The Australian government plunged AUKUS into new confusion
But opened up a necessary debate about the US basing nuclear weapons out of Australia
Australia’s Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy plunged AUKUS into new confusion this week by suggesting that the United States Navy would only operate out of the naval base in Western Australia to train up Australian submariners and then leave after five years.
‘That’s the arrangement that we’ve put in place, with the plan being that as we acquire our nuclear-powered submarines, they would move into HMAS Stirling and the rotational presence would come to an end. That’s our plan, that’s what we’re committed to implementing,’ Conroy said.
‘This is a time-limited rotation. Both the rotation each year are time-limited. That’s why they’re not based there. They’re only in HMAS Stirling for a limited amount of time each year. And the actual period that Submarine Rotation Force West will exist is time-limited as well to the early 2030s.’
Conroy was speaking to the ABC’s 730 host Sarah Ferguson. Ferguson was drawing from a piece the former Home Affairs Secretary and 2009 Defence White Paper author Mike Pezzullo wrote in The Australian on the weekend, setting out exactly how the United States is establishing what is essentially a US base out of HMAS Stirling.
The US is ready to station its submarines out of WA tomorrow. But they will begin rotating next year. That word roating is important.
‘Just as the US Marines are rotated through Darwin. The marine rotation force in Darwin is not there all year long. It’s rotated through. So, that’s why these aren’t bases. And anyone who claims that they are bases is incorrect,’ Conroy insisted.
Conroy had attempted to claim that the US would hang around WA for five years only to train up Australian naval officers and then pull up stumps.
‘The idea that such an arrangement would not be rolled over would be ludicrous - it would be in the clear national interest of both parties,’ former prime minister Scott Morrison told me.
Conroy’s statement was a shock because it was blatantly at odds with the facts. The United States is absolutely calling it a base, and has established a combat squadron of four attack submarines that will operate out of WA.
‘To have a rotational base in the Indian Ocean is absolutely essential,’ Admiral Samuel Paparo, who commands the entire Pacific Command, told the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee in April.
Then, in June, the US Navy announced that it was reviving its World War II-era Submarine Squadron 3 (CSS-3) for deployment from Stirling under AUKUS.
‘CSS-3 enables our submarines and crews to respond rapidly in support of the U.S. joint force mission of regional deterrence,’ said US Rear Admiral Chris Cavanaugh, who commands the US Pacific Fleet’s Submarine Force.
‘Adding an additional forward-positioned submarine squadron in the Indo-Pacific enhances our presence, agility, and responsiveness across a range of operations.
‘CSS-3 enables our submarines and crews to respond rapidly in support of the US joint force mission of regional deterrence.”
‘It also reduces the burden on the US shipyards and increases our fast-attack submarine force’s readiness while preparing Australia to maintain their own SSNs,’ added Vice Admiral Rob Gaucher, who directs the US submarine programs.
Further, the US Navy has also created the associated headquarters called Naval Support Stirling (NSA). This organisation is responsible for linking the US service members deployed to housing, childcare, healthcare and so on.
The opposition’s defence spokesman James Paterson visited Stirling on Thursday. He accused the Australian government of having served an ‘eviction notice’ on the Americans.
As Australia slept, Conroy posted a statement on X clarifying that US submarines would be an ‘enduring element of US force posture in Australia.’
The statement carried no official Australian government or Defence Department branding and was typed on plain paper.
It is my understanding that the Department of War is satisfied with the clarification.
Nukes and basing
With his blunder, Conroy unintentionally blew open the debate his government has spent its years in power trying desperately to prevent.
Why is a base for the United States in the Indian Ocean so essential? Because it would provide the US Navy what is called ‘regional throw power.’ In this instance, to protect the vital commercial shipping route through the Malacca Strait, which connects the Indian and Pacific oceans and through which around 40 per cent of the world’s trade passes each year.
Ultimately, AUKUS gives the United States what it has always craved and needed to contain China and prevent the Chinese Communist Party from dominating control of the region.
‘Stirling will be Australia’s most important base for projecting power into the Indian Ocean and South China Sea, a southern equivalent to Guam,’ Euan Graham, a senior analyst specialising in strategy and defence in the Indo-Pacific at the Canberra-based think tank Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said.
‘Australia has unique geography, and the United States is looking to build strategic depth in the Indo-Pacific — as they did during the Second World War. AUKUS will deliver that with HMAS Stirling becoming a US submarine base,’ Andrew Hastie, a former SAS Captain and opposition frontbencher, noted last year.
This prized asset is the reason why the Trump Administration did not cancel AUKUS despite the Pentagon’s Undersecretary Elbridge Colby holding serious concerns about sharing the United States’ ‘crown jewels’ of weaponry — the ability to build nuclear-propelled submarines and specifically sell Australia several of their Virginia-class boats from the next decade.
So why is the government so sensitive about acknowledging out loud, what every AUKUS watcher already knew?
Part of Labor’s nervousness relates to what kind of weapons the US will field on their submarines. Australia’s submarines will be conventionally-armed but nuclear-propelled. From 2032, the US will allow their Virginnia submarines to carry a nuclear-version of its Tomahawk missile.
‘I don’t think there’s any doubt that AUKUS is about having a base where the US, supported by Australia as a sub-imperial power, can sit off the coast of China, spy on China and be prepared to take lethal action if they think that’s required. There’s also absolutely no doubt that we will be hosting nuclear weapons,’ Doug Cameron, a former Labor Senator who opposes AUKUS and is behind a public inquiry underway in Australia into the defence partnership.
‘They’re feeling the pressure on this and I think the public inquiry as well as the feeling generally in the community that it’s starting to get through to them that you can’t run a $380 billion spend without being open about what’s going on.’
Cameron, and the broader left’s opposition to AUKUS overlooks the reality — China’s Xi Jinping is overseeing a huge nuclear build-up of his own and last month tested a submarine-launched nuclear-capable ballistic missile in the Pacific. The window in which he could move on Taiwan is opening. One only has to look at what the Iranian regime has achieved in restricting the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz to get a taste of what Chinese dominance of our major shipping lanes would cause.
But Cameron is spot on about one thing. Transparency. The Labor government has an obsession with secrecy when it comes to defence and AUKUS that goes beyond national security classification requirements.
This is the second time that their failure to communicate clearly with the public about what AUKUS involves has led to unnecessary confusion, such as when it emerged Australia would buy used submarines instead of a brand new one from the US, something the Australian government belatedly said was the preferred outcome.
As I have argued, the government badly needs an AUKUS envoy to communicate on a daily basis if needed, what is happening with the biggest single spend of Australian taxpayers’ money on a defence capability.
Conroy’s boss, Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles told the Latika Takes podcast in 2025 that Australians would welcome the increased US military presence that is taking place under Labor.
Maybe so, but they should be asked. The government’s failure to articulate the very necessary debate Australians should have about hosting nuclear weapons and the US Navy will only undermine the entire AUKUS project. At least Conroy’s mistake has drawn a long overdue light to this subject.
This is an adapted version of an article first published by The Nightly.