Australia news live: Aukus subs deal includes commitment to … – The Guardian

Peter Dutton then says the Coalition is committed to the Aukus agreement:

I want to give this commitment to the Australian people today that come hell or high water, the Coalition will support Aukus.

We were the authors of it.

We give full credit to the Government for continuing it and arriving at today.

Regardless of the next election, if the Coalition is successful or not, Aukus will continue and it must because the times demand it and we will provide support to the Government when we’re in Opposition and when we’re in Government, we expect the support from the Labor Party as well and I believe it will be forthcoming.

I’ve worked with the Obama Administration, with the Trump Administration, and with the Biden Administration and I can tell you in relation to national security matters, it’s completely seamless.

The commitment of the Republicans and the Democrats, the Labor Party and the Coalition has underpinned the Five Eyes relationship and the alliance between Australia and the United States for decades and it must into the future.

We’re a population of 25.8 million people and we have to… if we’re trying to project every scenario over the course of the next century, it’s impossible to see in any of those difficult scenarios where you can be a sole trader.

You need to have that relationship with a trusted partner in the US and the UK. Canada, New Zealand, India, Japan, many others in the region now as well. It’s very important that those relationships continue so I do share the Government’s optimism.

Would Dutton support a deferral of the stage-three tax cuts?

Well, the government went to the last election with a commitment for the tax cuts and they knew about Aukus.

Aukus was something that they received in their lap from the Coalition, and they knew about the expenses in relation to Aukus and they knew about Treasury and Finance from day one and still made a commitment to the tax cuts.

If they’re going to walk away from the tax cuts, then they should be very clear about that and we’ll no doubt find that out in the budget.

Where does Peter Dutton think the money should come from, if not defence?

The government has a budget coming up in May, so no doubt they’ll detail some of this, if they can identify savings within the budget. They’ll do that, no doubt. If proposing new taxes or reduction of debt they’ll do that.

They’re the government and they’ll no doubt provide all of that detail to you.

I think the most important thing here is we need to achieve the capability given the circumstances we’re in at the moment and everybody agrees that with that.

That’s why we started Aukus negotiations in the first place. It needs to be done at the least possible cost in the quickest time possible.

That’s what the government will lay out.

At the moment, listening to some of the rhetoric this morning, I think there’s a magic pudding episode going on here that somehow, the money is going to appear or it will be cost-neutral. This is not a cost-neutral decision and the government should be clear to the Australian public about that.

And appropriately, the money is being spent because the times demand it. This is the most significant undertaking in our country’s history.

We need to be transparent with the Australian public that there is a cost attached to it because we want to preserve peace in our region and we want to provide stability and country for our near neighbours and for our region.

To the questions for Peter Dutton (and shadow defence minister Andrew Hastie)

Q: You talk about about not cutting elsewhere in defence, but is it not the case there’s always a fair bit of fat around in defence that some savings could be found without halving operational capabilities and capacities.

Dutton:

I’m sure there is some savings and the government can detail that. But for example when we from were in government we put just under $10b into the Australian Signals Directorate. Long before there is any kinetic action, and any, you know, possible scenario into the future or naval blockades or whatever it is that people are talking about, you’re likely to see cyber attacks. And – cyberattacks and denial of service is here, attacks on our infrastructure, all of that is the reality. And so you need to make sure for example that they’re not going to strip money out of space, which is an incredibly important element of the government’s defences, not just in sea and land, but in the virtual world and space that we need to be careful of our capacities and capabilities and again, I think it’s important that the government is planning to strip money out of defence, it’s important they outline that and what needs to be prioritised and what it means for local companies and defence manufacturers here in Australia that are part of that important supply chain.

Opposition leader queries Labor’s lack of commitment to east-coast base

Peter Dutton also has questions over why the government won’t commit to an east coast submarine base:

There is obviously a significant question-mark hanging over the government’s commitment to the east coast base and the deputy prime minister has been clear about that this morning.

I suspect what is happening here is that they’re delaying an announcement on that until after the New South Wales state election.

I think the Labor party, frankly, at the moment, is talking out of both sides of their mouth in relation to the east coast base and they might see that as a saving so why wouldn’t they commit to it when they’ve committed to WA and to South Australia? Because that was an important part of the original considerations. It was also an important part of trying to attract a workforce on the east coast.

And this was clear advice from Navy at the time. Most people want to live in WA but not everybody wants to live on the west coast and the idea of increasing the workforce without a base on the east coast from a Navy advice perspective was difficult.

So it was to augment the workforce in the west and to attract people into being a submariner which is obviously an incredibly important part of delivering the Aukus program.

Here is what Paul Karp gave you a taste of a little earlier – Dutton talking about the cost transparency:

We have to make sure that there is transparency and honesty with the Australian people about the cost involved in Aukus.

It’s not credible for the government to say that there’s no net impact, even over the forward estimates. We can’t allow Labor to cannibalise the Defence Force to pay for Aukus.

It’s not an either/or option.

Let’s be very clear – when Labor was last in government, they reduced spending by 10.5% in real terms which brought spending down to 1.5% of GDP in defence.

We built that up from the day we were elected to come in at 2% or just over 2% and that put us in a credible position to do this deal with the United States and the United Kingdom.

There’s no way in the world if you were spending $10 billion a year less in defence that United States or UK would have seen us as credible partners in the construction or delivery of the nuclear-powered submarines.

That’s very clear and we can’t allow Labor to go back to a circumstance where they’re going to cannibalise Army or Navy or Air Force to pay for this.

So there is an honest conversation that the Government has to have.

There’s no magic pudding.

There’s no way in which you can sugar-coat it. There is extra money that needs to be spent in defence and the United Kingdom has been honest about this, as you saw with prime minister Sunak’s announcement to increase their spending to 2.5% of GDP.

So that is incredibly important and you will require a lot of detail from the government in the run-up to the May budget not just in the forward estimates but into the out years as well. I think this is an important part of the conversation.

OK, after a press conference about how excited South Australia is, featuring the SA premier and Penny Wong, we move to Peter Dutton in the conga-line of press conferences being held across two time zones today.

Thanks for sticking with us as we work through all this information for you.

Dutton:

This is a necessary decision that’s been taken by the government and Aukus is a huge achievement. It’s been five years, or four years in the making. It’s been quite a remarkable endeavour, across three countries over that period of time.

Dutton goes through his list of people to thank, which of course includes former prime minister, Scott Morrison.

Peter Dutton is speaking on the announcement – but he has questions on the cost neutrality of the agreement over the first four years:

Military spending shows poverty is a political choice: Antipoverty Centre

The cost is a conversation Australians will need to be prepared to have, for decades. And the cost of that cost on other services and opportunities.

One of the reasons we have heard (repeatedly and across both major political parties) that we can’t afford to raise welfare rates is because Australia can’t afford it. And yet it seems Australia can afford things, when it chooses to.

The Antipoverty Centre has responded on that point:

The government has proven that poverty is a political choice with its latest military spending announcement.

$368 billion for five submarines over 30 years we can afford. Keeping people housed, fed and the supports they need to survive? Apparently we can’t afford.

People are struggling to keep a roof over their heads as major parties prioritise investors over single parents keeping their kids housed and in school. Neither party will even dare to consider investing in increasing our public housing waitlist for the ever growing list.

People are starving themselves to feed their children as the cost of living soars and both major parties are on a unity ticket to keep tax cuts for the wealthy. Yet Labor won’t take extremely modest action to rein in the most extreme tax breaks for large super accounts until after the next election – if they win.

‘We have no choice’ but to pay cost of Aukus subs: Joe Hockey

The ABC just played a little from former US ambassador (and treasurer) Joe Hockey’s interview on ABC radio RN Breakfast this morning about the cost of the submarine agreement. He said Australia has no option but to pay:

Well, we have no choice. We have no choice. When it comes to defending national security. You have to allocate a certain amount of money. We increased it when we came into government in 2013.

Q: But this is a dramatic increase.

I don’t know if it is, actually.

Peter Dutton will be responding on behalf of the opposition very soon.

‘We’re talking about nuclear power, not nuclear weapons’, Biden emphasises again

Joe Biden’s remarks are a lot shorter:

I think everything you said about it is accurate. I want to point out one other thing – I want the world to understand – you and I fully understand, as well as the prime minister of Great Britain – that we’re talking about nuclear power, not nuclear weapons. It’s critical that the world understands that and we work with the IAEA, they sign off … on what we’re doing. And I look forward to coming down there.

Albanese:

It will be fun, too.

The questions from the media begin in earnest. That part of the meeting isn’t shown (it will be a little later).

Aukus is an economic plan as well as defence and security plan, PM says

Back to the US now, and Anthony Albanese and Joe Biden are holding one of those awkward meetings where they say nice things about each other in front of the cameras.

Albanese:

We look forward to welcoming you down in Australia for the Quad meeting in May. I’m sure it will be a very successful visit and this is our fourth meeting in, I haven’t yet been prime minister for a year – so, we’ve been in very regular contact and developed a personal friendship and relationship of trust, as well, which is something that should be there between our two great nations.

And today what we’ve really done is just to demonstrate a next chapter in our history together.

John Curtin, one of my great Labor prime minister predecessors during World War II, said famously, ‘We turn to America, we look to America in our time of need.’ And ever since then, we have stood side by side and today, I think, is very important, very significant, that you have agreed for just the second time in history to share this technology.

And I think it will make a difference in advancing security and stability in the region. But also we, of course, share a common interest in rebuilding manufacturing in our respective countries.

And we see this is a very much an economic plan, not just a defence and security plan. This hi-tech manufacturing capacity that we’re building will be really important going forward.

When we talk about national security, we have shared your language about climate change being a national security issue as well which is of course the entry ticket into credibility in the Pacific in particular.

We have spent our first year in office really rebuilding relationships in the region based upon our action on climate change. Your inflation reduction act is the most significant piece of legislation ever on climate. We’re trying to also deal with the challenge which is there.

We so much look forward to welcoming you and Prime Minister Modi and Prime Minister Kishida down to Australia in just a couple of months now. And then I look forward to being at Apec as well, you’re hosting that later this year. So we’re going to see a lot of each other on an ongoing basis.

Biden says “that’s a very good thing”. Albanese agrees.

Transparency has been welcomed by regional leaders, defence minister says

Australia has made 60 or so phone calls to regional leaders to talk through the agreement and any concerns.

Is that enough? Richard Marles says:

I’m really loath to get myself into a space where I’m speaking on behalf of other countries. So ultimately, you’re asking how are they reacting? I’ll ultimately leave it for them to give that reaction. I’d simply say that an awful lot of effort has gone in here. You know, we have done a lot of diplomacy, and the foreign minister has led that. We feel like we’re in the best position we can be in, in terms of the acceptance of our neighbours and the world of the decision that we are making.

I can say that in terms of the conversations I’ve had, and I think Pat would be the same, and I’ve spoken with both Penny [Wong] and the prime minister – they’ve all been pretty constructive calls.

We’ve all been very comforted by the sorts of conversations that we’ve had. And I think the effort that we have put in, in relation to providing transparency here to our neighbours and to our friends, has been welcomed. But it is ultimately a matter for them to provide the definite reaction, obviously.

Pat Conroy:

I think Richard is absolutely right. And it’s not for me to speak on behalf of the leaders of the Pacific. I just make [ two points]; they have generally welcomed the opportunity to be briefed ahead of the announcement. The gesture of that is very important. Operating in a transparent and respectful manner is critical, and I think it’s something that this government is very committed to.

Secondly, our emphasis on the fact that what we’re doing is completely consistent with the treaty of Rarotonga is there and everything is consistent with it and the commitment to non-nuclear proliferation.

‘There is no decision about an east coast base’: Marles

Where will the east coast submarine base be?

Marles says people need to chill:

I’m aware that there’s been a lot of conjecture about this particularly in certain parts of the east coast. Let me say this – I think everybody who is engaged in that needs to take a very deep breath. This is a long way into the future.

There is no decision about an east coast base which forms part of the decision that we have announced today.

It is the case that the former government announced the need for an east coast base, but we are taking our time here, and all of that is a long way into the future.

‘Sovereign Australian workforce’ to be trained to build submarines: Conroy

Pat Conroy says building up Australia’s capability also includes building up the workforce:

The simple answer is, we’re going to train Australians to do this. As I said, apprentices starting their training today could work on this project for their entire working life. We’re going to be training Australians to do this and we’re confident that we’re investing now to deliver that.

We’ve talked about – there might need to be some discussions around visa arrangements to facilitate workers from Australia working on US and UK submarines and vice versa.

But as Richard said, at the end of this Aukus process, we need to go from three construction yards across the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States able to make nuclear submarines to four – ie Adelaide. And part of that is having a sovereign Australian workforce that is part of that industrial capability.

That’s our plan.

We’ll look at visa arrangements if we need to, around facilitating work experience and plugging gaps. But we’ll be training Australians to do this job.

Sovereignty not compromised by sharing defence tech, Marles says

Australia will not provide its own nuclear fuel for the submarines. What does that mean for our sovereignty?

Marles:

This has been an important part of the consideration that is we’ve had in relation to how we have structured all of this. Sovereignty has been totally central to the decisions that we’ve made.

We want the best sovereign outcome that we can possibly have.

Now, when we think about sovereignty with defence platforms generally, people need to understand, as I’m sure everyone does, that we often import technology of various kinds to operate within our defence platforms, from around the world. From the US, but in fact, from around the world.

So defence forces generally now around the world use shared technologies. And there is a sovereignty implementation to that if you compare it to times past where everything was being made and developed within one country.

That’s just not the world in which we live today. But a sealed nuclear reactor which will exist for the life of the submarine itself is an excellent sovereign outcome. Because it doesn’t need to be refuelled.

In other words, we get the reactor and it’s there, and it’s there until the end. And it does offer the opportunity for us to do the full maintenance of the submarine during the life of the submarine.

And so, you’re seeing through the sovereignty lens, this is as good an outcome as you would want and it stands very much on par with the kind of sovereignty outcomes that we get through the importation of other technology and other defence platforms.