Dutton’s loose lips ‘may sink subs deal’

The Liberal leader is accused of jeopardising his own plan to buy nuclear submarines from the US before 2030.

‘Loose’, Richard Marles slams Peter Dutton. Picture: Richard Walker

Peter Dutton has been accused of undermining Australia’s most important strategic relationships and jeopardising his own plan to buy two nuclear submarines from the US before 2030 by revealing it in The Australian.

Defence Minister Richard Marles lashed the Opposition Leader for disclosing the option in an opinion article, saying his predecessor’s comments were “loose” and “damaging to Australia’s national interest”.

Writing in The Australian on Thursday, Mr Dutton said he decided as defence minister that the US Virginia-class submarine was a better option for Australia than a British nuclear boat, and he believed the Americans would sell Australia two of the subs before the end of the decade.

It’s understood Mr Dutton’s views were informed by work of the nuclear submarine taskforce, and preliminary discussions with the US government.

Mr Marles accused Mr Dutton of “rank politics”, saying the disclosure was “completely inconsistent with everything Peter Dutton was doing and saying in government”.

“This outburst today, from someone so recently in the chair, is damaging to Australia’s national interest. The comments are loose and undermine the AUKUS agreement,” he said. “The government has made no decision on a preferred submarine. All options are on the table.”

Mr Dutton told radio station 2GB on Thursday that if the ­Coalition had remained in government, he believed he would have been “in a position to make an announcement around July-August” on the planned acquisition of two Virginia-class subs off the US production line.

Such an announcement would have come some 10 months into an 18-month study led by Vice-Admiral Jonathan Mead on how Australia would acquire nuclear submarines. Mr Dutton said the balance of the study could “work out the details”.

Australian Strategic Policy Institute senior analyst Marcus Hellyer expressed scepticism over the Dutton plan, noting the two US submarine production lines – in Connecticut and Virginia – were working “flat out” building submarines for the US Navy.

Dr Hellyer said any Virginia-class subs provided to Australia by the US within the next eight years would “have to be boats that the US Navy wants”.

“They would have to give up production slots for us,” he said. “That is not really the intent of AUKUS. And … it would be a net capability loss because we don’t know how to operate them. There would be a huge learning curve.”

Dr Hellyer said the US Navy was already rumoured to be “dubious” about providing ­nuclear-powered submarines to Australia “and the last thing they need is for that to impact their own capability”.

University of Western Australia’s Defence and Security Institute director Peter Dean said he was “flabbergasted” by Mr Dutton’s article, accusing him of disclosing “secret and confidential discussions”.

Professor Dean said Mr Dutton had “potentially undermined” further discussions with the US on the option, “making it more difficult for the government to follow through on the option he has outlined … These negotiations are very, very sensitive.

“I agree with the premise that if we could get some submarines built in the US shipyards … that would be a very good way to go, but you don’t say that publicly when a new government has taken over and you would assume negotiations are ongoing.”

South Australian Senator Rex Patrick said Mr Dutton’s plan went against official advice to the US congress over the past decade.

“The idea the US will further delay its nuclear submarine program by prioritising construction of Australian boats … is a very unlikely proposition,” he said.