok, well which comes back to the broader transparency problem with this government, but are we ready to receive these submarines because we still haven't got our bases in place have we?
PATERSON: I'm really worried about this, so we've got some critical defence infrastructure projects underway in our country. HMAS Stirling, which is what's called Submarine Rotational Force West in Fremantle, which will ultimately rotate through the first American-crewed Virginia class submarines in 12 months time. Then you've got Henderson Shipyards, also in WA, which will hopefully be able to do sustainment and maintenance of those submarines. And then you've got the Osborne Shipyards in South Australia, which are ultimately going to do the Australian-UK SSN-AUKUS submarines. These are massive infrastructure undertakings. I have no confidence that they are running on time or on budget and I'm deeply worried that if we fail to hit any of those three milestones that that will jeopardise the program. The core of the problem here Stephen is Labor is not spending enough on defence. They are putting more effort into accounting tricks to dress up their defence expenditure than actually increasing defence expenditure.
CENATIEMPO: James what about the, I guess the reprioritisation, we're talking about a 10 billion dollar adjustment which we're suggesting, well some of it's going to integrate an air and missile defence systems we've got C-27 Spartan aircraft, and then other unspecified adjustments but most experts I talk to say we should be moving in this particular direction is this a good move?
PATERSON: So there are $10 billion of cuts by the Albanese government over the medium term in their latest defence strategy, but they've only told us now two of the capabilities that have changed. They are ditching the Spartan aircraft, although they don't know what they're going to replace it with, and they have changed the integrated air and missile defence. Instead of buying a battle management system, they're going to invest in interceptors instead. But there are 18 other delays or de-scoping and three other programs that are being divested or cut altogether and I tried to get answers yesterday from the defence department about this and they could not tell me, they refused to tell me what these other cuts are. And I think Australians deserve to know what capability are we delaying, de-scoping or cutting altogether but this government refuses to tell Australian people.
CENATIEMPO: I know you've got to get back into estimates, I appreciate your time Senator, we'll talk again soon.
PATERSON: Thanks for having me.