AUKUS: Paul Keating issues furious response after Defence Minister Richard Marles’ AUKUS slap down

Former prime minister Paul Keating has responded furiously after he was very publicly slapped down by Defence Minister Richard Marles for his anti-AUKUS stance.

The former Labor leader has led the charge against the alliance which he argues is too costly and will make Australia a military outpost out of the US.

At a press conference in the UK alongside his AUKUS counterparts on Friday, Mr Marles delivered what constitutes the strongest repudiation of Mr Keating’s complaints from a member of the Albanese Government to date.

Name-checking Mr Keating five times, he said that the increasing detectability of the current Collins-Class submarines which the Hawke-Labor government commissioned – of which Mr Keating was Treasurer – meant that the leap to nuclear-powered boats was simply a matter of keeping up.

In a 600-word statement, Mr Keating responded, claiming that Mr Marles had his “US friend propping him up in London to throw a 10,000-mile punch at me.”

“When Richard Marles wilfully says ‘AUKUS matches the Collins class logic’ during the Keating government years, he knows that statement to be utterly untrue,” Mr Keating said.

“The Collins is and was a ‘defensive’ submarine – designed to keep an enemy off the Australian coast. It was never designed to operate as far away as China or to sit and lie in wait for submarine conquests.

“The [Labor party] membership abhors AUKUS and everything that smacks of national sublimation.

“It does not expect these policies from a Labor government.”

Earlier, Mr Marles had taken to the stage at the resplendent Painted Hall at London’s Old Royal Naval College alongside his AUKUS counterparts, US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin and the UK’s 10-week-old Defence Secretary John Healey.

Perhaps his enthusiasm got the better of him.

Perhaps he was overtaken by the majestic setting – the hall’s 18th-century baroque walls and painted ceilings were a showstopper, particularly to the visiting US press – as Mr Marles spoke for longer in his opening remarks than even his British host.

Mr Healey opted for brevity and still managed to underline the rich military history of the venue and its significance today – the building’s basement hosted the first nuclear reactor that the British trained on after the Americans agreed to share their nuclear technology with an ally for the first time 60 years ago.

Now that history is being repeated for a second time only with the British and Americans poised to hand over to Australia the “crown jewels” of their military assets – nuclear-powered submarines.

It’s difficult to pinpoint a more enthusiastic supporter of the idea to co-build and design a new attack submarine inside the Albanese Government than the Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister. This is despite the project being authored by former Coalition PM Scott Morrison.

AUKUS has always been supported in Parliament by both sides, but with the advent of Labor into power federally, Mr Marles’ revered mentor Paul Keating has been emboldened to take his proteges to task for adopting a Coalition policy.

Mr Keating, combined with Labor elders and former foreign ministers Bob Carr and Gareth Evans, has led the charge against AUKUS, arguing it is too costly, invests unnecessarily in the prestige technology when diesel-electric powered subs would do and makes Australia an expanded military base for the United States, as it prepares for a possible conflict in the Indo-Pacific with China, maybe over Taiwan.

And their arguments are gaining traction.

As The Nightly recently revealed, polling shows support for AUKUS is in danger, as its critics have stepped into the vacuum created by the government, which is often found wanting when it comes to advocating the strategic need for the capability, versus the jobs in shipbuilding and engineering that it will create.

And the tone of the domestic debate is being watched with nervousness by Australia’s AUKUS partners.

It has caused alarm in some quarters of the Biden Administration, which took a huge leap of faith in granting Australia the keys to its military treasure chest. It has been busily backing the project at home to its voters, with an expensive PR campaign, including running glossy, inspiring feel-good Build Submarine ads at NASCAR races.

These concerns have been conveyed to the Albanese government, according to sources.

This is why on Thursday (UK time), when Australian media was given an opportunity to question the AUKUS defence ministers, I used it to ask Mr Austin about Mr Keating’s comments – and in particular how the former Labor leader believes AUKUS is about the US making “suckers” and a military outpost out of Australia.

I invited Mr Austin to address critics such as the Labor trio and queried if he was concerned about the nature of the debate in Australia leading to slippage in support for AUKUS.

He mounted a strong defence for why AUKUS – Australia’s largest-ever single defence procurement program – is in Australia’s interests, saying the submarines would deliver a “generational capability” that would come with benefits for “many, many years.”

“It is well worth the investment,” he said.

“It is well worth the effort that we put into it and we take this very seriously.

“We haven’t shared this with another country in 60 years, so this is not a good idea that we woke up one day and said ‘hey, let’s do this,’”

“We understood the level of complexity, commitment that would go into this and the shared responsibilities that would come along with this.”

If AUKUS goes to plan, Australia will buy at least two and up to five US submarines and then co-design a new submarine with the British that will be called SSN AUKUS and built in both countries. The Brits will take sole responsibility for creating the nuclear reactors that power the boats.

The costs at this point range from $268 billion to $368 billion. This means it can’t afford to go wrong because if it does, taxpayers will be left with the mother of all bills and not enough to show for it.

Mr Austin addressed these concerns.

“We know that we need to make sure that we hit every benchmark, every objective,” he said.

“And to date, in the third year of our efforts on AUKUS, I can say that we have.

“It is already coming to life.”

On sovereignty, he said that the US “fully expected” that Australia would make its own sovereign decisions about how to use that capability.

Mr Austin had nothing to say on Mr Keating, specifically.

But although he was not invited to answer the question, Mr Marles had much to say.

“I might just say a little bit in response as well,” he offered.

And on an international platform, he went on to deliver what constitutes the strongest repudiation of Mr Keating’s complaints from a member of the Albanese Government to date.

Mr Marles said the leap to nuclear-powered boats was simply a matter of keeping up.

“As we move into the 2030s and ‘40s, diesel-electric submarines will become increasingly detectable and as a nation which is positioned where we are, which is ocean-going, which is so connected to the world, through our sea lines of communication, we have to have a top-of-the-line first-rate, long-range, submarine capability,” he said.

“And the only way we achieve that is through a nuclear-powered submarine capability.

“So to be able to have the same capability in the future that in Mr Keating’s time, he was planning for with the Collins Class submarines we must walk down this path.

“This is utterly essential for Australia’s future and the strategic imperative of that remains unchanged, irrespective of what Mr Keating says.

“And it is happening.”

Mr Marles went on to assure his British and US counterparts that the Australian public “absolutely supported” AUKUS.

As the Redbridge polling demonstrated, that support cannot be considered a foregone conclusion or permanent.

Public opinion is never static and as the program runs into the inevitable hurdles that all defence projects face, re-litigating the case for AUKUS will be a bread-and-butter job for the next three to five governments.

That the US is concerned about the quality of the debate in Australia and the Albanese government’s refusal to publicly rebut the Labor elders is no doubt what triggered Mr Marles to offer his defence and rebuttal of Mr Keating.

His colleagues should take note.