Burnell, Matt MP

Mr BURNELL: I think it should be pointed out on Hansard , for clarity, that neither the current Australian government nor the opposition have indicated any desire to have nuclear weapons. The proposal has consistently been for conventional armaments onboard the proposed nuclear-propulsion submarines. That leads to me to my last question. When we look at Australian workplaces, we look at having the best level of safety, whether that's on a construction site or elsewhere. Is it fair to say that, when we look at the terms of survivability for our submariners, we should be providing them with the best chance of survivability, which, it can be argued, would be in the form of nuclear-propulsion submarines, given that they have significantly better speed for evasion and the ability to stay on location in a covert way for longer periods of time, decreasing the levels of detectability? Is that not something that we should consider when we're looking at these types of proposals? Sister Madigan : I'd like to quote the submariner Rex Patrick, who you've probably heard quite a bit from and who's got that experience—but, for a second, I'll move it back, if you don't mind. Everybody says lots of things, don't they? Things can change, but, when you sign a treaty, that is something completely different. I realise you've moved on, Mr Burnell, but I just wanted to say that. It's a very dangerous situation. We're not experts. We can take anything you want as a question on notice—that one included. Friends of the Earth might like to say something. Mr White : I've got a few things I'd like to say. Thankfully, I don't think Australia is about to get a nuclear weapon—this is on your previous comment. However, bear in mind that when Scott Morrison announced this agreement he said we wouldn't have nuclear power. And now, a matter of a few months later, his successor has said we are going to have nuclear power. So they say things, but you don't necessarily take them at face value. Regarding the issue of whether those submarines can get the submariners to safety as quickly as possible, I'm sure that nuclear submarines go faster—and for longer periods of time. However, do you want to put the submariners in that danger in the first place? Do you want to send them up to be patrolling alongside China? Or do you want to keep them further back, in a more defensive posture? That comes down to the basic strategic posture that we adopt. We can adopt the strategic posture whereby our submariners are not in anywhere near as much danger as they would be if they were patrolling in the South China Sea or something like that. In terms of the posture that we adopt, I'd like to quote something that you would have read this morning on the ABC website. The congressional research service has just recently published a report, and the ABC article says: Using stark language, the report warns that the costs of AUKUS Pillar 1 for Australia could "reduce, perhaps significantly, funding within Australia's military budget for other Australian military capabilities" particularly if the project's budget blows out. "If this were to occur, there could be a net negative impact on Australia's overall military capabilities for deterring potential Chinese aggression," the report says. It goes on to say that there's no indication that there has been any rigorous analysis of this AUKUS proposal. So, when you're talking about the safety of the submariners, that comes in the context of an overall strategic posture. And if you've got an overall strategic posture which is potentially making Australia a more dangerous place then I think that the tiny detail of getting submariners out of danger quickly becomes a much lesser priority. Mrs Jenkin : Hugh White points out that there are other submarines and, in fact, there is no evidence that conventional submarines won't be as effective, in terms of evading enemy submarines, as a nuclear powered submarine; they'll be just as fast and just as quiet. CHAIR: Thank you. That brings us to the end of our questions. On that point, with the news coming out of the United States, I guess that's where both of our governments are, in that we have democracies and we have a review process. That's what this committee has been charged with; it's to review and to invite stakeholders and Australians to give their view on the proposed treaty. I'd like to thank you for your attendance today. You will be sent a copy of the transcript of your evidence and will have an opportunity to request corrections to transcript errors. Please send responses to any questions taken on notice during the hearing to the secretariat by 1 November 2024. Thank you for your time, and apologies for the late start. .