Australia to go all in for AUKUS despite US review
Australia could be forced to re-pitch its case for the AUKUS security pact to the US as critics seize on the Trump administration's month-long review to call for the plan to be dumped.
The Pentagon will examine whether the pact is in line with US President Donald Trump's "America First" policy amid concerns in Washington the deal could leave the nation short of submarines.
Under the agreement, Australia will acquire three nuclear-powered Virginia-class submarines from the US in the early 2030s before a new fleet of boats is built for delivery from the 2040s for $368 billion.
The three-nation deal was signed between the US, Australia and the UK in 2021 under former prime minister Scott Morrison and the Biden administration.
Mr Morrison said the US defence department was "well within its remit" to launch the review and it was not unlike a UK assessment after the election of Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
"Now is the time for Australia to make the case again," he said.
"We have a good case to make in both our own interests and those of our AUKUS partners, especially in the US."
Defence Minister Richard Marles confirmed the government had known of the review for weeks and he was confident the AUKUS agreement would proceed under the Trump administration.
Asked if there was a "plan B" in case the agreement was torn up, he said Australia needed to stick with the existing deal to acquire nuclear submarines.
"Chopping and changing guarantees you will never have the capability ... there is a plan here, we are sticking to it and we're going to deliver it," Mr Marles told ABC Radio.
Critics of AUKUS point to the lagging production of boats in the US and have warned the deal might jeopardise the US Navy's capabilities.
Australia handed over almost $800 million to the US in February - the first of a number of payments - to help boost its submarine production.
The 2025 Lowy Institute Poll, to be released in full on Monday, found two-thirds of Australians either somewhat or strongly backed acquiring nuclear-powered submarines.
Executive director Michael Fullilove said the government needed to ensure the Trump administration understood the agreement was also in America's national interest.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is yet to confirm a meeting with Mr Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada.
Australian National University naval studies expert Jennifer Parker said the nation should be using the opportunity to restate its position.
"It would be hard to make an argument that it is in the US interest to fundamentally change or cancel AUKUS," she said.
But former Labor prime minister Paul Keating, a strong AUKUS critic, said the review might be the moment "Washington saves Australia from itself".
Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, who has also criticised the agreement, said Australia should follow in the footsteps of the UK and US and conduct a review.
Co-Chair of the Friends of Australia Caucus, US Congressman Joe Courtney, said walking away from Australia and the UK would have "far-reaching ramifications on our trustworthiness on the global stage".
Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said if AUKUS fell over, all nations would pay a heavy price.
"The coalition stands ready to work with Labor to make sure that AUKUS is a success," he said.
Greens defence spokesman David Shoebridge said it was time for the government to open an inquiry into the "dud deal".
Australia could be forced to re-pitch its case for the AUKUS security pact to the US as critics seize on the Trump administration's month-long review to call for the plan to be dumped.
The Pentagon will examine whether the pact is in line with US President Donald Trump's "America First" policy amid concerns in Washington the deal could leave the nation short of submarines.
Under the agreement, Australia will acquire three nuclear-powered Virginia-class submarines from the US in the early 2030s before a new fleet of boats is built for delivery from the 2040s for $368 billion.
The three-nation deal was signed between the US, Australia and the UK in 2021 under former prime minister Scott Morrison and the Biden administration.
Mr Morrison said the US defence department was "well within its remit" to launch the review and it was not unlike a UK assessment after the election of Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
"Now is the time for Australia to make the case again," he said.
"We have a good case to make in both our own interests and those of our AUKUS partners, especially in the US."
Defence Minister Richard Marles confirmed the government had known of the review for weeks and he was confident the AUKUS agreement would proceed under the Trump administration.
Asked if there was a "plan B" in case the agreement was torn up, he said Australia needed to stick with the existing deal to acquire nuclear submarines.
"Chopping and changing guarantees you will never have the capability ... there is a plan here, we are sticking to it and we're going to deliver it," Mr Marles told ABC Radio.
Critics of AUKUS point to the lagging production of boats in the US and have warned the deal might jeopardise the US Navy's capabilities.
Australia handed over almost $800 million to the US in February - the first of a number of payments - to help boost its submarine production.
The 2025 Lowy Institute Poll, to be released in full on Monday, found two-thirds of Australians either somewhat or strongly backed acquiring nuclear-powered submarines.
Executive director Michael Fullilove said the government needed to ensure the Trump administration understood the agreement was also in America's national interest.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is yet to confirm a meeting with Mr Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada.
Australian National University naval studies expert Jennifer Parker said the nation should be using the opportunity to restate its position.
"It would be hard to make an argument that it is in the US interest to fundamentally change or cancel AUKUS," she said.
But former Labor prime minister Paul Keating, a strong AUKUS critic, said the review might be the moment "Washington saves Australia from itself".
Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, who has also criticised the agreement, said Australia should follow in the footsteps of the UK and US and conduct a review.
Co-Chair of the Friends of Australia Caucus, US Congressman Joe Courtney, said walking away from Australia and the UK would have "far-reaching ramifications on our trustworthiness on the global stage".
Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said if AUKUS fell over, all nations would pay a heavy price.
"The coalition stands ready to work with Labor to make sure that AUKUS is a success," he said.
Greens defence spokesman David Shoebridge said it was time for the government to open an inquiry into the "dud deal".
Australia could be forced to re-pitch its case for the AUKUS security pact to the US as critics seize on the Trump administration's month-long review to call for the plan to be dumped.
The Pentagon will examine whether the pact is in line with US President Donald Trump's "America First" policy amid concerns in Washington the deal could leave the nation short of submarines.
Under the agreement, Australia will acquire three nuclear-powered Virginia-class submarines from the US in the early 2030s before a new fleet of boats is built for delivery from the 2040s for $368 billion.
The three-nation deal was signed between the US, Australia and the UK in 2021 under former prime minister Scott Morrison and the Biden administration.
Mr Morrison said the US defence department was "well within its remit" to launch the review and it was not unlike a UK assessment after the election of Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
"Now is the time for Australia to make the case again," he said.
"We have a good case to make in both our own interests and those of our AUKUS partners, especially in the US."
Defence Minister Richard Marles confirmed the government had known of the review for weeks and he was confident the AUKUS agreement would proceed under the Trump administration.
Asked if there was a "plan B" in case the agreement was torn up, he said Australia needed to stick with the existing deal to acquire nuclear submarines.
"Chopping and changing guarantees you will never have the capability ... there is a plan here, we are sticking to it and we're going to deliver it," Mr Marles told ABC Radio.
Critics of AUKUS point to the lagging production of boats in the US and have warned the deal might jeopardise the US Navy's capabilities.
Australia handed over almost $800 million to the US in February - the first of a number of payments - to help boost its submarine production.
The 2025 Lowy Institute Poll, to be released in full on Monday, found two-thirds of Australians either somewhat or strongly backed acquiring nuclear-powered submarines.
Executive director Michael Fullilove said the government needed to ensure the Trump administration understood the agreement was also in America's national interest.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is yet to confirm a meeting with Mr Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada.
Australian National University naval studies expert Jennifer Parker said the nation should be using the opportunity to restate its position.
"It would be hard to make an argument that it is in the US interest to fundamentally change or cancel AUKUS," she said.
But former Labor prime minister Paul Keating, a strong AUKUS critic, said the review might be the moment "Washington saves Australia from itself".
Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, who has also criticised the agreement, said Australia should follow in the footsteps of the UK and US and conduct a review.
Co-Chair of the Friends of Australia Caucus, US Congressman Joe Courtney, said walking away from Australia and the UK would have "far-reaching ramifications on our trustworthiness on the global stage".
Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said if AUKUS fell over, all nations would pay a heavy price.
"The coalition stands ready to work with Labor to make sure that AUKUS is a success," he said.
Greens defence spokesman David Shoebridge said it was time for the government to open an inquiry into the "dud deal".
Australia could be forced to re-pitch its case for the AUKUS security pact to the US as critics seize on the Trump administration's month-long review to call for the plan to be dumped.
The Pentagon will examine whether the pact is in line with US President Donald Trump's "America First" policy amid concerns in Washington the deal could leave the nation short of submarines.
Under the agreement, Australia will acquire three nuclear-powered Virginia-class submarines from the US in the early 2030s before a new fleet of boats is built for delivery from the 2040s for $368 billion.
The three-nation deal was signed between the US, Australia and the UK in 2021 under former prime minister Scott Morrison and the Biden administration.
Mr Morrison said the US defence department was "well within its remit" to launch the review and it was not unlike a UK assessment after the election of Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
"Now is the time for Australia to make the case again," he said.
"We have a good case to make in both our own interests and those of our AUKUS partners, especially in the US."
Defence Minister Richard Marles confirmed the government had known of the review for weeks and he was confident the AUKUS agreement would proceed under the Trump administration.
Asked if there was a "plan B" in case the agreement was torn up, he said Australia needed to stick with the existing deal to acquire nuclear submarines.
"Chopping and changing guarantees you will never have the capability ... there is a plan here, we are sticking to it and we're going to deliver it," Mr Marles told ABC Radio.
Critics of AUKUS point to the lagging production of boats in the US and have warned the deal might jeopardise the US Navy's capabilities.
Australia handed over almost $800 million to the US in February - the first of a number of payments - to help boost its submarine production.
The 2025 Lowy Institute Poll, to be released in full on Monday, found two-thirds of Australians either somewhat or strongly backed acquiring nuclear-powered submarines.
Executive director Michael Fullilove said the government needed to ensure the Trump administration understood the agreement was also in America's national interest.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is yet to confirm a meeting with Mr Trump on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada.
Australian National University naval studies expert Jennifer Parker said the nation should be using the opportunity to restate its position.
"It would be hard to make an argument that it is in the US interest to fundamentally change or cancel AUKUS," she said.
But former Labor prime minister Paul Keating, a strong AUKUS critic, said the review might be the moment "Washington saves Australia from itself".
Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, who has also criticised the agreement, said Australia should follow in the footsteps of the UK and US and conduct a review.
Co-Chair of the Friends of Australia Caucus, US Congressman Joe Courtney, said walking away from Australia and the UK would have "far-reaching ramifications on our trustworthiness on the global stage".
Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said if AUKUS fell over, all nations would pay a heavy price.
"The coalition stands ready to work with Labor to make sure that AUKUS is a success," he said.
Greens defence spokesman David Shoebridge said it was time for the government to open an inquiry into the "dud deal".
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
20 minutes ago
- The Age
Netanyahu knew the lethal risk of striking Iran. But he did it anyway
The attack without warning by Israel against a range of targets across Iran is unprecedented, even by the new standards of behaviour established since the April 2024 Iranian strike against Israel. That attack, in turn, was carried out in response to Israel's strike against Iranian military personnel in Iran's diplomatic compound in Damascus. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has characterised it as a necessary action to forestall the existential threat posed to his country by Iran's desire to weaponise its stockpiles of enriched uranium. Yet only a few months earlier, US President Donald Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified before the Senate intelligence committee that the intelligence community assessed Iran was not actively pursuing nuclear weapons and nor had its supreme leader allowed such a program to be commenced. If they weren't reacting to an imminent threat, then why choose to bomb Iranian targets now? The answer is because they could. Or more particularly because the environment that would allow them to do so would not be any better in the future. They had long wanted to conduct such an attack, but the political and military conditions have not allowed them to. That has changed. To begin with, Iran's air defences were significantly degraded as a result of Israel's October 2024 air attack. It takes some time to rebuild such a capability, and the longer Israel waited, the more likely it would be that Iran could mount some sort of air defence against an attack. In addition, Tehran's 'Axis of Resistance' had been significantly degraded over the past 18 months – in particular, Lebanese Hezbollah has suffered leadership decapitation and significant personnel and materiel losses. Its resupply routes through Syria have also been significantly compromised with the fall of the Assad regime. In the past, such an attack by Israel could be expected to elicit a robust response from Hezbollah against northern Israel; today the group is both able to respond but also must determine whether its priority is to rebuild domestically or to support its Iranian ideological and financial sponsor. And for all its public signalling, there are many in the Trump administration who support the attack against Iran. Trump has cast himself as the master dealmaker and as someone who wants to avoid war. He has described the Iranians as tough negotiators and claimed they were close to a deal. But Netanyahu accused the Iranians of stalling and dragging out the talks with no prospect of acceding to Washington's non-negotiable demand to stop processing any uranium. Loading Trump denied any US involvement in the attack, but Netanyahu was quick to praise him in his televised address following the attack. Trump is playing coy. While the next round of talks with Iran were to be held on Sunday, there is virtually no chance of them going on while Iran is being attacked. Diplomacy is a slow process, and there is a feeling that the diplomatic track had by no means been exhausted.
Sydney Morning Herald
21 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Netanyahu knew the lethal risk of striking Iran. But he did it anyway
The attack without warning by Israel against a range of targets across Iran is unprecedented, even by the new standards of behaviour established since the April 2024 Iranian strike against Israel. That attack, in turn, was carried out in response to Israel's strike against Iranian military personnel in Iran's diplomatic compound in Damascus. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has characterised it as a necessary action to forestall the existential threat posed to his country by Iran's desire to weaponise its stockpiles of enriched uranium. Yet only a few months earlier, US President Donald Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified before the Senate intelligence committee that the intelligence community assessed Iran was not actively pursuing nuclear weapons and nor had its supreme leader allowed such a program to be commenced. If they weren't reacting to an imminent threat, then why choose to bomb Iranian targets now? The answer is because they could. Or more particularly because the environment that would allow them to do so would not be any better in the future. They had long wanted to conduct such an attack, but the political and military conditions have not allowed them to. That has changed. To begin with, Iran's air defences were significantly degraded as a result of Israel's October 2024 air attack. It takes some time to rebuild such a capability, and the longer Israel waited, the more likely it would be that Iran could mount some sort of air defence against an attack. In addition, Tehran's 'Axis of Resistance' had been significantly degraded over the past 18 months – in particular, Lebanese Hezbollah has suffered leadership decapitation and significant personnel and materiel losses. Its resupply routes through Syria have also been significantly compromised with the fall of the Assad regime. In the past, such an attack by Israel could be expected to elicit a robust response from Hezbollah against northern Israel; today the group is both able to respond but also must determine whether its priority is to rebuild domestically or to support its Iranian ideological and financial sponsor. And for all its public signalling, there are many in the Trump administration who support the attack against Iran. Trump has cast himself as the master dealmaker and as someone who wants to avoid war. He has described the Iranians as tough negotiators and claimed they were close to a deal. But Netanyahu accused the Iranians of stalling and dragging out the talks with no prospect of acceding to Washington's non-negotiable demand to stop processing any uranium. Loading Trump denied any US involvement in the attack, but Netanyahu was quick to praise him in his televised address following the attack. Trump is playing coy. While the next round of talks with Iran were to be held on Sunday, there is virtually no chance of them going on while Iran is being attacked. Diplomacy is a slow process, and there is a feeling that the diplomatic track had by no means been exhausted.
AU Financial Review
26 minutes ago
- AU Financial Review
Investors are piling back into the momentum trade, hoping for records
Investors are increasingly shrugging off the months-long sharemarket volatility sparked by the Trump administration's aggressive trade policies and have become hopeful that, with the worst of the tariff shocks over, Australian stocks will keep breaking records over the next six months. While the S&P/ASX 200 pulled back from its all-time high on Friday amid news of Israeli missile and drone strikes on Iran, the benchmark index has still jumped 19 per cent since its April low. That puts it on the cusp of a technical bull market, or a 20 per cent climb from its recent trough.
