Antinuclear

The first 200 Submissions to the AUKUS Public Inquiry

5 October 2026, https://theaimn.net/the-first-200-submissions-to-the-aukus-public-inquiry/

With a hasty executive action by the Scott Morrison’s government, Australia signed up to buy $368 billions’ worth of second-hand nuclear submarines, and created a special military alliance with USA and UK -“AUKUS”. The then Opposition Party, Labor, led by Anthony Albanese, quickly fell into line. Now the Albanese Labor Government has stuck with this arrangement, and is keenly pursuing it.

Civil society groups, led by The Australian Peace and Security Forum, and funded by voluntary contributions – crowd funding – set up the AUKUS Public Inquiry, with hearings across Australia, to examine the costs of AUKUS, and other factors – transparency, safety and environment, and strategic impact. The Inquiry will release its report in early November 2026. They also called for submissions from the public, and have now received 1020 submissions, all published on their website, if you scroll right down.

Well, I am carefully reading each submission. I’ve now read from Submission 1 to Submission 200 and will now attempt to summarise the general themes of these. Though this is barely one fifth of the 1020 submissions received, I still think it’s an indication of how it’s all going, and I will continue going through the whole lot.

First of all, a pleasant surprise – the submissions were highly individual. As a seasoned submission reader, I was expecting to see a number of identical submissions, all derived from one sample plan. Not so. Although many people did have similar ideas, they were expressed individually, and often sounded personal, and some even passionate.

Secondly, they were in the main remarkably sceptical, and mostly opposed to the whole AUKUS project. Out of 200 submissions, only 6 were in favour of AUKUS. This is extraordinary, but is probably explained by the fact that this Inquiry was instigated by civil society groups, not by government or business organisations. Therefore, I think that the government and nuclear-industry – connected groups, and corporate media thought it best to ignore the Inquiry, and hope and trust that it would just disappear.

Those first 200 opinions on the AUKUS project came in two broad areas – those who focussed on the actual nuclear submarines – were they a good idea? and those who looked at the broader meaning of the AUKUS alliance between Australia, the USA and the UK. Of course, most submissions mentioned some of both aspects, as well.

In focussing on the nuclear submarines, writers considered their costs, their suitability for Australia’s defence, the lack of public and parliamentary scrutiny, the speed and secrecy of decision-making, safety, strategic implications, and management of toxic wastes.

The writers who paid attention more broadly, to the whole AUKUS alliance, considered the broader financial costs, issues of Australia’s sovereignty, democracy and the processes involved, secrecy, need for transparency, regional security and strategy, militarism, accountability, the involvement of the nuclear industry, and indigenous attitudes.

Those few who did support AUKUS (Submissions number 57, 169, 176 and 188,) stated the pro nuclear case, but did not seem to come from nuclear industry experts. They might have been from the industry, but there was none of the high-powered technical detail that I have come to expect from the nuclear lobby. This leads me to think that these were genuine personal opinions, and that the nuclear lobby has indeed boycotted this inquiry.

There were also a very few pro nuclear views, such as number 59 – POLICY WATCHDOG AUSTRALIA which offered some criticisms and recommendations. And a few who wanted a more formal, government-run investigation.

So, returning to the bulk of these submissions, most of them very thoughtful and well-argued, I’m just going to set out briefly the main concerns.

Far and away the main consideration was the cost – the financial price for the submarines, for supporting the U.S.A’s ship-building, and all the infrastructure needed in Australia

The second most important consideration was the nuclear submarines themselves, and strong arguments were put that these will not be fit for purpose, will be obsolete, and other craft would be more appropriate for Australia’s defence.

Really, almost equally important was the issue of Australia’s sovereignty. Many argued against too close an alignment with the USA.

Then came issues of the processes involved in Government decisions on AUKUS, reflections that it was undemocratic, lacking Parliamentary oversight, lacking transparency, lacking accountability. There were also strong concerns about militarism, about China not being our enemy, about better plans for regional security.

Of course, there are over 800 submissions more to go through. As I persist, I am publishing some of the most interesting ones on antinuclear.net. And looking forward to the final report of the AUKUS Public Inquiry. I don’t think that the corporate media will be so easily able to ignore that.

October 5, 2026 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina reviews