Television Interview, ABC 7.30

SUBJECT: AUKUS.

DAVID SPEERS, HOST: Richard Marles welcome to the program. 

RICHARD MARLES, DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER: Good evening David.

SPEERS: So you've argued this is what you wanted all along. Why then didn't you say that?

MARLES: Well, at the outset we were clearly working in with the schedules of the United States – this is back in 2023 – both in terms of their sustainment and production schedules. And, you know, it was a huge step for the United States to be providing us with Virginia class submarines in the first place and we shouldn't forget that. So clearly we were working in with them. Now this is– actually production rates in the United States are going up, but in a sense the most in‑demand submarines are the ones in‑service, they're the ones providing the sea days to the US Navy right now. Two of those were available at that time. All I can say is that in the context of our discussions with this administration we're able to do three and that suits us better because it gives us greater consistency, it’s more cost effective.

SPEERS: Back in 2023 when the optimal pathway was announced, you actually wanted these three in-service submarines, but couldn't say that because you didn't want to upset the Americans. Is that correct?

MARLES: Well we were in the negotiations, so I mean– look, we were happy with the outcome to be clear, but yeah, our preference would have been to have three in-service ones then. It makes it easier in the context of a very complex endeavour that we're trying to do here, which is for Australia to acquire this capability. But we were clearly happy with the outcome, I mean the main step that was taken at the time was to be providing us Virginia classes in the first place. What that did was mean that the first submarine that we would be receiving would come a full decade ahead of what we inherited when we came to government, which was not going to see a new submarine in our fleet until the early 2040s. But– 

SPEERS: I understand that. Just sticking with the Virginias though and the change here. So under that original optimal pathway for AUKUS, the first two would have been these block IV Virginia class submarines. The third would have been a brand new block VI submarine. It has triple the weapons payload with the capacity to fire 40 tomahawk cruise missiles rather than 12. Surely, when it counts in the heat of battle you would rather have that extra firepower wouldn’t you?

MARLES: We’re operating a fleet of submarines and what you need, as much as possible, is consistency. And the Virginia class is going to greatly enhance our submarine capability, relative to obviously what we have now, which is the Collins class– 

SPEERS: I understand that but talking about the difference between what was announced three years ago and today. 

MARLES: Sure. 

SPEERS: There is a big difference in the firepower isn't there?

MARLES: There is a big difference in the premium on consistency and I really can't overstate that. It means that crews are interchangeable. It means that those who work on the submarine can work across common submarines. This is the thing, David – what we were in line to do as things were previously set up was at a point in time actually effectively operating four types of submarines: the Collins, in-service Virginias, a new Virginia, and then the new submarines that we will be building in Australia. 

SPEERS: So why did you agree to that? If it was too difficult, why did you agree to that?

MARLES: I'm not saying it was too difficult. It was good, this is better – that's all. And we've been able to–

SPEERS: But not as much firepower, though. That's right isn’t it?

MARLES: Well, much greater consistency and there is a premium on that. When you are– not every submarine is out on deployment at every given point in time, you operate a fleet of submarines. And there is a challenge, we can't avoid this challenge, but there is a challenge in operating what will be three classes of submarines: the Collins, the in-service Virginias, and the new SSN-AUKUS. But, you know, the more we can bring simplicity to this, the more we can bring consistency – the better. And so this is a much better outcome from an Australian point of view and we are really happy with where this is going. 

SPEERS: The Virginia class submarine has a typical lifespan of 33 years. Just how old will some of these submarines that Australia gets actually be?

MARLES: Well, I can't go into the specifics of that but let me say that– 

SPEERS: Do you know? 

MARLES: I do know, yes. But I’m not going to go–

SPEERS: But why can’t you say?

MARLES: Because some of this is important to exist in a classified realm, is the answer to that. And we're not wanting to flag every detail in relation to this. But what is clear is that the submarines that will come to Australia, all three of them, will have gone through a deep maintenance period prior to being put into Australian hands and they will have very many years left of their scheduled life, which will well and truly do what we need to do and that is to bridge the gap between the present day and when we acquire our first Australian-made submarine in the early 2040s.

SPEERS: Okay, but with respect Minister, it's taxpayers paying for these submarines, don’t they deserve to know? They will know when they arrive, surely, how old they are. I just don't see why you can't say what you've agreed with the United States on how old these submarines will be. 

MARLES: What we will be receiving is submarines which have gone through their first deep maintenance and will have a lot of years left in their life– 

SPEERS: 10 years, 15 years? 

MARLES: Again, I’m– more than that, but I'm not going to go further than that in answering your question. And it's important that we do maintain confidentiality around some of this, but it is in fact more than both the numbers that you've just said. But this will give us a significant life in relation to each of them, and that's what enables us to make sure that we are building these into a drumbeat of ultimately seeing us acquire eight nuclear‑powered submarines for our fleet. 

SPEERS: You've said this will be cheaper as well. How much will taxpayers save as a result of this change?

MARLES: Well, again, I'm not in a position to go into the detail of that, but obviously–

SPEERS: Why not? Do you know? Do you know the number?

MARLES: There's a process to be worked through here, but an in-service submarine will be cheaper than a brand new submarine so it will be more cost effective. But I also don't want to–

SPEERS: But how much cheaper is the question? Again, there's a lot of unknowns here, why can't you share some of this information?

MARLES: Well, again, some of this it is important that it remains in a classified realm. But I don't want to overstate– I mean, it will be significantly cheaper, that will help, but in terms of the overall cost of this program – and really the useful way to think about it, which is what we said when we announced the optimal pathway, is that the cost of this is at about .15% of GDP – that won't change. I mean, we're really changing one submarine out of eight from being a new one– a new Virginia to an in-service Virginia. It's a useful contribution to saving money in terms of the overall program, but across the life of the program this doesn't fundamentally change the cost of what we are seeking to do here. 

SPEERS: Your colleague Ed Husic’s gone public with a range of concerns now about AUKUS, as you know. Your relationship with Ed Husic was obviously harmed last year when he was dropped from Cabinet. He called you a factional assassin. When was the last time you've spoken? Are you able to sit down with Ed Husic and go through all of this with him?

MARLES: Well, Ed raised an issue with me at the caucus meeting, not yesterday, but last week. I obviously wasn't there yesterday because I was coming back from India. Look, I very much respect Ed’s view in relation to this and we speak to all members of caucus who have issues around this– 

SPEERS: So are you going to sit down and talk to him about this?

MARLES: Well, we'll go through it. I mean, I very much respect his view. It is important that people ask questions when they have concerns about it. We've debated this in the Labor Party. We did so, of course, at the last national conference. But to be frank, it's important that we continue to debate this. This is a– 

SPEERS: So you're happy to have another debate at next month's national conference?

MARLES: Well if it arises, of course we are. I don't want to prejudge what's going to happen at national conference, but if that's what happens, of course we will do that. I mean, this is a significant national, strategic play and it’s totally understandable that people have questions and want to continue to have a debate about this. I’m totally fine with all of that. But let me be also clear, our government is completely committed to AUKUS. We are completely committed to acquiring a long-range submarine capability as a successor to our Collins class submarines. I mean, David, we are a three ocean nation. If there is a country on the planet – a cursory look at the map answers this question – which needs a long-range submarine capability, it is Australia. And to have that capability do what the Collins class were doing in the early 2000s, to have that same capability in the 2030s and 40s and beyond, will require nuclear propulsion. Now, there's one way that we achieve that, and that is through AUKUS. And were we to let go of this, were we to not have a submarine capability – that would represent a significant diminution in the nation’s sovereignty. I mean, in that moment we would become more reliant, not less on our alliance with the United States and that’s why we are so committed to being a submarine nation and to building our nation's submarine capability. 

SPEERS: One of the concerns that comes with that nuclear propulsion though, and it was raised by Peter Garrett on this program last night, is the unresolved issue of what we do with nuclear waste. If something goes wrong with one of these submarines, what would happen to the nuclear waste?

MARLES: We're talking about sealed reactors and so the first time that we are required to be disposing of one of these reactors is in the early 2050s– 

SPEERS: If something goes wrong with one of the submarines, does it sit in the submarine parked somewhere until then?

MARLES: Well, we have time to work this through, which is really the point that I'm making, and we will work this through. And the whole project in respect of AUKUS we are dealing with in a sequential way. That's the only way we can actually do what is a really–

SPEERS: I guess what I’m asking is if something goes wrong early on, do you have all that time until the 2050s or do you need to think about what to do? 

MARLES: Well of course we need to think about it, and we will think about it, and we'll make sure that we are ready for those contingencies. Of course we will. But again, we have time in respect of that. We will not be having the first of the Virginia class submarines operating– being operated by Australia until the early 2030s. But to be clear, we are talking about sealed nuclear reactors. It is very different to ones which need to be refuelled, and we have time to work this through, and we will work it through. And what we have made clear is that the disposal facility will be on existing or future defence ground, so that's an important statement about how we will go about this. But is an issue that needs to be worked through, we will work it through as we will a range of other issues in respect of what we need to do with AUKUS. But we’re dealing with this in a sequential way. We are making sure that we are meeting the milestones we need to meet right now, and that we keep this on track – and it very much is on track. And the first critical milestone that we are facing is the establishment of the Submarine Rotation Force‑West at the end of next year, and we're on track to do that. 

SPEERS: Richard Marles, thanks for joining us. 

MARLES: Thanks David. 

ENDS