[00:00:00] Hi, I'm Christine McCormack from Radio Northern Beaches and you've just tuned in to the Listen and Chat with Christine McCormack Podcast. This is the space where we pull no punches, sometimes a little controversial, sometimes downright outrageous, and sometimes just packed full of information that is interesting to know. Welcome to The Subplot, where we dive deep into the murky waters of Australian politics and defence with Chrissy Mack on Listen and Chat.
[00:00:28] Today we're looking at a story that has everything, billions of taxpayer dollars, high stakes international diplomacy and a massive dose of political hypocrisy. That's right, we're talking about AUKUS, specifically the recent dramatic shift in Australia's plans to acquire nuclear-powered submarines from the United States.
[00:00:51] Now if you've been watching the news lately, you'll know the federal opposition, the Liberal National Coalition, has been absolutely crucifying the Labour government over this. They are furious that Labour has accepted a deal for three second-hand US Virginia-class submarines instead of the original plan, which was one brand new boat and two used ones. Which raises a massive question for every Aussie. The Coalition started AUKUS.
[00:01:19] They literally dreamt up this project under Scott Morrison. So why are they trying to tear it down now? And is Labour's defence that it saves money and simplifies training actually hold water? To understand the fight, we have to look at what changed. Originally, Australia was promised a shiny, top-tier, Block 6, Virginia-class submarine, fresh off the American production line, followed by two used ones. But US shipyards are facing massive delays.
[00:01:49] They simply cannot build them fast enough. So, the new boat was taken off the table. Labour had to pivot. Now, Defence Minister Richard Marles has locked in three used Block 4 submarines instead. Labour is framing this as a pragmatic win. They say having three identical older boats means uniform training and a streamlined supply chain. It puts a premium on simplicity, as Marles puts it.
[00:02:17] But the Opposition Leader and the Shadow Defence Minister are having absolutely none of that. They are calling it a bait-and-switch. And strategically, they do have a couple of valid points. First, there's a firepower gap. The older, Block 4 used subs carry a significantly smaller weapons payload than the brand new ones that we were promised. Second, there's the lifespan. A new sub lasts over 30 years.
[00:02:44] A used sub might only have a decade or two left in the tank. Liberals are arguing that we are paying premium AUKUS prices up to $370 billion over the life of the project for what are essentially hand-me-downs. Which brings us to the core of today's episode. What is the Coalition actually hoping to achieve with this brutal attack on Labour? Because let's be honest, they aren't trying to kill the AUKUS deal entirely. They voted for it.
[00:03:13] This isn't about destroying AUKUS. This is about political leverage. And the Coalition's strategy here is twofold. First, it's about destroying Labour's credibility on national security. Because historically, the Liberal Party likes to frame themselves as the only adult in the room when it comes to defence and foreign policy.
[00:03:35] By hammering Labour on this submarine pivot, they are trying to paint the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Richard Marles as weak negotiators who got pushed around by Washington and accepted a substandard deal. The second goal is even more calculated. It's about exploiting friction within the Labour Party itself. The AUKUS deal has never been universally loved inside Labour.
[00:04:00] We've seen open disquiet from Labour backbenchers and major pushbacks from left-wing unions who hate the idea of nuclear tech and massive defence spending. Every time the Coalition attacks this deal in question time, they force Labour to aggressively defend spending hundreds of billions on second-hand military gear. That alienates Labour's left-wing base and widens the cracks inside the government. It's a classic wedge tactic. So what's the conclusion here? Who is winning this narrative?
[00:04:29] Look, the irony is thick enough to choke a submarine intake. The Coalition is crucifying Labour for a project that they initiated. And a project that fell behind schedule largely because of the US production realities that neither Australian party can control. But in politics, reality often takes a backseat to perception.
[00:04:51] By shifting the goalposts from one new, two used, to three used, Labour handed the opposition a free political weapon. The Coalition's goal isn't to fix the submarine program. It's to make sure that by the time the next federal election rolls around, voters view Labour's defence strategy as a costly, second-hand compromise.
[00:05:15] Meanwhile, the Australian taxpayer is left watching a $370 billion defence policy get treated like a political football. And that's where we leave it today on the subplot. What do you think? Is Labour being pragmatic? Or did they get a raw deal? Don't forget to hit subscribe and we'll see you next time. Alright, I hope I've given you a lot to think about and talk about and debate and maybe disagree with. Don't forget to follow, like and share.
[00:05:45] Stay safe and I'll catch you next time.