AUKUS Public Inquiry: important, but not for the reasons they think
The AUKUS Public Inquiry matters more for the debate it provokes than for its dubious conclusions, because AUKUS needs ongoing popular support that can only be built and maintained through open discussion.
The debates that the privately run inquiry is prompting are essential for the ongoing popular backing that AUKUS needs to succeed. And, although the organisers will hardly expect this, the inquiry’s analysis and conclusions, by being so shaky, make it even more helpful. The weakness of the arguments creates an occasion for experts to knock them down and explain the value to Australia of this security partnership with Britain and the United States.
The inquiry’s report, issued on 4 November, had two main themes: an appetite for more information, and multi-pronged criticism of AUKUS, particularly its submarine element, Pillar One. Clearly, the two sit together uneasily, since a dearth of information about an issue must limit one’s ability to draw cogent conclusions for or against it.
The inquiry is right to advocate for more open discussion. While the three AUKUS governments necessarily created the pact in secret, the success of a multi-billion-dollar, multi-decade project relies on solid and consistent public buy-in. This is particularly true of AUKUS, with its potentially emotive elements such as nuclear technology.
Discussion until now has been sporadic, often prompted by specific news stories or by announcements on anniversaries of its conception. Commentaries spike in September (the anniversary of the announcement of the deal in 2021) and in March (the anniversary of the announcement in 2023 of the Optimal Pathway for the submarine acquisition).
Changes in leadership in any of the three countries also generally prompt commentators to muse over whether the trilateral and bipartisan support will start to fray. Only one conference of a major political party has vigorously debated AUKUS, the Australian Labor Party’s in 2023. Commentary by senior figures, often former ministers or military personnel, has ticked along, bolstered on both sides of the issue by academics.
But there has been limited consistent engagement on AUKUS with the public. And this matters.
Public views on AUKUS are clearly mixed. The inquiry cites the Guardian Essential poll, noting that only 38 percent of respondents claimed that AUKUS Pillar One would make Australia more secure. But the same poll found far fewer (21 percent) thought it would make Australia less secure. And annual polling by the Lowy Institute has consistently found that two-thirds of Australians support acquiring nuclear-powered submarines.
But when it comes to the public really understanding AUKUS and buying into the long-term concept, there is more to worry about for those in favour. A survey by the United States Studies Centre found that a sizeable 44 percent of Australians disagreed that AUKUS had been properly explained. And the Lowy poll showed that young people were much less likely than others to be in favour of Australia acquiring nuclear-powered submarines. So, although a majority may fundamentally support AUKUS, many don’t think the case has been sufficiently made, and support from the generation that will be charged with driving the project through future decades is weakest.
In the days since the report appeared, journalists, politicians and academics have been quick to scythe through its main arguments. And indeed those arguments aren’t cogent. Their faults range from inadequate understanding of Indo-Pacific geopolitics to failure to acknowledge that Australia can draw on US and British experience in managing nuclear technology and waste. The report glossed over the fact that alternatives to acquiring US and British submarines were indeed considered: AUKUS itself was an alternative to the previous plan. And the report took a naive and outdated view of sovereignty in today’s complex world, where the concept has had to adapt to a more intricate international web of partnerships and supply chains.
Despite that, the inquiry remains important. More discussion, within the constraints of necessary military secrecy, is hugely welcome. It’s an essential part of democracy and it paves the way for public support. So the inquiry is playing an important role in putting AUKUS (back) on the radar, injecting more life into debate. The weaknesses in the inquiry’s substantive arguments have actually given a platform for experts to showcase AUKUS’s positives. So, ironically, the anti-AUKUS sentiment that has driven the inquiry may well end up contributing to AUKUS’s ultimate success.
About Author
