Shoebridge, Sen David

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: They're probably sending it here because it's the only spot they can get the maintenance done, because their maintenance program—their resources, their skill base and their industrial base—isn't working in the UK. You surely know that one of their ships has been in dock for seven years. You surely know that, at multiple times in the last 12 months, they've only had one or two nuclear submarines in the water. Yet all we hear from you is it's full steam ahead; it's all going great. The reality in the UK is far from that, isn't it? Senator McAllister: I think that the officials are offering to you their experience about how the partnership is going and delivering the work that we've agreed to deliver together. Vice Admiral Mead correctly informs you and other committee members that it is not his place to provide commentary on the broad sweep of activity in the UK Navy. His job is to focus on the Optimal Pathway and the partnership with the United States and the United Kingdom to deliver it. He is able to answer questions about those matters. I encourage you to put those to him. Vice Adm. Mead : Vice Admiral Mead, a nuclear submarine partner that can't keep its own submarines in the water is not a long-term good bet for Australia for the AUKUS project, is it? If they can't keep their own submarines in the water, how are they a good long-term bet for us? Vice Adm. Mead : As I said, I'm not going to be drawn on the integrity of the current UK nuclear force. It is highly classified as to what it does. Those patrols of what it does are highly classified and highly sensitive.