Australia’s Aukus deal safe for now, but split within Labor reveals ‘grave problems ahead’
- Opposition towards Aukus by members of Australia’s governing Labor Party, anti-war groups and affiliated unions forced a debate after bubbling for months
- While attempts to remove Aukus from Labor’s policy platform did not succeed at the party conference, the growing criticism will be a concern for PM Anthony Albanese
Opposition about Aukus from the party’s rank-and-file, anti-war groups and affiliated unions has been building up for months, eventually forcing a debate on the deal at the Labor Party’s triennial conference on Friday.
Both Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and former leader Scott Morrison – who first agreed to the deal – have been criticised for taking on the expensive taxpayer-funded A$368 billion (US$237.2 billion) pact, without much parliamentary or public consultation. The debate on Friday is the first time it has been openly discussed.
But attempts to remove Aukus from Labor’s policy platform on Friday did not succeed given most in the party supported Aukus, although MP Josh Wilson broke ranks to openly oppose the deal, while there were interjections of disagreements throughout the debate.
Wilson said the decision to acquire the submarines was not justified and posed many risks, including harming Australia’s commitments to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
“We must continue to bring that kind of searching and sometimes difficult debate to these matters, which more than some other topics frankly require greater scrutiny rather than less, and should never ever be advanced on the basis that they are the decision-making preserve of some defence and security establishment,” he said.
“Deterrence is not a one word justification for every defence position.”
There was strong endorsement from within the government for a speech by Defence Minister Richard Marles, who said that without Aukus, Australia would be more exposed and self-reliance would be undermined. “It is a hard choice, but it is actually a clear choice,” he said.
When Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy spoke, claiming that “strength deters war” and that “the arms race has already started”, party members yelled out, “so don’t join it”.
Members of the party, including Michael Wright, the national secretary of the Electrical Trades Union with more than 60,000 members, questioned if Aukus was the best way to secure national interest.
During the debate, 200 people protested outside the conference building against the Albanese government for failing to honour pre-election pledges to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and to address war powers reform.
02:52
China warns Aukus against going down ‘dangerous road’ over nuclear-powered submarine pact
Albanese, who was widely expected to quell the discontent about Aukus, particularly given the factional support he has, made an unscheduled intervening speech at the debate.
“A partnership with two of Australia’s oldest friends, through Aukus, and an enhancement of the alliance that is the heart of one of the three pillars of our foreign policy, is consistent with the Labor values that I have been a part of my whole life,” he said.
“If you’ve come to the position, as I have, that Australia, as an island continent, needs submarines,” Albanese said. “And I have come to the position, based upon advice and analysis, that nuclear-powered submarines are what Australia needs in the future.”
Despite the failed attempt to remove Aukus, the debate had opened a can of worms, exposed unanswered questions and given the anti-Aukus more momentum, the party’s lobby group, Labor Against War’s convenor Marcus Strom said.
“It has revealed a broader and deeper coalition against Aukus in Labor,” he said, adding that it was not just the many non-caucus branch members who were concerned about Aukus.
Strom said a lot of the deal did not make sense. For example, it would cost Australian jobs A$18.4 million to create one Aukus job, while most of the first jobs would go to the “San Diego shipyards”, he said, referring to the US’ submarine manufacturing base where the nuclear-powered submarines would be built.
“But probably one of the most terrifying … is how it destabilises the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Australia will become the first non-nuclear armed country to get access to weapons-grade uranium,” he said. “What’s to stop Brazil, Iran, South Africa, you name it, to say, ‘we need them as well’?”
History has shown that such military pledges can be reversed. Former Australian leader Bob Hawke, under pressure from his government in 1985, withdrew from an agreement to allow the US to monitor a missile test on Australian soil.
Not to be outdone, other voices joined the anti-Aukus chorus.
“This was a decision that was made in a smoky backroom … advised by US military officials,” Greens senator David Shoebridge told a press conference.
Given its secrecy, former Labor senator Doug Cameron and other former Labor members have penned an open letter asking for a parliamentary inquiry into Aukus.
“The prime minister and defence minister have grave problems ahead as opposition to Aukus grows,” said Annette Brownlie, spokeswoman for Independent and Peaceful Australia Network.
