Ed Husic Questions Aukus Pact Over Secondhand Subs
Scrutiny Over U.S. Submarine Commitments
Not the deal promised – Ed Husic, a Labor member of parliament, has raised concerns about the Aukus submarine agreement, asserting that the deal does not meet the original promises made to Australia. The pact, which involves the U.S. supplying nuclear-powered submarines, now faces questions as the delivery of secondhand Virginia-class vessels appears to deviate from the initial plan. Husic argues that this shift could weaken Australia’s strategic advantage, highlighting the government’s reliance on the U.S. and the potential for delays in critical defense capabilities.
Defense Minister Richard Marles recently signaled approval for the U.S. proposal to provide three used submarines, a move that contrasts with the original vision of acquiring new ones. Husic’s critique emerged during a Labor caucus meeting, drawing attention from former minister Kim Carr, who described the comments as a bold challenge. While the agreement remains a bipartisan priority, Husic’s stance has sparked internal debate, with some colleagues questioning whether the deal still aligns with Australia’s long-term security goals.
Production Constraints and Timeline Risks
Husic emphasized that the U.S. is struggling to maintain its production rates, delivering only 1.1 to 1.2 Virginia-class submarines annually. This output falls significantly short of the 2.33 units per year required to fulfill the Aukus commitment as originally outlined. The delayed timelines could push the first submarine delivery to 2032 and subsequent units further into the future, with the fully developed Aukus model expected by 2042. “Not the deal promised” has become a central theme in his argument, underscoring the risk of compromised sovereignty and strategic outcomes.
“We need to be open as a nation that we are not going to get the deal that was promised to us,” Husic stated. “Given how transactional the Trump administration is, you can almost imagine them saying, ‘we give you these, you will do this with them,’ and so there’s an active sovereignty question there.”
The debate has intensified as critics suggest the U.S. is prioritizing its own naval needs over Australia’s. Husic pointed to the pressure exerted by the Trump administration during recent discussions in Singapore, where Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth engaged with Marles. This transactional approach, he claims, risks leaving Australia with a less robust defense infrastructure than anticipated, raising doubts about the pact’s viability.
Broader Implications for the Party
Kim Carr, a former Labor minister, praised Husic’s critique, calling it a necessary and courageous stance. Carr highlighted that Aukus obliges Australia to invest heavily in a project with uncertain strategic returns, deepening its dependence on the U.S. and its shifting political priorities. “Not the deal promised” resonates with broader concerns within the party about the long-term costs and benefits of the agreement, particularly its impact on Australia’s autonomy and military self-reliance.
The controversy has also drawn attention to the public inquiry led by Peter Garrett, a former Labor minister. This investigation, supported by unions and advocacy groups, aims to assess the deal’s risks and benefits, with commissioners like Carmen Lawrence and Chris Barrie scrutinizing its implications. Garrett has framed the agreement as a pivotal moment in Australian defense policy, noting its unprecedented scale and the lack of robust parliamentary oversight.
Meanwhile, Liberal MP James Paterson has criticized Husic’s intervention, labeling it a “full-on Labor revolt.” He argued that while questions about Aukus are valid, the focus on the secondhand submarines risks undermining the agreement’s overall value. Paterson urged Marles to clarify the government’s position, stressing the importance of unity within the party to sustain support for the pact.
