Australia has signed agreements to receive nuclear power materials as part of the AUKUS deal. 

Defence Minister Richard Marles has signed off on a revamped AUKUS agreement, furthering the security alliance with the United States and the United Kingdom. 

This updated pact, discussed during the AUSMIN meetings in the United States, moves beyond mere information sharing and allows Australia to formally acquire nuclear material to facilitate the procurement of nuclear submarines.

The original AUKUS deal, signed in March 2023, was limited to the exchange of information about nuclear propulsion technology. 

However, the revised agreement now permits the transfer of at least three Virginia-class nuclear submarines to Australia, though analysts do not expect this to happen any time soon. 

The deal opens the door to the sale of special nuclear material, including the reactors necessary to power the submarines, sparking concerns about potential local storage of high-level nuclear waste.

Richard Marles described the agreement as a “foundational document” for the trilateral security pact, underscoring its importance in the broader context of Australia's defence strategy.

“It provides the legal underpinning of what we agreed with the US and UK under the banner of AUKUS,” he said.

As part of the AUKUS strategy, Australia hopes to purchase three Virginia-class submarines from the United States. 

The government says these will be followed by the construction of Australian-built nuclear submarines, bringing eight nuclear-powered vessels into service by the 2050s. 

The initiative carries a hefty price tag of $368 billion, and relies on the US meeting its own nuclear submarine requirements first before allowing any to be sold to its partners. 

Not everyone is on board with the expansion of the AUKUS deal. 

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating, a vocal critic of the agreement, argues that it compromises Australia's sovereignty. 

In a recent interview Keating claimed “AUKUS is really about, in American terms, the military control of Australia”. 

“I mean what’s happened? Our policy is likely to turn Australia into the 51st state of the United States,” he said. 

Keating believes that Australia’s involvement in AUKUS could increase the risk of conflict due to its alliance with the US.

Marles has responded to this criticism, saying that the agreement was the result of a thorough assessment of regional security dynamics. 

He dismissed Keating’s remarks as an unfair representation of the government's actions.

But the update to the AUKUS agreement has also drawn scrutiny from the Australian Greens, particularly regarding the secrecy surrounding its terms. 

David Shoebridge, the Greens’ defence spokesperson, questioned the government's transparency and raised concerns that the agreement might include commitments that could entangle Australia in potential conflicts, particularly with China, in exchange for the submarines.

Adding to the debate, opposition defence spokesperson Andrew Hastie has called for the Western Australian government to appoint a minister specifically dedicated to AUKUS, allowing more focused oversight as Australia navigates the complexities of this landmark defence pact.

Analysts at the Australia Institute say the security deal has actually made the country less safe.
“Australians found out about this new deal via a release from the White House, continuing a longstanding trend of secrecy around an agreement that lacks transparency and accountability,” said Emma Shortis, Senior Researcher in International & Security Affairs at the Australia Institute.

“Secrecy is not security, and Australians have a right to know what the government is agreeing to.

“The AUKUS deal has been met with dismay by Australia’s Pacific partners. It badly damaged our relationship with the French government, undermined our multilateral commitments and relationships, and dramatically misinterpreted the trajectory of American power. It unnecessarily escalates tensions with China.

“Australia is unlikely to get these submarines. More importantly, we do not need them.”