In the lead-up to the federal election, calls to scrap or, at the very least, closely scrutinise the AUKUS military pact are growing.
Britain has announced a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS and the United States is also reviewing the $368 billion dollar nuclear-powered submarine deal.
Meanwhile, the major parties are using this election campaign to recommit their support to AUKUS. This is despite the nuclear-powered submarines being unlikely to materialise or, at least, not in the original timeframe.
The April 9 Sydney Morning Herald editorial backed calls for an inquiry into the nuclear submarine deal, saying “the world has changed since the AUKUS deal was inked”. It pointed to Trump’s “conflation of tariffs with defence”, which, it said, was “confusing”.
“When such a once-reliable ally as the US no longer seems so reliable, it is surely worth following the common sense of the House of Commons and taking a look at AUKUS. Given the huge amount of money involved and the implications of Trump’s rancid patrimonialism, there is nothing wrong with a renewed oversight.”
Christopher Pyne, who as Coalition defence minister championed Australia becoming one of the world’s top 10 weapons manufacturers and is now a weapons lobbyist, told the SMH on April 14 that Trump had “introduced a new level of uncertainty” about AUKUS. “Anybody who says that’s not true is blind to the facts,” he said. But, contradictorily, he warned that “naysayers” are among AUKUS’ biggest threats.
As the cost-of-living and housing crises deepen, anger is growing at the major parties committing to spend $33 million every day for 30 years, on nuclear-powered submarines.
Dr Colin Hughes, spokesperson for the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN), said on April 11 that people have been “kept in the dark” about the Coalition and now Labor government negotiations with Britain and the US.
“A lack of examination of AUKUS by parliament must be rectified as a matter of very high priority,” Hughes said. Among the questions that have not been answered is the capacity of the US’ boat-building program to be able to supply Australia with nuclear submarines.
“Billions of Australian taxpayer funds could be spent for nothing,” Hughes said.
Hughes said Trump’s presidency is showing that “Australia must stand on its own two feet”.
Morrison justified the initial AUKUS spending was needed in preparation for a war with China, which Trump seems to have started with his 145% “reciprocal” tariff on all goods from China.
China is Australia’s major trading partner and, besides that, most Australians don’t want to go to war on China. Even Opposition leader Peter Dutton has dialled down his anti-China rhetoric in the hope of boosting his electoral chances.
Hughes said AUKUS “risks Australia becoming a military target”. IPAN is concerned about nuclear safety as well. It said the risks of a nuclear leak or low level radiation in Australian ports and risks of contamination to first responders are real.
“What happens in the event of a nuclear explosion or, even worse, a terror attack,”Hughes asked.
IPAN said 20 conventional submarines would be the most “cost-effective form of protection for Australia’s shallow coastline” and could be built for $30 billion.
The Australian Greens, Australia’s Voice, Victorian Socialists and Socialist Alliance want AUKUS to be scrapped. Independent MPs and candidates, including Zoe Daniel, MP for Goldstein, Monique Ryan, MP for Kooyong and Nicolette Boele, independent candidate for Bradfield, are also now demanding the major parties commit to a parliamentary review of AUKUS.
“The fact that the major parties aren’t talking about such a critical issue during an election campaign is deeply concerning,” Boele said.