Why did Australia want these nuclear-powered submarines, especially when they already had a deal to acquire AUKUS? the French submarines, what changed? And especially if from the time that Zach came out to present his idea, if he was getting laughed out of the room, what transpired to change thinking that then Australia's like, no, no, we need these nuclear powered subs.

Yeah, it's a good question, Murray.

And I think I'll start with initially, there's a bit of an impression, if you listen to the anti-AUKUS crowd in Australia, the people who are vehemently opposed to this, they kind of pitch a sovereignty question around this and say, you know, Australia's losing sovereignty as a result of this.

And there's sort of some texts around this is fundamentally anti-American and also tries to position this as just something the Americans have foisted upon us.

And I think I always like to start conversations like this with reminding everyone The greatest beneficiary of AUKUS is actually Australia.

I mean, the US have been developing nuclear submarine technology for over 70 years.

They've probably spent in excess of a couple of trillion US dollars on that capability.

How about you, Pete?

What does all this mean for Australia's existing approach to the Indian Ocean region? Do we need to be doing things differently or thinking about things differently?

Yeah, look, I think we need to get on the front foot now.

That's why I wrote that report late last year.

This is not something we can rest on our laurels and hope that in 10 years' time everything will just be fine and aligned to what we want to do.

So we need to take a very proactive stance.

As you said, China is expanding its economic and military presence in the region, while at the same time, the United States treats the region as a sort of secondary theater, as an economy of force theater.

And I think the shift from Indo-Peipom back to Pacific command is a really clear example.

So, Pete, I'll start with you.

Is it the case that there's countervailing forces keeping the needle precisely where it is? Or indeed, is this debate happening in a way that most Australians are not paying attention to?

Oh, look, I think it's hard to say.

And as much as I think the, the Lowy Poll is, uh, very encouraging and, and consistent support there for, for years, and realistically since, since AUKUS was announced, I think it takes only one, you know, geostrategic shock or one massive capability blunder to perhaps change perceptives-- perceptions on that.

But I do think, you know, uh, most Australians reflect on the fact that the world is changing.

I think there is a, a large communication story to be had, uh, on that, and I think that we need to lean into that, uh, more in terms of educating the Australian public, both government, uh, and the Department of Defense leaning into that conversation.

I think most Australians can see that the world is changing and would probably agree that a strong Australian Defense Force, and we are of course an island nation, something I feel like I say too much, but a strong Australian Defense Force that has significant capability in the maritime domain is an important response to that.

And I think the average Australian gets that.

But assuming we're sitting here again in five years' time for AUKUS's tenth birthday, what's the discussion gonna be like?