Submission 11 re AUKUS- lack of process, transparency, accountability

Submission 11 re AUKUS- lack of process, transparency, accountability – David Bowyer

This submission is made as a concerned member of the Australian public.It does not oppose AUKUS outright, nor does it dismiss the legitimate security challenges Australia faces in an increasingly contested Indo-
Pacific region. It asks something more fundamental: whether the decision-
making process that produced this commitment met the standard of transparency, rigour, and democratic accountability that Australians should reasonably expect before accepting what may be the most
consequential and expensive defence arrangement in the nation’s history.

Process and transparency The September 2021 announcement was
made abruptly, without prior public deliberation, and appeared to surprise
even some within government. The simultaneous termination of the
existing French Attack-class submarine contract — at significant financial
and diplomatic cost — demonstrated that credible alternatives had been
actively pursued until shortly before the announcement. This inquiry
should establish what documented strategic analysis justified the shift to
this specific capability, why that analysis has never been made available
to the public, and whether the secrecy surrounding the decision was
genuinely operationally necessary or primarily political.

Strategic rationale The publicly stated logic — that nuclear-powered
submarines provide superior area-denial and deterrence capability across
Indo-Pacific sea lanes — has never been openly stress-tested against
Australia’s actual strategic environment. Which specific, credible threat
scenarios require this capability? Have the opportunity costs been
formally assessed — including what equivalent investment in cyber
capability, surface vessels, air defence systems, drone technology, or
regional diplomatic partnerships might deliver? If those assessments exist,
they should be published. If they don’t, that is itself a serious concern.
There is also a capability gap that has received insufficient public
attention. Australia will not have operational submarines under AUKUS
until the late 2030s at the earliest. What is the documented plan for
managing our submarine capability in the intervening period?

Alliance dependency and strategic risk AUKUS creates deep,
structural reliance on US and UK support for training, maintenance,
technology transfer, and nuclear fuel. This is not a criticism of those
relationships — it is a risk that must be honestly named and managed.
ANZUS carries no automatic mutual defence obligation comparable to
NATO’s Article 5. The political volatility demonstrated in US foreign policy
since 2016 shows that alliance commitments previously taken for grantedcan shift.

What contractual, legal, and strategic fallback positions has
Australia secured in the event that US political will changes? Australians
deserve a documented answer, not reassurance based on assumption.

Financial exposure Publicly cited cost figures have varied significantly
and no completed, independently audited cost model appears to exist in
the public domain. Australians carry this liability. They are entitled to know
its full extent — including exit costs — before the commitment becomes
irreversible. The experience of the French contract cancellation, which
itself generated substantial financial and diplomatic costs, should serve as
a warning about the consequences of inadequate financial planning.

Nuclear stewardship Australia has no domestic nuclear power industry
and therefore limited existing institutional capacity to manage naval
reactor waste. Has a decommissioning and long-term storage framework
been formally established? Has it been independently verified by relevant
scientific bodies? Has any environmental impact assessment been
completed and made available for public scrutiny? These are not
hypothetical concerns — they are obligations that will fall to future
generations of Australians.

Conclusion These are not obstructionist questions, and this submission is
not an expression of reflexive opposition. They represent the minimum
standard of accountability and transparency that a functioning democracy
should demand before accepting a generational strategic, financial, and
environmental obligation on behalf of its citizens. This inquiry has an
opportunity — and a responsibility — to provide the public scrutiny that
the original decision conspicuously lacked.