Australia’s $368 billion pledge to the Aukus security agreement has spurred fierce public discussion and rising demands for an autonomous Aukus review. Many independent MPs and senators are calling for a quick parliamentary review as issues concerning cost, viability, and strategic goals surface. Their message is clear: big defense decisions shouldn’t be taken behind closed doors.

Aiming to equip Australia with nuclear-powered submarines, the Aukus agreement—between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States—was reached, but the agreement was reached with no public consultation or parliamentary debate, which caused general worry among both specialists and citizens. Many are wondering why Australia has not followed the US and UK in doing assessments of their participation.

Why Are Leaders from the Crossbench Demanding Reviews?

Many independent MPs feel that neither major party has conducted a rigorous analysis of the Aukus agreement. Particularly candid has been Independent MP and retired army lieutenant colonel Andrew Wilkie. He contends that both Labor and the Coalition have displayed unquestioning allegiance to the defense establishment.

“I believe Australia should have an autonomous Aukus review since both main parties have drunk the Kool-Aid,” Wilkie remarked. “They are depending entirely on what the admirals tell them without question.”

Wilkie thinks Parliament should stop and rethink the strategic priorities of the country. He said that a formal review would give Australia’s long-term defense objectives a chance to be reset and take conventional submarine alternatives over nuclear ones under consideration. Public confidence depends on transparency, he notes as well.

Is the current submarine plan sensible?

Many analysts of defense have questioned whether the objectives of the Aukus accord could be reached within the stated period. Representing the Greens, Senator David Shoebridge noted it was “remarkable” that Australia is the only nation in the Aukus alliance not doing an internal assessment.

“No respectable observer believes Australia will get Virginia-class submarines by the mid-2030s,” Shoebridge said. “The US is expected to have the fewest of those submarines in decades at that point.”

Shoebridge thinks the US might force Australia to pay more for support of its military manufacturing. Referring to this as a “double shakedown,” this situation might seriously tax Australia’s defense budget. An independent Aukus evaluation of Australia would serve to explain if the predicted expenses and timescales are reasonable—that is, either realistic or too ambitious.

What would an independent Aukus Review Australia look at?

Such a review should, according to MP Monique Ryan, accomplish more than only validation of present plans. It should look at all possible options and carefully assess the strategic reasoning behind AUKUS.

“It should determine whether dedicating resources to nuclear submarines is the best use of them,” Ryan said. “We also need to consider the opportunity cost, the delivery schedule, and what Australia’s alternatives are should the submarines not be delivered on time?”

She underlined that the Aukus transaction was developed without appropriate consultation or discussion. Thus, establishing a standing review committee could enable the initiative to change with the times as world events develop. Read another article on Southport Killer Case Triggers Inquiry

Could AUKUS raise strategic risks for Australia?

Deeper alignment with US strategic interests—especially in attempts to limit China—may make Australia a more likely target in a geopolitical conflict, according to some detractors.

Retired Major General Michael Smith thinks that this risk may be increased by the US joint facilities on Australian territory and potential Aukus submarine stations. He said Australia should not be dragged into a US-led approach devoid of consistency and predictability.

“The need for an independent Aukus review becomes even more pressing,” Smith added. “We have to look at whether these configurations improve national security or raise our vulnerability.”

Many non-governmental groups, such as the Australian Security and Peace Foundation, which contend that more public discourse and openness are necessary to prevent strategic blunders, also share this view.

Other Nations’ Reactions to AUKUS

Internal assessments of US and UK policies toward AUKUS have already started. The British Parliament formally announced an investigation in April. Citing grave issues with financing, timing, and delivery outcomes, a report by the UK’s Infrastructure and Projects Authority labeled its nuclear submarine project as “unachievable.”

Notwithstanding these difficulties, the Australian government has not yet revealed a similar approach. Critics have become frustrated about this since they feel that political convenience is taking precedence over democratic responsibility.

Crossbench MP Allegra Spender said public involvement is very necessary for the project to be successful. “An independent Aukus review in Australia is essential to ensure the public understands and supports such a massive investment,” she said.

Why is the right approach a parliamentary review?

Many believe that a parliamentary investigation is the best course of action since it allows broad input from academics, government officials, military professionals, and common Australians. Members of the Greens and Crossbench feel this method provides a forum for evidence-based decision-making.

Senator Shoebridge said, “A public and parliamentary review lets facts be freely available and promotes openness. It guarantees the government cannot make decisions in a vacuum.

Apart from openness, a review could help to enhance the policy itself. Parliament may guarantee that national security policies remain efficient and flexible by knowing several points of view and weighing reasonable options.

What is the government’s posture?

The federal administration has stayed dedicated to the Aukus deal even as demand for a reassessment grows. Emphasizing that it is a “multi-decade, multi-government” initiative, the Foreign Minister lately underlined that future presidents will partake in supervising its development.

“To see this through will take many years and several administrations,” she remarked. Still, the commitment is significant.

Although this message shows long-term commitment, it has not silenced the increasing demand for responsibility. Critics contend that public confidence cannot be sustained without an autonomous Aukus review in Australia that interacts with Parliament both now and in the future.

What’s next?

Momentum is gaining strength. Demand for open assessment of the Aukus agreement comes from voices from all throughout Australia—crossbench MPs, defense analysts, state governments, and public interest organizations. The drive is about making sure the agreement is fit for purpose, fiscally sensible, and consistent with Australia’s long-term interests rather than about totally rejecting it.

Now more than ever, an autonomous Aukus review of Australia is a duty rather than only a recommendation. Transparency and responsibility must direct every stage of this major defense decision if the government seeks to safeguard national interests, build confidence, and preserve strategic clarity.