Cook heads for UK to bolster AUKUS deal and build more nuclear submarines in WA
West Australian Premier Roger Cook has announced a defence mission to the UK in a bid to bolster the precarious AUKUS agreement and lobby for more nuclear-powered submarines to be built in WA.
The partnership between Australia, the UK and US has been in limbo since President Donald Trump took office and said he plans to review it.
Since the inception of AUKUS in 2021, all three leaders at the time – Scott Morrison, Boris Johnson and Joe Biden – have either lost elections or left politics. Despite this, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and his UK counterpart Keir Starmer remain in favour of the deal.
The state government says defence is set to become WA's second-largest industry after mining – surpassing agriculture – and lobbying for UK Astute-class submarines to be built in WA will be a major focus of five-day talks.
'The defence industry is critical to our plans to diversify our economy, and that's why this trip to strengthen AUKUS ties and unlock opportunities for local businesses is so important,' he said.
Loading
'We are working to make more things right here in WA, attract more international investment, and make our State one of the best in the world to do business.'
Defence Industries Minister Paul Papalia will join Cook on the mission, after he travelled to the US for similar talks in April where he said WA was also on the cusp of entering America's Virginia-class submarine manufacturing industry.
'From submarines to frigates, defence is Made in WA, and our local businesses are strongly positioned to support the construction and sustainment of Astute-class submarines,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AU Financial Review
an hour ago
- AU Financial Review
Patent ‘trolls' come for Canva as it prepares for share sales
Canva is being targeted by a Canadian serial litigant alleging the Australian design software giant has stolen its patents for an artificial intelligence voice generator that is now integrated into its platform. Cedar Lane Technologies has made similar claims against hundreds of companies over the last five years including Amazon, Zoom and Huawei. Its lawyer, Isaac Rabicoff, has lodged separate patent claims against Canva in Texas on behalf of other companies over the last two months.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Self-interested despots and unfettered crimes
To submit a letter to The Age, email letters@ Please include your home address and telephone number below your letter. No attachments. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published. MIDDLE EAST There is much to dislike about Iran's leaders, but they are hardly alone. Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin are three leaders who come to mind, each with little regard for the inconveniences of traditional statesmanship or democracy. All three have nuclear weapons, and little inclination to exercise self-control in the use of unbridled warfare. One has to ponder what gives this trio of warmongers the right to exist and to pursue their own nuclear ambitions while denying those choices to others. Given their respective track records, there is a massive hypocrisy in any one of the three making claims to the moral high ground. Donald Trump has often claimed he has the power to end wars and yet he admires and supports those who start them. Seldom, in the modern history of mankind, have we seen such a collection of amoral, self-interested despots inflicting such unfettered crimes against humanity. Bob Thomas, Blackburn South Can't leaders see war begets war? After 14 months of weekly protests touting their agenda ″from the mountains to the sea, Palestine would be free″, the pro-Palestine protesters exposed themselves as unreasonable, given their lack of helpful suggestions as to how Israelis could also live in peace without constant fear from neighbouring countries. To some extent, I can understand why the current acting chief of the Israeli Defence Force in an interview on ABC TV 7.30 last Thursday complained about being surrounded by bad neighbours. However, it was hardly a good neighbourly act by Israel to start occupying, then developing the West Bank with apartments, was it? All the while, leaving Palestinians in daily misery. Talk about how not to win friends and influence people, not least the oppressed Palestinian women and children who are clearly used as pawns by Hamas. All the while, the UN has once again shown how useless it is as any kind of international peace-making body. All the while, Israel, too, perhaps encouraged by the current president of the United States, has shown more interest in once and for all destruction of its enemies than the return of the hostages. In some respects, who could blame them, given it was Hamas who escalated the conflict by their action on October 7, 2023? But for there to be peace, we have to ask why so many on both sides of this conflict still think the answer is yet more war. Can they not see war begets war? Do they not remember how good life can be to live in peace? Or perhaps they've never had the chance. Bernadette George, Mildura Obama's nuclear deal stacked in Iran's favour Your correspondent asks why Iran should deal with Israel or the US after Trump dumped the Obama nuclear deal (Letters, 22/6). That deal was stacked in favour of Iran and would have allowed Iran to recommence uranium enrichment this year and remove all restrictions by 2030. Even so, Iran was in serious breach of the agreement when Trump dumped it. It had not come clean about all elements of its nuclear program as required, and wasn't allowing even the limited inspections required by the deal. Now it has been racing towards nuclear weapons and rapidly escalating ballistic missile production, while continuing to use its terror proxies to cause violence across the Middle East. That's why Israel and the US, rightly, attacked. They have made it clear their aim is not regime-change, but to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, and will negotiate to achieve that. However, Iran has shown it is not interested. Shane Shmuel, Elsternwick THE FORUM Votes for the 44 towers ″There are no votes in public housing″: This was a mantra heard in corridors and meeting rooms of Victoria's Office of Housing throughout my almost 20 years' service throughout the '80s and '90s. Despite the trope, both state and federal governments supported its expansion under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement. Governments understood the transformative power of quality, affordable, secure and well-located housing for low-income families. Just ask the prime minister. In Melbourne, the 44 high-rise towers were and are a crucial part of the public housing palette. They are the welcoming homes of new arrivals to this country, they are the communities that support and nurture generations of low-income families and children. Even Jeff Kennett was convinced they should stay in public ownership despite his policy in 1992 to hand them over to private developers and sell off the remaining public housing stock to existing tenants. Now, at a time when a chasm of inequality has opened in our community, the towers and their communities are under threat from another government which sees no votes in retaining them. To dispose of the towers and their communities when other cheaper, better, less disruptive options for upgrade and renovation have been present ad nauseam to government, is a sacrilege. There are votes in both retaining the 44 towers and public housing more broadly in public hands because when they are gone, the homeless camps, the poverty, and desperate crime on our streets will be a reminder of the failure of governments to do so. Craig Horne, Fitzroy North Chalmers' boosterism Before the May election, Treasurer Jim Chalmers was patting himself on the back about the surpluses Labor had achieved and how responsible Labor had been. He said income tax cuts were a good idea and mocked the Coalition for opposing them. A few months later, he says there is a need for budget repair and that he is canvassing options for tax reform. Some commentators dismissed Chalmers' boosterism before the election: They argued Labor had squandered a revenue bonanza from higher commodity prices and bracket creep. It looks like they were correct. Alun Breward, Malvern East Responsible move In criticising the Labor government for its economic management and policies, columnist Parnell Palme McGuinness (″ Watch Libs blow golden opportunity ″, 22/6) demonstrates how difficult she and other conservative commentators make it for any changes to be made by government. She accuses Labor of ″trashing its own legacy by changing the rules on superannuation″. As she would know, those affected by the changes are a very small minority of very rich taxpayers who have taken advantage of concessional tax rates for superannuation. If the income tax or capital gains or other tax arrangements had a greater benefit, that's where their money would be. It's totally responsible, indeed obligatory, for governments of any colour to review major policies to see that the policy objective for a secure retirement is met. It was never the aim of superannuation to be a major tax minimisation vehicle. Megan Stoyles, Aireys Inlet
West Australian
2 hours ago
- West Australian
Scott Morrison: Donald Trump's strikes on Iran a necessary measure to achieve peace, not war in Middle East
The recent strike by the United States on Iran's nuclear facilities marks a critical turning point in global security. It is not just a matter for the Middle East or for U.S. foreign policy. It is a test for all nations that rely on the strength and credibility of the international rules-based order and the western alliance for their security, Australia included. Let me be clear, this strike was not an act of provocation. It was a necessary measure, undertaken as a last resort by a President who wants peace, not war. The purpose was clear, to disrupt the capabilities of a brutal authoritarian regime that has openly defied international norms, supported terrorist proxies, and pursued nuclear weapons with increasing brazenness. In times of geopolitical crisis, clarity of purpose and principle is essential. That is why I was compelled to speak out following the U.S. operation. What we have seen instead from the Australian government is a concerning lack of clarity and a reluctance to define where Australia stands when it matters most. It is in times like this when allies look around to see who is with them. For a country like ours, deeply integrated into global economic and security networks, reliant on open trade routes and US led allied deterrence, strategic ambiguity is not a strength. It is a vulnerability. Throughout my time as Prime Minister, I took the view that Australia's interests are best served when we speak plainly and act decisively in defence of our values. That is why we stood firmly with our allies against China's economic coercion. It is why we invested in AUKUS, strengthening our sovereign defence capabilities and deepening our technological integration with the U.S. and UK. it is why we worked so closely with our Indo-Pacific partners through the Quad to uphold regional stability. It is why we stood with Israel against those who sought their annihilation. In this context, the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities must be understood for what it is: an act of strategic deterrence, grounded in the reality that Iran has long been operating outside the bounds of good faith diplomacy. It is what President Trump meant when he spoke of peace through strength. For years, Iran has methodically violated its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), enriching uranium well beyond civilian thresholds, restricting IAEA inspections, and hardening its facilities in preparation for exactly this kind of confrontation. Attempts to revive the nuclear deal have failed, not because the West abandoned diplomacy, but because Tehran refused to comply with the very terms it had previously accepted. The question facing policymakers in Washington and, indeed, in Canberra is not whether we prefer diplomacy over conflict. Of course we do. It is whether diplomacy alone can halt a regime that has no intention of negotiating in good faith. At a certain point, the cost of inaction outweighs the risk of confrontation. That is precisely where the United States found itself. Given Iran's refusal to cooperate with international monitors and its aggressive posture across the region, including arming Hezbollah, enabling Hamas to commit atrocities on innocent Israelis, supporting Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping, the Trump administration concluded that a targeted strike was the only viable option left. Only the US could have taken this step and President Trump should be commended for his courage and leadership, especially by allies. This was not a broad campaign. It was a calibrated operation aimed at degrading the most advanced elements of Iran's nuclear infrastructure specifically, targeting Natanz, Isfahan and Fordow. The objective was not regime change. It was to halt Iran's progression toward nuclear weapons capability and to send a clear message that the West's red lines still mean something. Yet here in Australia, the official response from the government has been muted. No strong statement of support for the United States. That silence is telling. It suggests a reluctance to confront difficult choices and to support our most important ally in the righteousness of the actions that have taken. I believe that such an approach is short-sighted and fundamentally misjudges the nature of the challenge we face. Australia cannot afford to be passive in moments like this. Our voice matters, not just because we are a U.S. ally, but because we are a middle power with global responsibilities. We sit at the intersection of East and West, of advanced democracies and rising developing powers. Our stance sends signals across the region, from Beijing to Moscow, Jakarta to Seoul. We must make the case for resistance against authoritarian arrogance. That doesn't mean we should follow Washington blindly. It means we must be clear, consistent and credible in how we support a global order that has protected our prosperity and security for generations. This is a time for strategic clarity, not importantly, we must ensure our own defences are fit for purpose. AUKUS is not a theoretical construct. It is a practical framework for dealing with the kinds of threats we are now seeing unfold. That means accelerating delivery timelines, investing in sovereign capabilities, and ensuring that deterrence in our own region is not eroded by distraction or delay. The world is entering a more dangerous phase. The era of risk aversion is over. Strategic competitors are testing our resolve, our alliances, and our willingness to act in defence of shared values. The choices we make now will define the kind of world our children inherit. We must choose clarity over confusion. Strength over silence. And principle over passivity. We must know who we stand with. That is the standard Australia has upheld in the past. And it is the standard we must uphold again now Scott Morrison was Australia's 30th Prime Minister.
