Will subs deal sink Labor's social agenda? Albo needs to be straight with voters about full cost

One way or another, Albanese and those who follow him as PM (whether Labor or Liberal) will have to deliver most of the “social agenda”, even if some marginal bits of it get reclassified as “non-core” promises.

If Labor don’t deliver, the Greens will make even greater gains in areas which have hitherto been reliable for Labor (including Albanese’s own seat) to the point that Labor will only be able to form government with a coalition agreement with the Greens akin to that between the Liberals and the Nationals. There would also be the prospect of another split in the Labor Party.

If future LNP governments don’t deliver, they won’t last long and will struggle to get into power at all unless they make very convincing promises when in opposition.

The costs of the submarine component of the AUKUS agreement will most likely be met with a tax take which is a bit higher than it otherwise would have been, and greater means testing and user pays contributions for federally funded benefits and services.

The same approach would be necessary for any plausible alternative to the AUKUS submarines – the “peace dividend”, which we used to hear quite a bit about in the early post Cold War era (i.e. Keating’s time as PM and following years), has evaporated.

We need to deal with existing problems in our society that have been ignored for too long, rather than ignoring them to buy the most expensive and impractical types of subs that we could.

The amount of money spent on the security and defence of our nation due to fear is not good value when we ignore internal risks that pose immediate threats that are not being addressed.

Compare deaths due to international terrorism to deaths from domestic and local violence, road accidents, deaths from covid and other diseases / illnesses / injuries that are not well managed let alone prevented. We could reduce these now with good investments, whilst also addressing international threats through greater use of diplomacy and wise choices of equipment to be used where this fails.

Our security & defence organisations and their hangers-on have ballooned in size and budgets, whilst existing domestic problems are ignored so they worsen. Threat often come from within and are certainly facilitated by disadvantaged locals. Our best defence may be looking after people now.

Before the next election, Albanese will rollover to the Greens and can it. He has form

I have absolutely no doubt that $368b will turn out to be well over $500b over the life of AUKUS.

*groan* chewy14 you and your bias against lightrail shows no end, comment after comment whining about it. Is the light rail a weapon or for the community benefit? You can’t tell the difference between a military toy and public transport infrastructure?

It is unlikely that we will have a rational debate or conversation on this matter. People will retreat to their respective ideological corners and never budge from their position. No matter how much information is provided the debate will be polarising. The disappointing article by Mr Bushnell is a prime example. Instead of applying rational analysis of the aim, stages, and purpose of the AUKUS program he launches into a poorly informed rant. The false dichotomy of guns or butter is the last resort of the poorly informed.

The AUKUS program is at its core a technology transfer program of which only one part is the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines. Over the next decade at least Australia will enjoy a significant uptake in a raft of technological advances of which nuclear technology is only one. If I was a young person today entering the work force the AUKUS program will deliver a lifetime of advanced learning and opportunity.

The program will consume about $3-5 BN a year in the first stages before it ramps up. A lot can and will happen before the major expenditure occurs. This will not erode welfare or education budgets or any other call on the public purse.

One final fact – the entire US Navy creates 260,000 litres of nuclear waste annually. This fits into a small backyard swimming pool. Our tiny program will only create enough waste to fit into a bathtub. And if we expand our tiny nuclear program to meet the needs of the RAN then that will see the creation of entire new streams of education, technology, energy, and data. Pretty damn good in my book.

Our parliament needs a few more Paul Keatings!
The sad fact of this AUKUS deal is that voters can never trust a Labor government again. Australians have been well and truly betrayed by the Australian Labor Party! This deal would have been strongly opposed by previous Labor leaders. Haven’t we learnt anything from history? Following the Yanks into unwinnable wars! Vietnam, the illegal invasion of Iraq based on lies from our Prime Minister and Afghanistan. When does it stop! Many of the horrors inflicted on these people are felt today and being played out in our courts.
This Albanese government has trashed 133 years of proud Labor history. The rot set in with Julia Gillard who slavishly followed the US.
Maybe the media should be taking a look at the financial interests of those ex-politicians and old white military men advocating for this agreement. Many have close ties to the the arms industry. Not only in Australia but in the US and UK. These people have been very prominent over the past few years advocating for this agreement and have been very noticeable in the media since the deal’s announcement!

The amount of government wasteful spending is enormous. And significant tax reform could easily bring in more revenue without increasing the taxation burden on the income of workers.

But yes, all governments need to make decisions about where best to spend revenue to meet policy goals.

Although I do have to laugh at the author’s worry that federal expenditure on Submarines might cripple the ALPs social spending agenda when he writes article after article in support of ALP expenditure on light rail at a local Canberra level.

Perhaps he should bring the same lens and concern to the local level first?

Guns or butter? Security or consumption? It’s an old economics dilemma debated since Roman times. Guns and butter is about the budget choices in government resource allocation to defense or social programs. Both are important to a nation’s security and economy. Depending on the global security environment, defense may have to take priority over social spending. In a perfect world we don’t need guns, but when there are expansionist dictators it is naive and foolish to make butter.