AUKUS

Sharkie acknowledged the need for transparency but argued that AUKUS was vital for national defence and South Australia's economic future. Sharkie highlighted the creation of skilled jobs and the growth of the defence industry in her state, citing specific investments in education and infrastructure. Sharkie emphasised that the partnership with the UK and US was enduring and that Australia must hold its course despite political disagreements.

Clutterham argued that AUKUS was essential for national security and that the government had been transparent about risks and delivery challenges. Clutterham defended the decision to acquire three Block IV Virginia class submarines as a cost-effective measure that streamlined operations. Clutterham highlighted the job creation potential in South Australia and the broader benefits of Pillar 2 technologies, asserting that the partnership remained strong despite US foreign policy shifts.

Scamps raised concerns about the lack of parliamentary scrutiny and transparency surrounding the $370 billion commitment. Scamps questioned whether nuclear submarines were necessary and highlighted the absence of a nuclear waste management plan. Scamps noted that the US was struggling to meet its own production targets and that Australia was becoming more dependent on US strategic objectives. Scamps supported an independent public inquiry led by Peter Garrett to address these gaps.

Burnell framed AUKUS as a nation-building project that would drive economic growth and create skilled jobs across Australia. Burnell highlighted the investment in advanced manufacturing and the transformation of the Osborne shipyard in South Australia. Burnell argued that the partnership strengthened regional stability and that the program represented a generational investment in Australian skills and prosperity.

Le criticised the government for locking in a $368 billion commitment while cutting domestic services like the NDIS. Le questioned the sustainability of the program and the lack of guarantee that submarines would be delivered. Le highlighted the flow of billions offshore to US and UK industrial bases while Australian manufacturers struggled. Le called for urgent scrutiny to ensure AUKUS remained in Australia's national interest.

Georganas praised AUKUS as a core pillar of national security and a driver of economic complexity and skilled jobs in South Australia. Georganas acknowledged potential hiccups but argued that the project would benefit the economy and strengthen bilateral relationships. Georganas emphasised the long-term benefits for manufacturing and the strategic importance of the partnership with the US and UK.

Ryan supported the principle of AUKUS but criticised the lack of transparency and the shift to second-hand submarines. Ryan highlighted legal hurdles in the US that could prevent submarine transfers and noted that the US Navy's shipbuilding plan did not account for AUKUS commitments. Ryan called for a full parliamentary review of Pillar 1 to assess timelines, costs, and risks.

Mascarenhas argued that AUKUS was a fundamental shift in Australia's defence capability and that the government had established mechanisms for parliamentary scrutiny. Mascarenhas highlighted progress at HMAS Stirling, including maintenance work on allied submarines and infrastructure investments. Mascarenhas emphasised the job creation potential in Western Australia and the development of a skilled workforce through education and training programs.

Steggall called for greater transparency and accountability regarding AUKUS costs and delivery risks. Steggall noted the lack of detail on Pillar 2 and the uncertainty surrounding the acquisition of second-hand submarines. Steggall highlighted the absence of a public release of the ONI report and the need to consider broader security drivers like climate risk. Steggall urged the government to provide a clear plan for defence capability if US production capacity did not increase.