Australia, NZ say AUKUS deal to boost security amid strategic challenges

SYDNEY - The leaders of Australia and New Zealand said on Friday the AUKUS trilateral defence pact would boost regional security and stability, as both countries warned they were facing the most challenging strategic environment since World War Two.

New Zealand is not a party to the defence pact between the United States, Australia and Britain but has been looking to explore a potential collaboration on "pillar two" of the agreement that focuses on shared military technology.

The "pillar two" of the AUKUS pact is separate from the first pillar designed to deliver nuclear-powered submarines to Australia.

"We share very much common values and we share common objectives, and it is not surprising we will look at any opportunity for including New Zealand in pillar two," Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in a media briefing with his New Zealand counterpart, Christopher Luxon.

The U.S. has said the door was open for New Zealand to engage on AUKUS.

The comments came after the U.S. State Department on Thursday said Australia, Britain and the U.S. now have comparable export-control regimes, a significant step needed to facilitate technology sharing on AUKUS.

Security ties with Australia, New Zealand's only formal defence ally, would remain close, Luxon said.

"Our intention is to say we want to be fully interoperable with Australia's defence forces," Luxon said. Both nations signed a deal last year to help improve the capability and readiness of military personnel.

A joint statement released after a meeting between Albanese and Luxon in Canberra said they had committed to "working in lockstep like never before to ensure our nations' security and prosperity".

The prime ministers said they had "grave concern about dangerous, destabilising and provocative behaviour in the South China Sea" and underscored the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.

Both leaders highlighted threats from cyber intrusions and said they would consider hacks as an armed attack if that threatened the territorial integrity, political independence or security of either nation.