AUKUS critics raise concern over ‘escape hatches’ for US, UK

Questions have been raised about a pivotal security arrangement between Australia, the UK and the US, with concerns about one detail in particular.

Critics of the trilateral AUKUS deal have expressed fears Australia could get dudded by the US or the UK, with the federal government accused of taking a $368bn gamble.

The updated 50-year agreement was tabled in parliament on Monday and allows the two countries to share information, nuclear material and equipment with Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine program.

However, the document also revealed an escape clause that would allow either country to abandon the deal by providing just a year’s notice.

“A government may discontinue its participation in this understanding earlier and, in such case, should provide one year’s written notice to the other governments of its intent to do so,” the agreement says.

While the deal calls on the US and the UK to “not unreasonably” withhold information, material or equipment, the understanding can be voided if it adversely affects the ability of the partner countries to “meet their respective military requirements” or if it degrades their “respective naval nuclear propulsion programs”.

The updated deal states the US and the UK can withdraw from the agreement if it compromises their own military requirements. Picture: NewsWire

Greens defence spokesman David Shoebridge said the agreement was riddled with “multiple escape hatches” for the US.

“Article 1 of the new AUKUS agreement says that if at any point the United States thinks supplying material under the AUKUS agreement to Australia prejudices their defence, they can effectively terminate the agreement and pull out. We know that the United States does not have enough nuclear submarines for its own purposes,” he said

Mr Shoebridge called on the government to be “honest about the size of the gamble”.

“I think there is a very real risk that we roll through the next five or 10 years, we see billions and billions of dollars paid for nuclear installations, for new generals and new admirals, and in the early 2030s Australia will have exactly zero new submarines,” he said.

“This is a radical gamble from the Albanese government, and the scale of the gamble is now clear with AUKUS 2.0.”

Greens senator David Shoebridge said the ‘exit clause’ risked making AUKUS a ‘radical gamble’. Picture: NewsWire/ Martin Ollman

The 37-page agreement also includes a clause for all three countries to “reaffirm” their commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, as stated under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

It also specifically says Australia will not process any spent nuclear fuel or reactors from other countries, including the US or the UK.

Opposition home affairs spokesman James Paterson said the Coalition had yet to be briefed on the agreement, which would allow the UK and the US to transfer equipment for nuclear submarines.

“I’m sure we’ll be seeking a briefing on this because I think the government does need to be, at the very least, transparent with the opposition about these so that we can assure the Australian people that there’s nothing to be concerned,” he told Sky News on Monday morning.

However, Defence Minister Richard Marles said the agreement was an “important step” that would allow Australia to develop “conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines” while also honouring the “highest non-proliferation standards”.

“It builds on the significant progress that has already been achieved, including the passing of the US National Defence Authorisation Act, the announcement of Australia’s sovereign submarine build and sustainment partners, and the ongoing work to integrate and uplift the industrial bases of all three AUKUS partners,” he said.