South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas turned up at the 50th Labor national conference in Adelaide on July 25, 2026, with a two-part message for his party: stop talking down to One Nation voters, and do not walk away from the Aukus submarine deal, even though the United States is struggling to build the submarines it promised.

In an interview for The Guardian's Australian Politics podcast, conducted by political editor Tom McIlroy and chief political correspondent Dan Jervis-Bardy, Malinauskas said progressives should stop treating Pauline Hanson's supporters as if they are too far gone to reach. His argument is simple: the way you talk to people matters as much as the policies you offer them.

On Aukus, he admitted the deal has problems but said quitting would be riskier than pushing through. That argument is being put to the test by numbers coming out of Washington.

The United States admitted the week before July 25, 2026, that it is not building submarines any faster than before. This is not a new problem. A Congressional Research Service report from January 2026 found that the US has never managed to build two Virginia-class submarines a year, which is the target. Since 2022, the rate has been stuck at about 1.1 to 1.2 boats per year (USNI News). A senior Pentagon official confirmed the rate is still below 1.2, even with more money. The Chief of Naval Operations said in August 2025 that there is no quick fix to get production up to where Aukus needs it (Janes).

Aukus Pillar I is the part of the deal where Australia buys US-built submarines. The problem is straightforward: the US needs to build submarines faster than it ever has, just to meet its own navy's needs, before it can send any to Australia.

The US has been stuck at about 1.2 boats per year for four years. The Chief of Naval Operations has said the fix will take years. The Pentagon admits the extra funding has not helped. So the deal that is supposed to deliver submarines to Australia depends on a production rate the US has never achieved.

This is the situation in which Malinauskas is asking his party to stay the course. His argument that walking away is riskier than sticking with it raises a fair question: riskier in what way, and for whom? If the submarines do not arrive, Australia faces a gap where its old submarines are retired but the new ones have not turned up, and an industrial plan built around a US shipyard that cannot even meet its own country's orders.

The One Nation question and the Aukus question are similar in one way. Both ask whether you engage with a reality you do not like, or hold out for something better. Malinauskas is arguing for engagement on both.

In my view, the Aukus side of his argument is the weak one. You can persuade a voter by changing your tone. You cannot persuade a submarine to arrive on time. It is either built or it is not, and the production numbers say it will not be built on the schedule Aukus assumes.

The conference in Adelaide was always going to be a chance for the factions to push back on the leadership's priorities. Malinauskas is presenting himself as a realist on both national security and election strategy. The question for the party is whether they agree that being practical means accepting a submarine deal that the supplier's own navy says it cannot deliver any time soon.

The US admission that production has stalled hands fresh ammunition to the people inside Labor who want to scrap Aukus. Malinauskas is betting that quitting is still riskier than waiting. That bet depends on the US eventually catching up. The Congressional Research Service, the Pentagon, and the Chief of Naval Operations are all on record saying that catch-up is not happening soon.