Defence Minister Richard Marles said Australia’s AI uptake is an “important sovereignty question” as the government moves to deepen cooperation with the United States on defence and emerging technologies. The same meeting in Washington DC also pushed forward US “force posture” in Australia, with the Pentagon saying the two sides would accelerate force posture initiatives at Australian bases. The language is polished. The direction is clear. More American power, more Australian money, and ordinary people are told it’s all for “stability.”
Who Holds the Levers
The United States already has a significant military presence in Australia through existing force posture agreements, including the annual rotation of US Marines through Darwin and the establishment of Submarine Rotational Force — West at HMAS Stirling near Perth. About 1,000 US Navy personnel are set to be based at HMAS Stirling from next year to support American Virginia-class submarines operating out of the naval base. Marles said announcements on a greater US military presence were expected when he and Foreign Minister Penny Wong meet their US counterparts in the next few months.
“You'll hear more from us about what [those changes] are at AUSMIN when we meet,” Marles said. “But ... since we've come to government, you can see a through-line of growing American force in Australia, and we think that's really important in terms of providing deterrence in the Indo-Pacific, providing for stability and peace in the Indo-Pacific. And that's very much in Australia's national interest.”
That’s the official script: deterrence, peace, national interest. Meanwhile, the apparatus expands. The Pentagon’s readout of the meeting also pointed to greater military-industrial cooperation between the two countries, including guided missile production. Australia signed a force posture agreement with Washington in 2014 aimed at securing the presence of US forces in Australia over the long term on the grounds that it helps provide stability within the region and assists with a quick response to humanitarian disasters.
The readout also pointed to defence spending, as the US continues to pressure allies to substantially lift investment in their militaries. “Secretary Hegseth emphasized the need for capable allies to contribute to the collective defense and invest in their own sovereign security,” it said. The phrase “sovereign security” lands differently when the security architecture is being shaped in Washington and paid for elsewhere.
Who Pays for the Arrangement
Asked about Australia’s defence spending, Marles said recent spending increases have been “well received”. “We now have defence spending at 2.8 per cent of GDP by the NATO measure, which puts us ahead of most NATO countries, with the exception of the Nordics, the Baltics, Poland, that kind of front line,” he said. “That means our spending on this day, in respect of defence, is ahead of Germany, ahead of Britain, ahead of France, ahead of Spain, ahead of Italy. All of that is understood. We have one of the highest spends on defence in the Indo-Pacific.”
That’s the hierarchy in plain sight. The state can find billions for war planning and alliance management, then call it prudence. The people below get the bill.
Marles also reiterated his confidence that Australia will be delivered its first Virginia-class submarine as planned under AUKUS. Under the agreement, Australia will buy three second-hand Virginia-class submarines from the US in the 2030s, with the first to be delivered in 2032. But the then-US president will have the final sign-off on whether the sale goes ahead, considering the US’s own needs at the time. The deal is sold as partnership. The veto sits elsewhere.
Marles said the establishment of Submarine Rotation Force — West and the Henderson Defence Precinct offers the opportunity for US Navy submarines to undergo maintenance much closer to their critical area of operation, creating sea days for the United States Navy. The benefit is stated plainly enough. More operational time for the US Navy. More infrastructure in Australia to make it happen.
AI, Data Centres, and the New Gatekeepers
Earlier this week, Marles met with a number of the world’s leading tech companies, including Anthropic, OpenAI, Microsoft and Google, while visiting San Francisco. The federal government has been pushing to build stronger links with top AI companies in the hope of attracting US investment into Australian-based data centres. Treasury estimates suggest the construction of data centres in Australia could be worth about $150 billion by 2030.
The government has flagged its desire to see more than just a financial return for hosting data centres, including guaranteed and affordable access to computing power for Australian businesses. Marles said securing more investment into AI in Australia is both an economic and national security priority, but there are also sensitive questions around community support.
“The whole point of what we've done in terms of articulating AI standards is to make sure that we are doing this in the right way in Australia, that we get the planning right so that the data centres are placed in appropriate places,” he said. “That they come with power, so that the power infrastructure that is created to power these data centres actually makes a contribution to our overall power grid rather than taking from it. In terms of the investment that these companies are looking at making, to be honest that's a welcome message from their perspective. Without a social license this doesn't get done.”
That last line matters. Without a social license, it doesn’t get done. The companies want the land, the power, the infrastructure, and the state is working to smooth the path.
Marles said building relationships with companies developing frontier AI models is also critical for the Australian Defence Force, given the role AI is expected to play on future battlefields. “When we look at all of the major platforms that we are operating today, going forward AI will have a part in respect of them,” he said. “And that's why this is such an important sovereignty question; it really matters that we have access to this technology.”