AUKUS Submarines: The Unanswered Questions Australians Deserve 2026

AUKUS submarines are the most expensive defence project in Australia's history, yet the government refuses to answer a fundamental question: what are they actually for? That is the central finding of a former defence chief who served on the AUKUS public inquiry.

In 1998, I was appointed chief of the Australian defence force. I spent much of my career handling classified information and I understand why some things must stay secret: operational plans, intelligence sources, the capabilities on which lives depend.

But there is a difference between protecting secrets and withholding reasons. On AUKUS, Australians have been denied the reasons. That is the significant lesson I take from serving as a commissioner on the AUKUS public inquiry.

The Inquiry That Heard Nothing from Government

The government and the opposition declined written invitations to give evidence. No one serving in the Australian Defence Organisation appeared. This means the case for the most expensive defence project in our history – likely to be more than $368bn by the mid-2050s – was never put to us.

Instead, we heard from other Australians – young people, their mums and dads, and First Nations Australians – who cannot get straight answers about AUKUS and its implications for them.

They want to know about the nuclear issues – the waste from the submarine program and the rotation of American and British nuclear-powered submarines through Western Australia. They want to know about the costs and why Australia is actively supporting submarine building in the US and UK through unconditional financial support.

The government may say it has not been silent. The Australian Submarine Agency has produced fact sheets, a public website, and other materials. But fact sheets are not reasons. They do not explain why this capability, at this cost, is necessary for Australia's defence.

Why the Silence Matters

Without a clear public case, the AUKUS program lacks the democratic legitimacy that major defence investments require. The inquiry heard from citizens who feel excluded from a decision that will shape Australia's security and finances for generations.

This is not just about transparency for its own sake. It is about ensuring that the enormous resources committed to AUKUS are directed at the right threats and capabilities. As I have argued, the government must explain what the submarines are for – and why they are worth the price.

The lack of explanation also undermines public trust. When citizens are told that details are classified but no overall rationale is offered, they are left to speculate. That is a recipe for division, not unity.

The Nuclear and Cost Questions

The inquiry heard specific concerns about nuclear waste and the rotation of US and UK nuclear-powered submarines through Western Australia. These are legitimate issues that deserve clear answers.

Australians also question why their government is providing unconditional financial support to submarine building in the US and UK. This support helps sustain foreign industrial bases, but its benefits to Australia are not obvious.

These are not minor details. They go to the heart of whether AUKUS is a good deal for Australia. Without answers, the public cannot judge.

What the Government Should Do

The government should provide a comprehensive public explanation of the strategic rationale for AUKUS submarines. This can be done without compromising classified information.

• Publish a clear statement of the threats AUKUS submarines are meant to address.
• Explain why nuclear-powered submarines are the right capability for those threats.
• Detail the expected costs and industrial benefits for Australia.
• Address nuclear waste and safety concerns transparently.
• Allow senior defence officials to testify before parliamentary inquiries.

These steps would not endanger national security. They would strengthen it by building public confidence.

Comparing AUKUS Submarine Options

The table below summarizes key aspects of the AUKUS submarine program as publicly known. It highlights the scale of the commitment and the gaps in public information.

The table shows that while some facts are public, the reasoning behind them is not.

The Path Forward

The AUKUS public inquiry has exposed a democratic deficit. Australians deserve to know why their government is committing hundreds of billions of dollars to a submarine program that has not been publicly justified.

The government should seize the opportunity to make its case. If the case is strong, it will withstand scrutiny. If it is weak, the public should know that too.

As a former chief of the defence force, I believe in protecting genuine secrets. But I also believe in accountability. On AUKUS, the government has chosen secrecy over explanation. That must change.

For a deeper look at the challenges facing the program, see our analysis of Australia's AUKUS submarine crew shortage, where a retired admiral warns of critical gaps.

Despite these concerns, the Pentagon has confirmed that the AUKUS submarine deal is full steam ahead. This underscores the need for public debate.

Critics like Paul Keating have raised alarms, arguing that AUKUS risks drawing Australia into a US-China war. Such warnings make the case for transparency even stronger.

There is also debate over whether Virginia-class submarines are the right choice for Australia. The government must explain its reasoning.

The proliferation implications are significant, as discussed in our article on Australia's nuclear submarine fleet and global proliferation. These concerns cannot be ignored.

Finally, the use of weapons-grade uranium in Australia's nuclear submarine fleet raises serious safety and security questions that demand clear answers.