Former PM Turnbull questions Australia’s future under AUKUS pact

The AUKUS pact, a trilateral security partnership among Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, has been a subject of intense debate since its announcement. The deal, which includes Australia acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, has been touted as a strategic move to bolster defence capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region. However, not everyone is convinced of its merits, including former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

In a candid doorstop interview at Parliament House, Turnbull did not mince his words when he expressed his concerns about the AUKUS deal.

His critique was particularly focused on the potential implications for Australia’s sovereignty, security, and financial investment. Turnbull’s main contention is that the deal, which was negotiated by his successor Scott Morrison and is supported by the current Albanese government, is disproportionately advantageous to the United States.

He suggests that the agreement, which could see Australia spending up to $368 billion on Virginia-class submarines, is a deal that could leave the country vulnerable and financially burdened.

The former prime minister’s scepticism is rooted in the terms of the agreement, which stipulate that before any submarine is transferred to Australia, the US president must certify that it would not undermine the US Navy’s capabilities. Given the strategic importance of submarines to the US Navy and their current shortfall, Turnbull fears Australia may end up with no submarines of its own, despite the hefty price tag.

‘AUKUS is a terrible deal. It is so unfair to Australia, and the reason it is unfair is that we are paying US$3bn to the Americans to support their submarine industrial base, but we have no guarantee that we will ever get any submarines,’ he explained.

The AUKUS pact also led to the cancellation of a previous submarine deal with France, causing a diplomatic rift that saw French President Emmanuel Macron accusing Morrison of dishonesty. This fallout has added another layer of complexity to the debate, raising questions about the long-term diplomatic consequences of the AUKUS agreement.

Despite Turnbull’s scathing review, the current government remains committed to the AUKUS pact. Treasurer Jim Chalmers has reiterated the government’s stance, emphasising the strategic and industrial benefits of the agreement. He views AUKUS as ‘a long-term agreement’ that will endure beyond changes in government and aligns with Australia’s interests.

The United States, for its part, has expressed strong support for the AUKUS pact. In February, Australia made its first payment of US$500 million towards the deal, a move that was acknowledged by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Hegseth highlighted the importance of ‘robust allies and partners’ in the Indo-Pacific mission and the role of technology sharing and submarines in this endeavour.

Turnbull’s critique of AUKUS raises important questions for Australians, particularly those over 50 who have witnessed many shifts in the nation’s defence policies over the years. It prompts a reflection on the balance between strategic partnerships and national sovereignty, the financial implications of defence spending, and the transparency of such significant agreements.

As the AUKUS pact continues to unfold, it is crucial for the public to stay informed and engaged in the discussion. After all, the decisions made today will shape the nation’s security landscape for decades to come. 

What are your thoughts on the AUKUS deal? Do you share Turnbull’s concerns, or do you believe the pact is in Australia’s best interest? Join the conversation in the comments below.

Also read: Former PM warns about Donald Trump should China attack Australia