AUKUS secrecy under fire as $368 billion price tag sparks questions about Australia's nuclear sub deal

The AUKUS submarine deal is costing Australians $368 billion, and critics say nobody really knows why.

That's the staggering figure in the latest budget for the trilateral security pact with the US and UK. And it's already blown out from earlier estimates.

But the real problem, according to a growing chorus of experts, isn't just the money. It's the secrecy.

Even supporters of the broad thrust of AUKUS were unsettled by how it was cooked up behind closed doors. The Morrison government gave Labor just 24 hours to respond in 2022 — a blatant political wedge ahead of the election. Labor blinked, endorsed the deal, and any chance of serious public debate evaporated.

Now both major parties are locked in. From Labor, there's been "studied silence" on why it abandoned its long-held opposition to nuclear power. Once elected, the Albanese government didn't pause to take stock. No independent review. No public inquiry. Just full steam ahead.

Defence Minister Richard Marles has downplayed concerns that AUKUS "binds Australia decisively to the United States and Great Britain for generations" — as a US press briefing bluntly put it. But the questions keep piling up.

Chief among them: how does this deal actually improve Australia's security? That's the fundamental question raised by witnesses at a crowd-funded public inquiry into AUKUS. Serious answers haven't been advanced.

Then there's the contradiction between Australia's stated desire for self-reliance and the reality that AUKUS ties us tightly to a US war posture managed by an increasingly unstable and unpredictable regime. Reasonable people are asking why we're signing up to a US project aimed at "containing" China and risking involvement in a war over Taiwan.

For Western Australia, where HMAS Stirling will host more US nuclear-powered (and armed) submarines, the question is especially pointed.

Uncertainties about whether the core element — buying and building nuclear-powered subs — is even achievable haven't been aired beyond specialist journals. The resignation of UK Defence Secretary John Healey on Thursday, citing inadequate defence spending, has only amplified the doubts.

Former Australian Defence Force chief Chris Barrie has expressed serious concerns about projected costs, delivery schedules, nuclear waste management, and Australia's capacity to deliver the technical expertise. The possibility that the technology may be superseded needs expert investigation.

Meanwhile, the government hasn't managed to assuage profound reservations among ASEAN nations about the foreign policy implications — especially for Australia's relationships with its near neighbours.

And overarching questions remain: will closer integration with the US lead to loss of strategic control of our defence? Does the deal comply with nuclear non-proliferation agreements Australia is signatory to?

None of this has been subjected to proper scrutiny. The expected processes of security policy development and defence equipment acquisition simply weren't followed.

Most of the public justification has focused simplistically on local job creation. But at $368 billion, Australians deserve to know what they're really buying — and whether it's worth the risk.