From Crikey, ALBERT PALAZZO, 2 December 2025

A committee tasked with reviewing AUKUS should have been a good thing. But one designed to ensure that there are no contrary voices destroys its value from the start.

Well, the government has done it again. Instead of taking the opportunity to support the open scrutiny of AUKUS and improve transparency in government, Anthony Albanese’s Labor, with the support of Sussan Ley’s opposition, has chosen secrecy regarding the oversight of Australia’s most expensive defensive initiative.

Last week, a new committee was announced that will monitor areas of government working on AUKUS, with work to be conducted in secret, except for public hearings authorised by the defence minister. It will be limited to no more than seven parliamentarians and six non-government members, all of whom are to be selected by Albanese and Ley. A government spokesperson said its makeup would be modelled on the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security, which does not include independent or Greens MPs.

Since Scott Morrison sprung AUKUS on the nation during his time as prime minister, avoidance of scrutiny has been the name of the game. With their decision to form a new committee, Albanese and Ley have now doubled down on a policy of keeping citizens in the dark.

As AUKUS is both Labor and Coalition policy, one might cynically conclude that AUKUS fandom is a prerequisite for committee membership — not skill at probing enquiry, ability for intelligent analysis or courage in independent thinking. But why the necessity of secrecy over transparency?

Only weeks earlier, the government, joined again by the opposition, rejected a proposal by Greens Senator David Shoebridge to create a more representative committee that included members from the minor parties and independents.

Tellingly, such uncontrolled voices might have brought attention to some of the more uncomfortable aspects of the AUKUS agreement, such as:

• The need for and cost of a nuclear waste dump in Australia to store the highly radioactive materials that the nuclear-powered submarines will generate, and the unanswered question of how the government will secure the facility for the necessary thousands of years;
• The greatly expanded defence budget that AUKUS will require if what the government has promised is to be delivered;
• The ability of the government to ignore red flags, including statements by the US chief of navy, who has publicly acknowledged that the US is unlikely to achieve the necessary submarine build rate to permit the transfer of the promised Virginia-class boats;
• The much greater exposure to risk that Australia has accepted, particularly a potential war between the United States and China. It would be comforting to know that the government has a plan to prevent the nuclear annihilation of Australian cities, as well as the intention to fund a civil defence organisation, build the necessary shelters and stockpile essential anti-radiation supplies;
• The donation of unretrievable billions of dollars to the United States and the United Kingdom;
• The government’s determination to make Australia a target in a war between great powers; and
• The inability of Australia to operate the submarines — if they happen to arrive — as fully sovereign warships, rather than as a sub-command of the US Navy.

But perhaps the most important question the AUKUS committee will likely not address is why Labor and the Coalition continue to ignore the will of the majority of their bosses: the Australian people?

A recent poll by The Australia Institute reveals that fewer than half of Australians think the AUKUS deal is in the nation’s best interest or makes us safer. Moreover, only 16% of those polled believed the United States is a “very reliable” security ally, while just 8% strongly agreed with the statement that Australia and Trump’s America share the same values.

Contrary to what the average Australian wants, the government’s focus is on more deeply embedding the country within the American security structure. No amount of sovereignty, it seems, is too much for our government to surrender.

AUKUS is rapidly becoming a test of the worth of Australia’s democracy and the primacy of the people in the nation’s political hierarchy. In an age of increasing global authoritarianism — including in the United States — Australia’s political leaders appear determined to ignore the will of those they represent.

Arguably of greater concern than even the major parties’ unjustified and unexplained enthusiasm for AUKUS is this condescending attitude to those they represent. The people expect the government to make hard decisions, including finding the best way to safeguard the nation in increasingly tense times, but to do so with honesty and respect for those they serve.

Excessive secrecy is becoming a theme in the business of government, as the recent signing of a billion-dollar refugee removal deal with Nauru shows, as do planned changes to the freedom of information process, which former independent senator Rex Patrick described as the means to entrench secrecy in government.

A committee tasked with reviewing AUKUS should have been a good thing, but creating one designed to ensure that there are no contrary voices destroys its value from the start. It is another symptom of a political process that prefers to deny the public the right and ability to scrutinise its decisions. This is not democracy.