Sen. David Shoebridge (Greens) urged Australia to abandon the AUKUS nuclear-submarine program in favor of a regional defence focus [1, 2].
The proposal challenges a cornerstone of Australia's current security strategy by questioning the strategic utility and financial viability of the nuclear fleet. Shoebridge said the current path risks entangling the nation in a direct conflict between the U.S. and China [1, 2].
Shoebridge said the planned fleet of nuclear-powered submarines is unnecessarily expensive [2]. He said the investment does not align with the actual needs of protecting the nation's own region and trade lanes [1, 2].
According to Shoebridge, the belief that Australia can protect global trade lanes using these specific vessels is flawed. He said it is "ridiculous" to think Australia can defend global trade lanes with nuclear-powered submarines under AUKUS [2].
The senator said the focus should shift toward a strategy that prioritizes regional stability over global power projections. By moving away from the AUKUS framework, Shoebridge suggests Australia could avoid becoming a secondary actor in a superpower struggle [1, 2].
This critique comes as the Australian government continues to coordinate with the U.S. and U.K. on the acquisition and construction of the nuclear-powered submarines. The debate centers on whether the high cost of the program provides a proportional increase in national security, or creates an unnecessary geopolitical target [1, 2].
“The planned fleet of nuclear-powered submarines is unnecessarily expensive.”
This push from the Greens represents a significant internal political challenge to the AUKUS pact, highlighting a divide between those who view U.S. alignment as essential for security and those who see it as a liability that increases the risk of escalation in the Indo-Pacific.
