A Betrayal of Due Process
The AUKUS agreement, spearheaded in secrecy by Scott Morrison, represents a profound failure of democratic oversight. It was not debated in Parliament, not subject to public scrutiny, and not even fully disclosed to Morrison’s own Cabinet. A deal of this scale—committing Australia to hundreds of billions of dollars over decades—should have gone through rigorous national debate, parliamentary approval, and strategic consideration. Instead, it was signed behind closed doors and later rubber-stamped by Anthony Albanese, leaving the Australian people with no voice in a decision that fundamentally reshapes our national defense.
A Questionable Investment in Uncertain Times
Australia is stretching itself thin to buy nuclear-powered submarines from the U.S., a country that is struggling to meet its own fleet demands. Even U.S. military experts admit they can’t build enough subs for themselves—so will they really deliver on AUKUS? Or will Australia be left in a strategic limbo, permanently dependent on the U.S. for maintenance, parts, and operational approval?
Moreover, by the time these submarines are operational, they may already be obsolete. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated the increasing dominance of drones, satellite surveillance, and land-based missile systems over traditional naval power. Investing in massive, slow-moving nuclear subs risks repeating historical mistakes—spending astronomical sums on outdated technology instead of adapting to the changing nature of modern warfare.
Who Really Controls These Subs?
AUKUS positions Australia not as an independent military power, but as an auxiliary force for U.S. strategic interests. The American defense establishment will likely retain significant operational control, given that these subs require American fuel, American maintenance, and American training programs. Will we have the sovereign authority to deploy them independently? Or will we find ourselves dragged into conflicts not of our choosing?
The Democratic Path Forward
Good governance demands transparency, debate, and public accountability—all of which were absent in the AUKUS decision. If such an unprecedented defense commitment can be made in secret, what does that say about the health of our democracy? Parliament exists precisely to prevent such unchecked executive power, yet on AUKUS, both major parties fell into lockstep without asking the hard questions.
A decision of this magnitude should have:
- Been debated openly in Parliament with input from defense, economic, and geopolitical experts.
- Gone through public consultation—letting Australians weigh the financial, security, and sovereignty trade-offs.
- Explored alternative strategies—investing in regional partnerships, drone warfare, and modern deterrence strategies rather than sinking all resources into one massive Cold War-era bet.
Instead, Australians were presented with a fait accompli, their voices dismissed, their Parliament sidelined.
AUKUS is not just about submarines—it’s about the erosion of democratic decision-making in Australia. If we let governments commit trillions of taxpayer dollars without due process today, what else will they sign away in secret tomorrow?
Casey for Wide Bay 