AUKUS Submarine Deal Slammed as Worst Australian Defence Decision Ever 2026

The AUKUS nuclear submarine deal has been branded “the worst, riskiest and most costly defence decision ever made by an Australian government” in a scathing public inquiry report. The inquiry, led by former Labor MP and Midnight Oil frontman Peter Garrett and former chief of defence Adm Chris Barrie, recommends immediately terminating the $368bn agreement with the UK and US.

The report, titled Surrendering Australia: the Aukus Deception, follows hearings across the country and more than 1,000 public submissions. It argues the deal undermines Australia’s sovereignty and risks dragging the nation into military conflict with China.

What the AUKUS Inquiry Found

The inquiry was dominated by critics of the submarine agreement, which was signed by the former Morrison government. It calls for a royal commission into the deal and the suspension of plans for new submarine bases.

According to the report, AUKUS badly undermines Australia’s sovereignty and undercuts longstanding commitments to nuclear non-proliferation. It also highlights a lack of scrutiny and oversight over the five years since the pact was announced.

The inquiry recommends that the auditor general and federal parliament launch independent reviews. It also calls for a rework of the second pillar of the agreement, which covers technology and defence capability sharing, and a fundamental recalibration of Australia’s relationship with Beijing.

Why Critics Say AUKUS Is a Risk

One of the central concerns raised by the inquiry is that the presence of powerful nuclear submarines could draw Australia into a military conflict with China. Critics argue that hosting such submarines makes Australia a more likely target.

The report also questions the cost, which has ballooned to $368bn. This figure has been a moving target, with recent reports of additional funding boosts for the submarine agency.

Furthermore, the inquiry argues that the deal compromises Australia’s sovereignty by tying the nation too closely to US and UK strategic interests. It suggests that Australia should instead pursue a more independent defence posture.

The Case for Scrapping the Deal

The inquiry’s recommendation to terminate AUKUS immediately is a bold one. It reflects deep unease among some experts and former officials about the direction of Australian defence policy.

Proponents of scrapping the deal point to the lack of transparency and oversight. They argue that such a massive expenditure should be subject to rigorous parliamentary scrutiny, not fast-tracked without proper debate.

They also highlight the opportunity cost: $368bn could be spent on other defence capabilities or domestic priorities. The report suggests that Australia should focus on diplomatic solutions and regional engagement rather than military build-up.

What Happens Next for AUKUS?

The report’s recommendations are not binding, but they add to a growing chorus of criticism. The government has not yet responded to the inquiry’s findings.

However, the call for a royal commission and independent reviews may gain traction, especially if public pressure mounts. The inquiry’s findings could also influence upcoming elections or policy debates.

Meanwhile, the AUKUS program continues to move forward. The Pentagon has confirmed that the deal is “full steam ahead,” and funding for the submarine agency has been boosted.

Key Takeaways from the AUKUS Inquiry

• The inquiry calls AUKUS the “worst, riskiest and most costly” Australian defence decision ever.
• It recommends immediate termination of the $368bn deal and a royal commission.
• Critics argue the deal undermines sovereignty and risks conflict with China.
• The report highlights a lack of scrutiny and oversight over five years.
• It suggests reworking the technology-sharing pillar and recalibrating ties with Beijing.

AUKUS Costs and Timeline at a Glance

The debate over AUKUS is far from over. As the government considers its response, the inquiry’s report will likely fuel further discussion about Australia’s defence strategy and its relationship with major powers.

For those following the submarine program, the shortage of qualified crew remains a critical issue. A retired admiral recently warned that Australia’s AUKUS submarine crew shortage could undermine the entire project. This adds another layer of complexity to an already controversial deal.

Despite the criticism, the Pentagon has insisted that the AUKUS submarine deal is full steam ahead. This determination from the US suggests that the agreement will proceed unless Australia decides to withdraw.

Transparency has been a major sticking point. Many argue there are still unanswered questions about AUKUS submarines that Australians deserve to have addressed. The inquiry’s report attempts to fill some of these gaps, but much remains unclear.

Cost overruns have also plagued the program. Recently, AUKUS costs ballooned with a $430m boost for the submarine agency, raising further questions about fiscal responsibility. Such spending increases are likely to intensify scrutiny.

Legal battles over access to documents have added to the controversy. Senator Rex Patrick has been fighting for transparency, and now Rex Patrick faces $150K in legal fees in his AUKUS documents battle. This case highlights the obstacles to public oversight.

Former Prime Minister Paul Keating has been a vocal critic. He warns that AUKUS risks Australia being drawn into a US-China war. His stance aligns with the inquiry’s concerns about sovereignty and conflict.

As the debate continues, the inquiry’s report will serve as a rallying point for opponents of the deal. Whether it leads to a change in policy remains to be seen.