A defence insider told me last year AUKUS was f****d. Now the final nail was just hammered into the coffin – and the blame game has started: PVO

You’re on your own 

Defence minister and Deputy PM Richard Marles appears to have accidentally belled the cat this week in Question Time.

He all but admitted that it’s likely Australia won’t get delivery of the American nuclear-powered Virginia submarines as promised a decade from now.

And we don’t have a back-up plan if the AUKUS agreement falls apart.

Marles was asked about the issue last week by Teal MP for Wentworth Allegra Spender.

In trying to avoid answering the question – because, let’s face it, the charade that goes on at 2pm on sitting weeks rarely involves real answers – Marles noted that there was no plan B.

He did so while trying to blame the Coalition for all the confusion that existed between Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison as the former government flip-flopped between buying conventional French or Japanese subs versus the deal finally done with America and Britain to acquire nuclear subs instead.

Marles is probably right to blame the Coalition, but learning that we have nothing to fall back on when the defence minister also acknowledged there is a real risk the U.S. won’t deliver the Virginia-class subs on time – or perhaps at all – is surely a problem?

It’s a major problem if you think submarine capacity matters to our national security.

I remember being told by a defence expert early last year that he didn’t believe the AUKUS deal would ever eventuate.

At the time, I thought he was being unnecessarily pessimistic. It now seems perhaps Marles agrees!

The downside of a rate cut 

The latest inflation data makes it likely the Reserve Bank of Australia will cut interest rates again next month. For mortgage holders, it will come as a welcome relief after years of biting financial pressure.

While rate cuts may sound like a victory for the government and the public, the implications are not nearly so straightforward.

Let’s start with the economic side of things.

A rate cut is, at one level, good news. It means the RBA believes inflation is under control and that the economy can now afford a more supportive monetary policy.

After 18 months of aggressive rate hikes designed to tame inflation, another reduction signals that the inflation genie is back in the bottle. Households, particularly those with mortgages, will breathe a sigh of relief, because the higher mortgage payments over the last few years have exacerbated the cost-of-living crisis for many.

Renters will benefit as well. When rates go higher, investment property owners try to soften the blow by increasing rents.

But that’s not the only story when it comes to falling inflation and expected cuts to the cash rate. Rates coming down usually also indicate that the economy is weakening, or at least losing momentum.

If the RBA starts slashing rates, it might also be because economic growth is slower than anticipated, with rising unemployment or subdued consumer spending taken into account as well.

In other words, while a rate cut may seem like good news for your mortgage, it could also suggest the economy is faltering – meaning that your job might soon be at risk, and any investments you have (including superannuation) might also suffer.

That’s a precarious message for a government already under fire for cost-of-living pressures.

The political fallout from the RBA’s decision, therefore, depends on how voters interpret it. A rate cut might be seen as the government’s success in taming inflation, but if the economy looks fragile, it could spark fears of a slowdown.

The opposition would certainly latch onto any signs of economic weakness, claiming the government’s policies aren’t working.

But the real kicker is how the banks react and what the government does if they don’t pass the cash rate cut fully on to mortgage holders. We’ve seen that happen many times before. Beyond complaining about it in the media, politicians have done little about it. What they can do is limited at best.

In a bid to boost their margins, banks sometimes only pass on a fraction of the cash rate cut the RBA puts in place. When that happens, the public bears the brunt of the economic reasons behind the RBA’s rate cuts – without enjoying the full hip-pocket relief the cuts are supposed to provide.

When the central bank lowers rates, the idea is that consumers should feel the benefit. But the reality is that the big banks often see an opportunity to bolster their profits at the expense of struggling Australians. If this happens again, the political ramifications land right on Labor’s doorstep.

What will they do about it beyond bleat?

Any perception that the banks are putting profits over people will play directly into the hands of the opposition.

Public pressure and political posturing are unlikely to get the banks to play fair. The government could push the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to monitor the banks more closely, ensuring they don’t abuse the situation. But direct intervention in how banks pass on rate cuts would be politically risky as well, especially for Labor.

It could be framed as government overreach or anti-business rhetoric, and that’s a dangerous message for a government that claims it is working hard to keep economic policy market-friendly.

Jim does things by the book

Jim Chalmers wants to have his ideological cake and eat it too.

In recent months, the Treasurer has lavished praise on the book Abundance, written by a pair of American journalists, calling it a ‘ripper’ and hailing its central message that the progressive Left has become its own worst enemy by strangling nation-building projects in red tape and reflexive ideological opposition.

Well, guess what? Didn’t Chalmers and Labor do exactly that when they ran a scare campaign against nuclear power at the last election?

The government won’t even do a cost-benefit analysis on what an embrace of nuclear power might do for Australia, let alone embrace it if the findings supported the approach.

And here is another fun fact when it comes to Chalmers’ love affair with the book: Abundance makes a full-throated case for nuclear energy as essential to delivering clean, abundant power.

It explicitly argues that modern progressives must stop treating nuclear as taboo. It makes you wonder if the Treasurer has actually read the book he says is so brilliant.

If he actually has, the raw political hypocrisy of praising its contents so soon after the 2025 election is palpable.

Chalmers lined up in front of microphones to paint nuclear energy as a fringe idea, despite so many countries embracing it as part of their decarbonisation plans.

Now, without a hint of self-awareness, he’s celebrating a book that slams the outdated posturing of Chalmers and his colleagues, who dismissed the Coalition’s nuclear ambitions as a ploy to delay the clean-energy transition.

You can’t selectively quote your favourite think-piece while ignoring the parts that undermine your own record. If Chalmers genuinely believes in Abundance’s message, he should say clearly whether he’s changed his mind on nuclear.

If not, he’s just cherry-picking convenient talking points to sound modern and reformist, while staying welded to Labor’s backward-looking platform.

This isn’t a minor inconsistency. It goes to his credibility – or more accurately, his lack thereof.

Chalmers likes to position himself as part of the intellectual engine of the Albanese government, but this contradiction shows once again he’s more about spin than substance.