News week to 12 September
News
- Skidding Pacts: An AUKUS Delusion Update.
- The Trojan Horse of Sovereignty: How US Troops in Australia Became a Strategic Asset – for the United States
- AI data centre puts Melbourne’s West Gate Bridge at risk. Labor and Coalition vote down bill to strip tax breaks from charities funding Israel war machine
- Australia’s continued enmeshment with the US could make it a nuclear target, former Labor minister warns.
- Construction of SA’s $8.5bn nuclear submarine shipyard kicks off
The Trojan Horse of Sovereignty: How US Troops in Australia Became a Strategic Asset – for the United States
Turnbull further warned: “It is naive to imagine that the submarines, if ever acquired, could be used other than in accordance with American wishes. Will AUKUS enhance our security or simply draw Australia into a conflict with China whether we like it or not?”
9 September 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, https://theaimn.net/the-trojan-horse-of-sovereignty-how-us-troops-in-australia-became-a-strategic-asset-for-the-united-states/
Dedicated to the Australian people – whose sovereignty has been traded for a promise of protection that was never real.
Abstract
This article examines the expanding US military presence in Australia under the Force Posture Initiatives and the AUKUS agreement. We argue that the official narrative – that US troops are in Australia to defend Australia – is not supported by the operational reality. The integration of US forces into Australian military infrastructure, the logistical vulnerabilities of forward deployment, and the strategic benefits to the United States collectively demonstrate that Australia is being transformed from a sovereign ally into a forward-operating platform for US power projection. Drawing on expert analysis, parliamentary testimony, and operational data, we conclude that the US presence serves to protect American strategic assets and secure US strategic depth, not to defend Australian sovereignty. We further argue that the Australian government is locked into this relationship for its own political survival, at great cost to the nation’s long-term interests.
1. Introduction: The Unspoken Surrender
The United States military presence in Australia is growing. Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles confirmed that “American force posture in Australia is growing” across every domain, following meetings with US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. This expansion includes the prepositioning of US military equipment, rotating aircraft deployments, and logistics support for US vessels. Under the AUKUS agreement, four US Virginia-class submarines will be housed at HMAS Stirling naval base from 2027.
Yet the Australian public has not been told the full story. The official narrative – that US troops are in Australia to defend Australia – obscures a more complex and troubling reality. The integration of US forces into Australian military infrastructure is not about Australian defence. It is about securing US strategic depth, projecting US power, and protecting US assets.
2. The Official Narrative vs. Operational Reality
2.1 The Claim: Defence of Australia
The Australian government maintains that the US presence enhances Australian security. The Force Posture Initiatives allow US forces to train and store equipment in Australia, including through rotating aircraft deployments and logistics support. The narrative is one of shared interests and mutual defence.
2.2 The Reality: A Forward-Operating Platform for the US
Expert analysis contradicts the official narrative. Professor Chen Hong, Director of the East China Normal University’s Australian Studies Center, has stated that the US is deepening military cooperation with Australia to further integrate the country into its military architecture in the western Pacific. The US seeks to leverage Australia’s strategic location, ports, airfields, and military training facilities, as well as its relatively secure rear area, to facilitate troop rotations and strengthen logistical support for US forces .
This integration, Chen argues, means that “within the US alliance system, Australia is evolving from a traditional ally into a strategic-depth and forward-operating platform for US forces. Its infrastructure and industrial capacity can increasingly be integrated into the US military supply chain and converted into capabilities that support US military operations.”
2.3 The “Basing” Euphemism
Australia finds it “curiously difficult to talk in plain terms about foreign military basing on its territory,” despite being “the most loyal of America’s treaty allies.” This sensitivity is evident in the official language: the US Marine Corps maintains a “rotational” detachment, not a “base.” Yet the reality is that Australia is extending runways and building new facilities at several air bases to accommodate temporary US combat aircraft deployments, and presumably to store US weaponry, fuel and spare parts. As one analyst notes, “This is a form of basing, even if it’s not permanent.”
The “basing” question matters because “a significant expansion to the US forward force posture appears to be underway, and the Australian public needs to be ready for it.”
3. The Logistical Impossibility: Defending Australia from Australian Soil
3.1 The Vulnerability of Forward Deployment
The US military presence in northern Australia is growing, with significant infrastructure expansion. The US is spending between $490 and $970 million to expand RAAF bases in Darwin and Katherine, including command centres, barracks, and hangars. RAAF Base Tindal will host rotations of six nuclear-capable US B-52 bombers. Darwin already hosts an annual rotation of up to 2,500 US Marines.
Yet these forces would be unable to defend Australia against a major power. They are positioned for power projection, not territorial defence. As one analyst has noted, the US is using Australia’s relatively secure rear area to “facilitate troop rotations and strengthen logistical support for US forces.” The troops are not positioned to repel an invasion – they are positioned to project power into the region.
3.2 The “Colossal Sacrifice of Sovereignty”
Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has been a vocal critic of the AUKUS agreement, warning that it represents a “colossal sacrifice of sovereignty” and that Australia has “effectively ceded control of a West Australian naval base to the US navy.” Turnbull’s submission to a public inquiry stated: “Whether we get any nuclear-powered submarines will depend on political decisions in Washington and industrial developments in the US and the UK.”
Turnbull further warned: “It is naive to imagine that the submarines, if ever acquired, could be used other than in accordance with American wishes. Will AUKUS enhance our security or simply draw Australia into a conflict with China whether we like it or not?”
3.3 The Threat to Sovereignty, Not the Solution
Former Labor luminary Bob Carr echoed these concerns, arguing that the US alliance presented more of a threat to Australian sovereignty than protection from potential conflict in the Indo-Pacific. Carr stated: “Why can’t there be a debate about B52s in Australia’s north, about the militarisation of Australia’s north. We’ve suddenly made it a target if there should be a war between the two dominant powers.”
The Australian government has “effectively ceded control” of HMAS Stirling to the US Navy, and the “enduring” presence of US submarines represents a permanent foreign military footprint.
4. The Real Purpose: Protecting US Assets, Not Australia
4.1 Strategic Depth and Power Projection
The US is using Australia as a “strategic-depth and forward-operating platform.” The infrastructure and industrial capacity of Australia are being integrated into the US military supply chain and converted into capabilities that support US military operations.
Airbases in northwestern Australia are being upgraded to “increase the strategic depth of U.S. forces in the region” and “serve as launch and recovery sites for long-range surveillance and strike aircraft.” These bases are being prepared for hosting aerial refueling aircraft, supporting surveillance aircraft and bombers, and serving as an “air bridge” refueling tactical fighter aircraft operating over the South China Sea.
4.2 The Logistics of War
The integrated logistics necessary to undertake combined Australian-US land-based long-range fires have been tested and improved following Exercise Operose 2024. The exercise tested how US Army Pacific specialists can work with their Australian counterparts in developing and confirming their interoperability in providing rapid theatre-level logistical deployment of long-range fire assets from logistic nodes in Australia.
The US has also prepositioned three companies’ worth of vehicles and containers at Bandiana, Victoria, under the Combined Logistics, Sustainment and Maintenance Enterprise (CoLSME) Force Posture Initiative. This prepositioning demonstrates that Australia is being used as a logistical hub for US military operations.
4.3 Protection of US Assets
The physical presence of US troops in Australia is not to defend Australia from an external invasion. It is to protect US assets and maintain US strategic depth. As one analysis notes, Australia is located “closer than Hawaii or the continental US to potential flashpoints like Taiwan and the South China Sea, yet remote enough to be beyond the range of most of China’s missiles. It’s relatively secure as well as politically reliable and imbued with strategic depth.”
Australia is being used to “disperse US forces away from more vulnerable bases in Japan and South Korea, and to position reinforcements in the region in case of a protracted conflict.” This is not Australian defence – it is US power projection.
The physical presence of US troops in Australia is not to defend Australia from an external invasion. It is to protect US assets and maintain US strategic depth. As one analysis notes, Australia is located “closer than Hawaii or the continental US to potential flashpoints like Taiwan and the South China Sea, yet remote enough to be beyond the range of most of China’s missiles. It’s relatively secure as well as politically reliable and imbued with strategic depth.”
Australia is being used to “disperse US forces away from more vulnerable bases in Japan and South Korea, and to position reinforcements in the region in case of a protracted conflict.” This is not Australian defence – it is US power projection.
5. The Cost to Australia: Paying for the Privilege
5.1 The Financial Cost
The AUKUS agreement is the most expensive defence project in Australian history, costing $368 billion. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has described it as a “massive sacrifice of Australian sovereignty” at “the worst possible time to be sacrificing sovereignty.”
5.2 The Strategic Cost
The deeper integration with the US military means Australia is being transformed from a traditional ally into a “strategic-depth and forward-operating platform.” This integration increases the risk that Australia will be drawn into military conflicts “that have never had any business being part of.”
Daryl Guppy, a former national board member of the Australia China Business Council, has warned that AUKUS has a “broader, multi-domain scope that includes rearming and upgrading the Australian military so its forces can serve as part of US military deployments.” This does not enhance regional security as it rests on the assumption that regional conflict is inevitable whenever US interests are threatened.
5.3 The Political Trap
The Australian government is locked into this relationship for its own political survival. The anti-China narrative has become the framework through which all other defence choices are justified. To back away from it would invite political attack. As one analyst has noted, the government’s approach is “sucking up” to the US, which “has undermined” Australia’s sovereignty.
The political trap is evident in the government’s silence on AUKUS. As Turnbull noted, the US Congress is “kept very well informed” about AUKUS, “but they have their own interests to pursue and it’s not always the same as us.” Meanwhile, the UK parliament has held “a thorough inquiry” and “made very severe, serious criticisms,” while “our parliament has done nothing, absolutely nothing.”
6. Conclusion: The Trojan Horse Exposed
The evidence is clear. The US military presence in Australia is not about defending Australia – it is about securing US strategic depth, projecting US power, and protecting US assets. The official narrative is a cover for a profound surrender of sovereignty.
The Australian government is paying for the privilege of being a forward operating base for the US military. It is spending $368 billion on submarines it may never receive, hosting US troops that would be unable to defend Australia, and integrating its military infrastructure into a US-led system that serves American interests.
The “Trojan Horse” of sovereignty is not a conspiracy – it is a visible, documented, and increasingly undeniable reality. The keys to Australian sovereignty have been handed over, not in a secret ceremony, but in plain sight: through treaties, agreements, and a political class too captured to see the obvious.
The task of unravelling this integration will be difficult. But it must be done – if Australia is to survive as a sovereign nation.
References…………………………………………………
AI data centre puts Melbourne’s West Gate Bridge at risk
by Megan Jones | Sep 8, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/ai-date-centre-puts-melbournes-west-gate-bridge-at-risk/
Victoria’s Government has approved a massive data centre in the parklands adjacent to the West Gate Bridge without fully considering the risks. Megan Jones with the story.
London data centres are hosing down their cooling systems to prevent fire. In Melbourne, the State government has approved a super-sized data centre on the edge of the West Gate Bridge’s eastern approach ramp, directly between the freeway and Westgate Park, a bushfire-prone native reserve.
The Victorian Government, using the emergency planning powers of the Development Facilitation Program (DFP), took 75 days to permit the building of NEXT DC, a $2B, 162 MW hyperscale data centre, with a stored onsite backup fuel load of 900 tonnes of lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries and 3.5 million litres of diesel.
Dubbed M4, the development, on behalf of Nvidia, is being built on the old News Ltd site across 2.64 hectares on 127 Todd Road, at the convergence of the West Gate Bridge, the Port of Melbourne shipping lane, and the West Gate transport corridor — all tier-one infrastructure.
Firefighter warnings
Kristjan Tuul, a firefighter with 20 years’ experience, now with the United Firefighters Union, said there are currently no adequate planning measures, equipment or resources in place to prepare firefighters for a thermal runaway event at the proposed data centre.
Tuul said a fully involved fire at a site of this scale could require a coordinated statewide response involving firefighters, airport emergency services and potentially Defence personnel, and could take weeks or more than a month to bring under control, telling MWM:
“The consequences could be catastrophic for the surrounding community, the environment and the economy.”
Tuul said firefighters had not been adequately consulted about emergency preparedness, mitigation measures or the resources that would be required should a major incident occur.
The development borders Westgate Park, which was the site of a major bushfire in December 2024 and another fire in 2025.
No fire danger assessment made
Tuul’s concern does not appear to extend to the political level. Nina Taylor, the local Member for Albert Park and recently appointed Cabinet Secretary, confirmed by email that she had not spoken with Fire Rescue Victoria about the potential fire and explosion risks associated with the development. Fires at data centres are rare, but they do happen.
A fire at South Korea’s National Information Resources Service data centre in Daejeon on September 26, 2025, triggered a thermal runaway event during a routine maintenance procedure. It took around 200 firefighters about 200 hours to bring the incident under control.
Fires have also occurred at data centres in Hillsboro, Oregon; Lincoln, Nebraska; Ain, France; Council Bluffs, Iowa; Ogden City, Utah; and Strasbourg, France. As no public global register of accidents or incidents exists, near misses and fires often go unreported.
All these fires were contained within the Data Centre Precinct, with no thermal runaways extending beyond the precinct. In Melbourne, the West Gate off-ramp is within the data centre’s precinct, which also borders the Port of Melbourne shipping lane.
Tuul warned large volumes of contaminated firefighting water and toxic runoff could also have significant consequences for surrounding infrastructure, including the Port of Melbourne, particularly if emergency services were unable to contain the runoff.
NEXT DC
NEXT DC is the operator of the new data centre. In a media release, CEO Craig Scroggie said M4 would have direct-to-chip closed-loop cooling supporting rack densities of 1000kW using recycled non-potable water. M4 has all the top-tier global safety certificates, including the prestigious Tier 111 and Tier IV certifications from the Uptime Institute, which sets the global standard for evaluating data centre reliability, availability and performance.
NEXT DC did not return calls for comments on the fire risk.
Ironically, the elaborate cooling systems used to cool the computers in data centres can cause fires. “As the climate warms and facilities attempt to minimise cooling for efficiency reasons, we could see a trend for cooling system failures,” wrote Peter Judge in Data Centre Dynamics magazine.
Judge is now a senior research analyst with the Uptime Institute. He told MWM he still stood by these quotes, reporting that a cooling system caused a fire in China in October 2022.
A backup cooling tower caught fire in the block that houses the data centre at China’s Suzhou Supercomputing Centre in the Suzhou Industrial Park, a technology and business flagship for the country. Cooling failures are rare, but experts warned that similar incidents are increasingly likely.
Rising temperatures might mean many data centres aren’t well suited to their local weather and could be vulnerable to future cooling failures.
Long-term risk
For Kristjan Tuul, the question is not simply how the West Gate data centre is managed today, while the facility is new and under intense scrutiny, but what happens over the decades ahead.
History shows why long-term oversight matters, as data centres have a 30-year lifespan.
In August 1991, chemical storage facilities at Coode Island caught fire, forcing evacuations and raising major concerns about industrial hazards near Melbourne’s population and critical infrastructure. The subsequent Coode Island inquiry identified four hundred breaches of safety requirements.
High power densities, battery and power supply failures, thermal mismanagement, and human error have caused other fires.
All causes were electrical, and the most common cause was lithium-ion battery failure, which led to three of the eight fires mentioned. The threat of overheating lithium-ion batteries increases with their higher energy density.
In London during a major heatwave in 2022, and probably more recently, data centres were forced to hose down their cooling systems due to overheating.
In further research, Peter Judge, while Editor at Data Centre magazine, warned in screaming headlines:
“Ignore Li-ion fire risks at your peril.”
Has the Victorian State Government done just that?
Labor and Coalition vote down bill to strip tax breaks from charities funding Israel war machine
Labor and the Coalition have voted down a Greens amendment to strip tax breaks from charities funding illegal Israeli settlements and the IDF. Stephanie Tran reports.9 Sept26, https://michaelwest.com.au/labor-and-coalition-vote-down-bill-to-strip-tax-breaks-from-charities-funding-israel-war-machine/
The Labor Government has joined with the Coalition to vote against a Greens amendment which would have stripped deductible gift recipient status from Australian organisations found to be supporting an illegal occupation by funding Israeli settlements and organisations linked to the IDF.
Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi introduced the amendment in the Senate this week, arguing that Australian taxpayers should not subsidise organisations whose funds support illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.
Genocide is a war crime. Ethnic cleansing is a war crime.
“But in this country, you can send money to fund those war crimes, and you’ll receive a tax deduction,” Faruqi told the Senate.
Both Labor and the Coalition opposed the amendment.
Faruqi referenced investigations by MWM which revealed that Australian charities registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) were hosting fundraisers linked to the IDF and Israeli settlements in the West Bank while benefiting from DGR status.“These charities are helping to bankroll the genocide in Gaza by channelling funds to organisations linked to the IDF and to violent illegal settlements off the back of Australian taxpayer money.”
The proposed amendment would have amended the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to provide that an entity would not be entitled to DGR endorsement if it had supported an “illegal occupation”.
Last month, the UK Charity Commission launched an investigation into charities in England and Wales donating funds to illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine.
ACNC rules “don’t extend to … international law”
Faruqi said the amendment was necessary because the existing regulatory framework did not adequately address conduct that breached international law.
“By maintaining DDR status for these supposed charities, the government says that this violence is okay. That is what this government is doing. That these murders are okay. That this ethnic cleansing is okay,” she said.
“How can supporting ethnic cleansing, settler occupation, and murdering Palestinians be ensuring the safety of vulnerable individuals overseas? It cannot, and the ACNC has not been able to answer these questions.”
When she previously moved the amendment in March, Labor senator Anthony Chisholm told the Senate that the ACNC’s external conduct standards did not extend to conduct under international law.
Faruqi said that meant charities could continue to fund activities that are unlawful under international law while retaining their tax concessions.
“Labor is more than happy for those who participate in, sustain, and fund the illegal occupation of the West Bank, an occupation that Labor itself has recognised as illegal, yet it gets a tax deduction,” she said.
Labor senator Tim Ayres said, “charity registration can be revoked by the ACNC where the governance and external conduct standards are not met”.
However, Ayres reiterated the government’s previous position that “the external conduct standards don’t extend to conduct under international law.”
Subsidising illegal occupation
Faruqi challenged Ayres over whether the ACNC was investigating specific organisations identified in the MWM investigations.
She cited the Chai Charitable Foundation, which received more than $19m in tax-deductible donations in 2025 and had hosted campaigns for organisations that publicly stated they provided direct support to IDF soldiers.
She also referred to reporting by MWM which revealed that the Foundation had hosted fundraising campaigns linked to settlements in Tekoa and Hebron in the West Bank.
Faruqi also cited investigations into United Israel Appeal Australia, which reported $50m in revenue in 2024, and funded the Lone Immigrant Soldier program, which provides support to immigrants serving in the IDF. The organisation has also funded settlement-related activities in the West Bank.
“Minister, do you know if the ACNC is investigating these organisations?” Faruqi asked.
Ayres heads off allegations
Ayres responded that “the ACNC is an independent regulator and it’s accountable for the work that it does on an independent basis”.When Faruqi pressed him on whether he should know whether the organisations were receiving tax deductions and whether the allegations demonstrated that existing safeguards were insufficient, Ayres said he could not respond to questions about individual organisations.
Faruqi challenged the government over the external conduct standard requiring charities operating overseas to take reasonable steps to protect vulnerable people.
“Palestinians living under occupation, displacement, and genocide”
“are clearly vulnerable people. Australians are deeply distressed that tax-deductible donations may be supporting organisations connected to the very forces and settlements harming them,” she said.
“Minister, why won’t the government listen to those concerns and support this amendment, so that it can be crystal clear that Australian tax concessions cannot be used to subsidise what your own government recognises as an illegal occupation? What is the problem here?”
Ayres said the government’s “approach in relation to the broader question has been very clear”.
“I don’t really understand the relationship that you’re trying to draw between the purposes of this piece of legislation, which is about DGR status and a whole range of things,” he said.
Escalating settler violence
The amendment comes as violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank has escalated, with two Palestinian teenagers murdered last week by Israeli troops.
Sixteen-year-old Khalil Abu Alia and 19-year-old Omar al-Nassan were killed in the Palestinian village of al-Mughayyir after settlers entered the village under police and military escort.
Abu Alia, who was about to begin year 11, was shot in the neck while standing on the doorstep of his home. Al-Nassan, who had recently graduated from the same school, was also shot and died before reaching hospital.
The two teenagers were among five students from the same school killed in Israeli attacks this year. The other victims included a 17-year-old Palestinian youth footballer and two 14-year-olds.
The organisation said the community was the 66th Palestinian community to have been wiped out since October 2023.
“These are whole worlds and lives extinguished in evil, depraved, and violent attacks that have become part of everyday life for Palestinians,” Faruqi said.
Coalition, Nats, Labor, One Nation – same deal
The Coalition also opposed the amendment.
Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie accused Faruqi of conflating support for the IDF with criminal conduct and criticised what she described as
“abhorrent anti-Semitic comments.“
At the same time, Israeli forces demolished the homes of 12 Palestinian families in Khirbet al-Taban in the South Hebron Hills, leaving all 70 residents homeless, including 28 children, according to Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem.
“Listening to Senator Faruqi, it would seem that supporting the IDF or the families of the IDF is somehow now a crime in Australia,” McKenzie said.
She said the Coalition would not support the amendment and “look forward to voting no as soon as possible”.
Faruqi, meanwhile, argued that the amendment was about preventing Australian tax concessions from supporting activities Australia itself recognises as unlawful.
“The International Court of Justice, in 2024, called on parties, states such as Australia, to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of illegal situations created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories,” she said.
“Labor allows Australian charities to funnel money to support ethnic cleansing, apartheid, violence, and occupation.”
“She accused Labor of hypocrisy“
over its position on Palestinian statehood and Israeli settlement expansion.
“It is completely disingenuous for the government to say it supports a Palestinian state while effectively subsidising its destruction,” Faruqi said.
“Supporting these heinous crimes deserves a criminal investigation, not a tax deduction.”
“Labor says they mourn the death of Zomi Frankcom, but in the same breath, they hand tax benefits to those who support the murderers.”
773 SUBMISSIONS to the AUKUS Public Inquiry – so far I have not found one in favour of AUKUS!
I don’t think that I, as one small observer, will be able to read, let alone copy out, every submssion.
But already I am struck by the fact, that the nuclear lobby seems to have not bothered to send any submissions.
This is so typical of the arrogance of the pro-nukes. Over so many decades they have insulted, condemned, scoffed, or patronised, any critic.
If a critic happens to be a nuclear physicist, (and there are quite a few of these) well then the lobby explains that he or she is at least “out of date”, but more likely “a mentally unstable radical”, or a dangerous person, and unemployable.
If the critic is not a nuclear physicist, well, they can be disregarded, due to their ignorance. If they’re female, then they’re “hysterical” like Dr Helen Caldicott
So, no need to participate in this Public Inquiry. Good heavens, no! It was not run by nuclear physicists!
Australia’s continued enmeshment with the US could make it a nuclear target, former Labor minister warns
“This makes Australia a priority nuclear target for any adversary of the United States,”
“An adversary would target Australia before targeting the US directly since to do so would invite immediate retaliation.”
Former Labor minister Melissa Parke has warned that Australia’s close military ties to the United States make it a priority nuclear target that adversaries would likely strike before attacking the US directly.
By Tegan George, Tue 8 Sep 2026 , https://thepoint.com.au/new/260908-australias-continued-enmeshment-with-the-us-could-make-it-a-nuclear-target-former-labor-minister-warns
Former Labor minister Melissa Parke has warned that Australia’s close military ties to the United States make it a priority nuclear target that adversaries would likely strike before attacking the US directly.
Speaking on the Australia Institute’s After America podcast, Ms Parke said Australia’s increasing enmeshment with the US was even more reason for it to join the “groundbreaking” Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
“It’s the first treaty to comprehensively and categorically prohibit nuclear weapons and anything to do with them: developing, possessing, testing, using, threatening to use, sharing, deploying, et cetera,” she said.
Ms Parke, now executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), said more than half the world’s countries had joined as states parties or signatories, including almost all of Australia’s neighbours in Southeast Asia and the South Pacific.
While Labor has committed in its national platform to joining the treaty since 2018, the Albanese government is yet to sign on the dotted line.
The commitment was moved by Anthony Albanese and seconded by Richard Marles, now Prime Minister and Defence Minister.
Defence Minister Richard Marles recently travelled to the US to meet his counterpart, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, as the countries marked the 75th anniversary of the ANZUS alliance.
Following the meeting, they agreed to “accelerate force posture initiatives” at Australian bases but didn’t say whether that would mean more American troops heading down under.
The growing US military presence includes the rotation of nuclear-powered submarines through HMAS Stirling and nuclear-capable B-52 bombers at RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory, alongside existing joint facilities such as Pine Gap.
“This makes Australia a priority nuclear target for any adversary of the United States,” said Ms Parke.
“An adversary would target Australia before targeting the US directly since to do so would invite immediate retaliation.”
She argued other countries in the region had joined the treaty without damaging their US relationship, pointing to Palau, New Zealand, the Philippines and Thailand.
Ms Parke said she understood the Albanese government was concerned about “upsetting” the US but cited former prime minister Paul Keating’s remark that “we couldn’t get rid of the Americans even if we wanted to”.
“Our own former foreign minister, Gareth Evans, says that reliance on US nuclear deterrence is both dangerous because it makes us a nuclear target and absurd because the US would never sacrifice one of its cities for ours.”
She said the treaty also provided victim assistance and remediation of affected environments.
“There’s a bit of a myth out there that nuclear weapons have only ever been used twice in Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” she told the podcast.
“But in fact, nuclear weapons have been exploded more than 2000 times around the world, mostly on colonised Indigenous and vulnerable communities.”
That includes Australia, where the British conducted 12 major nuclear detonations and hundreds of radiological trials in Western and South Australia between 1952 and 1963.
The tests caused severe radioactive contamination and prompted a royal commission into their lasting health and environmental impacts.
The treaty’s first review conference is due to be held in New York from 30 November to 4 December, but Ms Parke said some affected communities would not attend because they “don’t feel safe” under the Trump administration.
Ms Parke accused the US of doing “enormous damage” to international institutions and appearing willing to violate and discard any rule or norm of international law.
“When we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness,” she said.
“We accept what’s offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating. This is not sovereignty. It’s the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.”
Construction of SA’s $8.5bn nuclear submarine shipyard kicks off
But there remains a lack of clarity around where nuclear waste generated by the planned nuclear submarines was to be stored – self-described ‘transparency warrior’ Rex Patrick in the Federal Court battling for the information to be made public.
InDaily, 7 Sept 26
Work on Australia’s nuclear-powered submarines shipyard in Osborne starts in a multibillion-dollar government spend.
Expansion of the Osborne Naval Shipyard in South Australia is moving ahead, with construction starting on a massive new warehouse building that will house the build of future nuclear submarines.
The project was expected to cost about $8.5 billion and is part of a larger $368 billion AUKUS defence pact, where Australia will buy and build its own nuclear submarines using tech from the United Kingdom and the United States.
Construction of the first SSN-AUKUS submarine was expected to start by the end of the 2020s, with plans to deliver the first Australian-built nuclear submarine in the early 2040s.
The Australian Submarine Agency described the build of the nuclear submarines as “one of the most complex engineering tasks Australia has ever undertaken”.
About 1100 workers were currently delivering the Construction Yard and other projects.
It is set to contain approximately 600,000 sqm of floor area, making it ten times larger than the existing Osborne South Development project.
More than 50 new buildings will make up the entire project, including fabrication halls, outfitting facilities, offices and worker amenities.
It will require about 126,000 tonnes of structural steel – equivalent to 17 Eiffel Towers – and will take 66 million work hours.
The Fabrication Hall is the largest of the facilities at 420 metres in length – two-and-a-half times the length of Adelaide Oval.
But there remains a lack of clarity around where nuclear waste generated by the planned nuclear submarines was to be stored – self-described ‘transparency warrior’ Rex Patrick in the Federal Court battling for the information to be made public.
Beyond the construction yard, work has already been completed on opening a new overpass to enable access to the future construction yard.
A new Skills and Training Academy Campus is also being built, and construction was underway on the Production Demonstrations Facility, which will allow the first steps of submarine construction capabilities at Osborne…………. https://www.indailysa.com.au/news/business/2026/09/07/construction-of-sas-8-5bn-nuclear-submarine-shipyard-kicks-off
SUBMISSION to AUKUS Public Inquiry – Bob Beaver
9 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KWJZQLeI-UW9IVcCrW5OHReZDoeHYWe9/view
My Thoughts
That the future AI and advances in satellite technology will show locations and
trajectory of any submarine on the planet, meaning will no longer be secret
and easy targets for hostile nations.
That AI controlled underwater drones will also be able to track and disable
any type of submarine.
Ukraine has proven that cheaper technologies can be used to destroy more
expensive ones.
These billions would be better invested in Australian based scalable defence
technologies that we can produce locally without reliance on defence
partners.
SUBMISSION to AUKUS Public Inquiry -Anonymous
The subs are only to sail to the South Chin Sea to assist the U.S. in antagonising our biggest trading partner who is not a threat to Australia. China is not interested in invading us. China wants a peaceful world built on trade not war. This is all about the U.S. wanting to be the supreme power in the world.
8 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l6zeHF54DyFQ8tdc18G7_DE8X5GRh8D-/view
I believe Australia should not go ahead with AUKUS
1 The expense is unaffordable.
2. 30 plus- year-old subs will be at the end of their workable life. Decommissioning will be highly expensive and we have nowhere to store the nuclear waste
3. The war in Ukraine has shown that conventional machines are out-dated. Drone subs are a much better protection than outdated methods.
4. The subs are only to sail to the South Chin Sea to assist the U.S. in antagonising our biggest trading partner who is not a threat to Australia. China is not interested in invading us. China wants a peaceful world built on trade not war. This is all about the U.S. wanting to be the supreme power in the world. WE should not get involved in the U.S’s games. The U.S. economy is built on war and selling armaments. It spreads disinformation to keep its economy from collapsing.
5. The U.S. is in trillions of debt. The debt is now over 50% of GDP. It’s only a matter of time before the U.S. is unable to fund its debts. This could well happen before any subs arrive here. Billions of taxpayes’ money gone for nothing.
SUBMISSION to AUKUS Public Inquiry – Christine Hooper
Why not JUST underwater drones ( Pillar 2?) for surveillance and security rather
than subs? It seems that’s the way to go but we end up with old school and now
second hand old school. Subs are known to need a lot of money for refurbishment
and maintenance. Can we afford this whole thing? So why go down this path? It
seems we are tied to America to our detriment.
6 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Wqnq1Fts4PfMIVN8smmpGJI9uLx_P__l/view
AUKUS seems to be trumped up (no pun intended) to funnel money to the US and
UK. It seems that the submarines will not arrive in a timely manner if at all.
America is struggling to build its own subs and the UK sounds like it’s in disarray in
terms of submarine building. Will we actually receive these submarines? From
what I have read it seems highly unlikely.
Where will the submarines and “visiting” US submarines dock? Do we want nuclear
submarines docking close to major Australian cities? I think not. Will there be safe
guards against any nuclear accident? How will the submarines be refueled with
nuclear “energy”? Where will that nuclear substance be manufactured and stored?
Why would we suddenly welcome nuclear powered craft near our cities…or
anywhere for that matter?
Where will the ports be built and will any natural environment be destroyed to
build them?
There has been no transparency re this deal- no discussion. It was just announced.
Why not JUST underwater drones ( Pillar 2?) for surveillance and security rather
than subs? It seems that’s the way to go but we end up with old school and now
second hand old school. Subs are known to need a lot of money for refurbishment
and maintenance. Can we afford this whole thing? So why go down this path? It
seems we are tied to America to our detriment.
Can we afford this when we’re in economic downturn? People are in need of
financial help and there are many homeless. Shouldn’t this money be spent on
these issues?
Are we really potentially under threat? Or is this an American beat up to try to
remain the major “power”?
It just doesn’t make sense.
SUBMISSION to AUKUS Public Inquiry – Josephv PHILIPPA
5. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tFNT8jn9CR1DB9LkxAXCZ5EZS96GNv7Y/view
Money is desperately needed for useful social purposes. such as housing, health
and education instead of being squandered on supporting the American military
industrial complex.
SUBMISSION to AUKUS Public Inquiry – Tim Frodsham
2 On behalf of IPAN https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jOCTebJCd7h27Sdbbx4yqW611rOWByJK/view
Loss of Sovereignty: IPAN argues that AUKUS embeds Australia further into the US
and UK military-industrial complex. It risks binding Australia automatically to US
military actions and limits sovereign decision-making.
Nuclear Proliferation & Waste: The network highlights the severe risks of
transporting, storing, and managing radioactive waste in Australia. It also raises
alarm over the use of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium, undermining global
non-proliferation efforts. Extreme Financial Cost: IPAN criticizes the massive
expenditure—projected at over ($368) billion—and the early billions handed over
to US and UK shipyards. They argue this diverts critical funds away from urgent
domestic needs like healthcare, education, and climate action.
Regional Escalation: IPAN contends that AUKUS provokes unnecessary tension in
the Indo-Pacific region and increases the risk of Australia being drawn into a
catastrophic conflict against China.
SUBMISSION to AUKUS Public Inquiry – Nicole Munro
1 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r3Lm3deFhvlIqu9QY-T71ea2wVcvc8CU/view
I am writing as a concerned citizen about the impacts of the AUKUS deal. I am
deeply troubled by Roger Cook’s potential plan to build a weapon’s hub in Collie
WA. The government needs to consider both our safety and the environmental
impacts of this deal. We need climate solutions, and investment in renewable
energy infrastructure, not more carbon emitting machinery. We should also not be
tying ourselves to the ever increasing instability of the United States. No one
wants any of this, aside from the politicians who are pushing it for their own
personal gain. The cons far outweigh the pros. It’s time the government listen to
the people they supposedly represent.
SUBMISSION to AUKUS Public Inquiry – Slava Volin
Were the public told the truth? Is Australia getting what was promised? Should any
government commit this country to a nominal cost approaching AU$900 billion,
including a multi-generational nuclear waste liability that it refuses to disclose, without a
single independent public audit?
30 June 2026
RE: AUKUS: Moving Beyond Procurement Accountability to the Structural Case for
Contractual Renegotiation or Cancellation
THE DECISION WINDOW: BEYOND THE PROCUREMENT TRAP
Mainstream public analysis regarding AUKUS has focused systematically on delivery
timelines, transparency lapses, and the recent transition to an exclusively second-hand
Virginia-class fleet [1.1].
Other than a hot war, AUKUS is the single most important strategic, fiscal, and
welfare issue in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia.
The underlying metrics and statutory frameworks reveal a deeper structural failure.
AUKUS is not a delayed procurement; it is a fundamentally flawed, legally asymmetrical
pact that subordinates Australian fiscal and operational sovereignty to the statutory
vetoes of United States domestic law [1.1, 1.4]. The fundamental architecture of the
deal compromises Australia’s national independence, cannibalises existing naval
capability, invites strategic aggression, and permanently erodes the tax base and
essential public services of our citizens, completely independent of the final delivery
schedule [1.4].
This submission provides this independent Public Inquiry with the specific financial and
statutory metrics required to expand the terms of national debate. It demonstrates that
the current framework leaves the Commonwealth exposed to absolute foreign vetoes,
multi-generational uncosted liabilities, and a permanent reduction in independent
strategic decision-making [1.4].
THE FRAMING THAT MUST CHANGE: ELEVATING THE CRITIQUE
Focusing civic and parliamentary scrutiny strictly on delivery schedules and cost
updates risks engaging in a narrow project management debate that the Executive can
easily neutralise with revised timelines or minor disclosures. To establish an
unassailable framework for the final Inquiry report, the critique must shift from
procurement tracking to structural capture, targeting how the legal and financial terms of
the pact compromise Australian independence regardless of the physical delivery date.
THE MULTI-FACETED CASE: STRUCTURAL ENTRAPMENT
- FISCAL REALITY: Uncosted liabilities push the true nominal cost past AU$917
billion…………………………………………………………………………………………………… - WELFARE IMPLICATIONS: Structural Opportunity Costs and Public Service
Erosion………………………………………………………………………………………… - 3. LEGAL ASYMMETRY: Structural Vetoes Under United States Law……………………………………………………………………………………….
- STRATEGIC DISPLACEMENT: The Wrong Weapon for the Wrong War………………………………………
- OPERATIONAL HOLLOWING: The Maritime Workforce Crisis……………………………………………….
- SOVEREIGN EXPOSURE: Industrial and Engineering Dependence…………………………………………
- INDUSTRIAL FRAGILITY: The Vulnerable British Supply Pipeline……………………………………………..
ACTIONABLE STRATEGY FOR THE INQUIRY FINAL REPORT
Based on the statutory asymmetries, fiscal overruns, and industrial constraints compiled
in this evidence baseline, the Inquiry is urged to adopt the following three-tiered
framework as primary recommendations in its final report on 30 October 2026 [P3]:
Recommendation 1: Order an Immediate Forensic Audit and Formal Suspension……….
Recommendation 2: Execute the 12-Month Notice Provision to Cancel the
Submarine Component………………………………………………………………………
Recommendation 3: Brief the Executive on Preliminary Findings to Facilitate a
Managed Strategic Off-Ramp
The Inquiry Commissioners should formally engage the Prime Minister and the Minister
for Defence with a confidential briefing of these evidence-backed preliminary findings
prior to the publication of the final report on 30 October 2026 [P1, P3]. This private
briefing should be executed as a collaborative intervention to assist the government in
managing a rational strategic pivot, utilizing a distinct three-part psychological and
political framing:………………………………………………………………………………….
CROSS-EXAMINATION TRIGGERS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
THE 2028 QUESTION
Were the public told the truth? Is Australia getting what was promised? Should any
government commit this country to a nominal cost approaching AU$900 billion,
including a multi-generational nuclear waste liability that it refuses to disclose, without a
single independent public audit?
This Independent Public Inquiry possesses the unique civic mandate and strategic
separation from major-party factional consensus to ask these questions plainly,
providing an unassailable, evidence-backed reference framework for the future of the
nation.
THE AUKUS MASTER CITATION INDEX (74 VERIFIED SOURCES)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BLukBDqSKjRkp3YNaneLAM8rSG9B3Nus/view
Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry – Eileen Whitehead
When we look in detail at the Pillar II advanced capabilities involved with AUKUS, however, it becomes clear that these will have profound consequences not only for the Australian military, but for the whole of the Australian people in their everyday lives.
698 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zp9kXdUp0AV2B8U5sIhNKFROKGRnr_dG/view
Originally we were searching for submarines whose primary role was to protect Australia’s
coastline, which had been the Collins’ role. A tender process between German, Japanese and
French contenders resulted in the French Attack class (renamed from Barracuda class) submarine
being chosen. The original design of this class was for it to be nuclear powered, but the design
allowed for it to be conventionally powered by diesel-electric – but convertible to nuclear power
should future owners so desire. At A$50 billion, this was Australia’s biggest ever defence
contract
When we look in detail at the Pillar II advanced capabilities involved with AUKUS, however, it
becomes clear that these will have profound consequences not only for the Australian military,
but for the whole of the Australian people in their everyday lives.
These consequences include the privatisation (by stealth) of the Australian Defence Forces, the
growth of a significant local military industrial complex in Australia, to add to the domination of
the Australian economy by US and European arms manufacturers, giving away Australian
research, data and capital to the US and UK military forces, a further integration of the
Australian military into United States military operations around the globe, and the diversion of
Australian know-how, research and creativity to assist the continued growth of the US military –
industrial complex, rather than in the service of useful and sustainable industries in Australia.
Detail of plans for the development of AUKUS Pillar II is sketchy and hidden from public gaze.
Expansion of the military-industrial complex into Australia
The “military industrial complex” was identified as a real threat to democratic control of
government decisions by US President Eisenhower in 1961 – “This conjunction of an immense
military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we
must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must
guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and
will persist.” This threat is even more serious in the US today.
1
In Australia, researchers such as Michelle Fahy have identified the same process growing here – with a “revolving door” of people swapping between weapons corporations, Defence Department positions and political positions. AUKUS development will make this threat of undue influence far worse in Australia.
. AUKUS emphasis is on “dual use technology development” – in other words companies that develop commercially useful applications that also are useful in defence industry. For example,
Australian national security information will be stored in Amazon’s “High Security” cloud.3
In spite of huge private capital needed, significant government investment is also projected to
develop PII industries. For example the $3.6 billion earmarked for the new Advanced Strategic
Capabilities Accelerator.
4 Australian capital and research will be given to US military
4 Australian capital and research will be given to US military
The Pillar II focus on sharing technologies between partners means in practice a mostly one-way
sharing towards the US – that Australian research and IP and Australian government capital will
be provided to build up the US defence industry. AI training of algorithms requires vast amounts
of data sourced from the high tech corporations such as Google and Amazon. Data from
Australians will be swept up in these data collections without any consent – effectively ceding
sovereignty to US tech and military firms.
5 Australian defence industry will continue to be dominated by US defence corporations,
Comments by Richard Marles show that “Our ultimate goal is to supplement and strengthen U.S.
industry and supply chains, not compete with them.”
6. Australian Defence Force will become a US defence contractor
“Interchangeability” means that weapons can be used interchangeably – in practice that means
Australian weapons will be an adjunct to the US weapons arsenal, except that their enormous
price tag will be paid for by Australian taxpayers!
7. Australian people and data they generate will be used to train AI algorithms to help US
become dominant in AI – instead of building AI as a useful tool at the service of all countries.
8. Australian industry is in effect integrated into the US military industrial complex –
serving needs of US government and US military rather than Australia.
AUKUS involves:
● Increased porting, involving servicing and maintenance, of US and UK nuclear
submarines at HMAS Stirling.
● Australia’s purchase of 3-5 second hand Virginia class nuclear subs from the US in the
2030s.
● Building of up to 5 AUKUS nuclear submarines of UK design but eventual construction
at Osborne Shipyard, deliverable from the 2040s.
● The above at a projected cost of A$ 368 billion, (which is already at least double that).
● AUKUS pillar II involving advanced technologies in electronic and maritime warfare.
● AUKUS pillar II involving advanced technologies in electronic and maritime warfare.
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 