Andrew Greene analysis: Deadline conjecture over HMAS Stirling highlights political sensitivity of AUKUS

This week’s debate over whether a time limit has been placed on US nuclear submarines operating out of Western Australia has highlighted just how politically sensitive the AUKUS endeavour is for the Albanese government.

During an interview from Washington on Wednesday, the Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy revealed the Submarine Rotational Force-West program, scheduled to begin next year, would end in 2032.

“It’s a five-year commitment beginning in 2027... That’s the arrangement that we’ve put in place, with the plan being that as we acquire our own nuclear-powered submarines, they would move into HMAS Stirling and the rotational presence would come to an end.”

“This is a time-limited rotation,” Mr Conroy told the ABC, in comments which sparked a flurry of conversations between US and Australian defence officials and a subsequent clean-up operation by the Albanese government.

On Friday Defence Minister Richard Marles again clarified the government’s position, telling News24 the US submarines would have an “enduring” presence in Australia.

“The Submarine Rotational Force-West at HMAS Stirling is intended to be an enduring feature of America’s force posture in Australia,” he said, adding that “has been the position of the government from the outset”.

Under the AUKUS optimal pathway, US and British submarines will first deploy to WA’s HMAS Stirling naval base next year, before Australia begins to receive second-hand Virginia-class boats in the early 2030s.

Since the AUKUS optimal pathway was unveiled in 2023, officials in both Canberra and Washington have worked on the assumption that US nuclear-powered submarines would permanently rotate out of Western Australia, so talk of a time limit caused surprise.

Minister Conroy’s comments were strictly speaking in line with those long held plans, because by the early 2030s Australia is expected to transition from training on US submarines under SRF-West, to operating its own nuclear-powered fleet.

For many inside Labor, this steady build-up of US military personnel and infrastructure in Western Australia has been an anathema, but the AUKUS issue barely raised any debate during the party’s national conference in Adelaide last week.

Permanent US bases on Australian soil has for decades been a red line for the Labor left, but figures inside the party believe the impending rotation of US submarines out of Perth represents virtually the same thing.

Over recent weeks several leading Labor figures including former Minister Peter Garrett have been conducting an unofficial inquiry into the AUKUS program, examining the consequences of the military partnership with the US and UK.

During an appearance before the group earlier this month, former Defence Minister Christopher Pyne gave candid evidence of just how vital a semi-permanent submarine presence in Western Australia is for the United States.

“AUKUS is also a new United States submarine base in the Indian Ocean. The U.S. doesn’t have a submarine base in the Indian Ocean,” Mr Pyne told an audience of AUKUS critics in Adelaide.

“In the Second World War, HMAS Stirling hosted 140 submarines. It was one of the biggest submarine bases on the globe because the Dutch, the British, the Americans, the Australians based their submarines at HMAS Stirling.”

“For the Americans, being able to have a submarine base in the Indian Ocean is a massive strategic advantage,” he argued.

During last October’s White House meeting between Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and President Donald Trump, the then US Navy Secretary also highlighted just how vital Washington sees the rotations of its submarines down under.

After declaring AUKUS was “full steam ahead”, President Trump invited his Navy Secretary to make some remarks who then declared that a rotating force of US nuclear-powered submarines was “very important to our ability to project power in the Indo-Pacific and work with allies.”

Projecting power in the Indo-Pacific is of course crucial for any possible future war with China - but saying that out loud is even more sensitive than characterising a US rotation of submarines in Australia as a “permanent” fixture.