There are things seared into the memory of ministers that are never forgotten. One such occasion for me was to be told as defence minister by a normally sensible colleague in the Coalition party room that unless every last bolt for a new submarine was made in South Australia, and every last weld done in the state, the proposal was unacceptable. It was just one illustration of how parochial South Australian politics distorted national discussions about replacing the ageing Collins class submarines, delayed orders for a decade and potentially endangered our national security.

Successive South Australian governments perpetuated the fantasy that workers from the car industry would readily walk into new jobs building submarines, even though the skills and training required are very different.

The Aukus arrangements provide a neat solution to a problem that has bedevilled our national defence debate for a decade and a half. By having up to four US Virginia class submarines in our region from 2027, the capability gap is plugged. Members of the Abbott government discussed buying Virginia class submarines, but didn’t proceed on advice of a range of impediments, including the absence of a nuclear industry in Australia to provide servicing. Instead, it opted for a new diesel-electric submarine to be delivered in the mid-to-late 2020s. This timeline blew out with the choice of a French design by the Turnbull government which was eventually scuppered in favour of the new arrangements. By rotating submarines from 2027, the original timetable is restored and the capability gap diminished. Moreover, it involves superior nuclear submarines.

Although the first locally built submarines are not expected until 2042, they will mostly be built in Adelaide, salving local parochialism.

A Rand Corporation study concluded that surface vessels built in Australia would cost up to 40 per cent more than the same builds overseas. Given the complexity of a submarine, the differential is even greater. It is also a fact that the cost per vessel falls significantly with each subsequent build. It is why the Abbott government’s competitive evaluation tender called for the costings of an onshore build, an offshore build and a hybrid model involving the early submarines built overseas with subsequent construction in Australia.

The Aukus arrangements provide the safeguard of purchasing two more overseas submarines if there is a delay in the design and construction of the models to be constructed locally.

The penchant of the Australian defence leadership to demand bespoke indigenous designs for naval vessels has fed delays and increased costs over many decades. The joint design of the submarines to be built in Adelaide should ameliorate this tendency, but not necessarily eliminate it. The option to continue to purchase an evolving US-designed boat provides a viable option if the old attitudes persist.

Apart from the discordant comments of Paul Keating and a few pro-China voices, the arrangements attracted considerable acclamation. But the real test is the delivery of various projects over the next three decades. The risks should not be underestimated.

One is to safeguard the project against future decisions to downgrade or delay it. Another is to ensure that there remains genuine bipartisan support over coming decades. The current government, which will be in opposition sometime in the future, should reach out to conservative parties to implement a vehicle for genuine ongoing discussion about the project. A parliamentary standing committee should also be tasked with oversight of the project – and its members given the necessary security clearances to have access to full briefings from the Defence Department.

The biggest risk is complacency – or worse – about the intentions of the Chinese communist regime. When someone of Paul Keating’s experience turns a blind eye to the egregious behaviour of Xi Jinping’s regime, how many others will be influenced by him? Asked about the plight of a million Uighurs locked in ‘re-education’ camps in Xinjiang province, with many sent to servitude in Chinese sweat shops, Mr Keating retorted with some false equivalence about Australia’s Aboriginal population. He has previously said we should not assist the 25 million people who live in democratic Taiwan if attacked by Xi’s forces. Hardly a day goes by without some further act of aggression by the Chinese. Just this week, Qantas warned its pilots about radio interceptions by the PLA and interference with airline navigation systems, with advice to ignore them. The list of Chinese transgressions, documented in these columns for months, grows longer each week. The Chinese regime is impeding the laying and repair of cables in the South China Sea – an area of international waters in which it has already constructed military bases on artificial reefs.

Keating’s assertion that the Chinese regime is not about ‘upending the international system… or seeking to propagate some competing international ideology’, is refuted by Xi Jinping’s repeated statements. In November 2020, Xi told President-elect Biden that, ‘democracies cannot be sustained in the 21st century, autocracies will run the world. Why? Things are changing so rapidly. Democracies require consensus, and it takes time, and you don’t have the time.’

Xi uses Cold War language to describe his objectives. In April 2021, the Chinese Communist party’s People’s Daily newspaper highlighted a newly published book, Questions and Answers on the Study of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. The book is replete with Cold War rhetoric. The world is described as a field for ‘competition of two ideologies and two social systems’. Xi is convinced that communism will prevail. According to the Chinese leader, China is at ‘the centre of the world stage’ and ‘the historical evolution and competition in the world between two ideologies is being solved in favour of Marx’. The CCP rejects democracy, the rule of law and universal human rights. Mr Keating is misguided if he thinks that the CCP is a benign force for good.

Finally, the building of nuclear submarines in Adelaide should lead to the implementation of the recommendations of the Scarce Royal Commission. The report recommended the repeal of state and federal prohibitions which currently prevent further development of the nuclear industry in South Australia beyond its current role in the mining and export of uranium oxide concentrates.