Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Advertising gimmicks: Australia's nuclear-powered submarines

By Binoy Kampmark - posted Wednesday, 9 March 2022

Never trust anything that comes out of a politician's mouth in an election year. Pledges are made to be broken; promises are made to seduce, not convince. When the subject matter involves fictional submarines, even greater care should be taken.

The prolonged, costly nightmare of Australia's submarine policy took another turn on March 6. The Defence Minister Peter Dutton could barely contain his excitement with the announcement that the Morrison government would soon be unveiling which nuclear-powered submarines it would acquire. "We will have an announcement within the next couple of months about which boat we are going with, what we can do in the interim."

To the ABC's Insiders program, Dutton oozed unsubstantiated hope. "Both the US and UK understand the timelines, they understand what is happening in the Indo-Pacific, and they are very, very willing partners." The minister was even willing to wager that the submarines would be operational before 2040, when his career and those of his colleagues will be confined to the dust of history. "We are going to acquire the capability much sooner than that."


The Labor Opposition defence spokesman, Brendan O'Connor, found the details thin and the secretive conduct of the government questionable. "Despite claiming they would keep Labor updated, we haven't had a single update from the Morrison government on this strategically important decision which is, quite frankly, appalling." He demanded a furnishing of "a detailed plan in the national interest […] as to how it will rectify delayed and over-budget defence contracts."

The original understanding was that the government would spend some 18 months examining its options on how best to deliver technology it has never had, nor had any aptitude or expertise in. But we are in an election year, and timelines wax and wane with elastic will.

To this is an added frisson: the war in Ukraine and Beijing's own foreign policy. In advanced notes given to media outlets on Prime Minister Scott Morrison's speech to the Lowy Institute, a dark vision is conjured up. "A new arc of autocracy is instinctively aligning to challenge and reset the world in their own image." That image seems strikingly one Morrison himself resembles: "the spectre of a transactional world, devoid of principle, accountability and transparency".

All this suggests a hurrying up that has little basis to it. Morrison has, for instance, promised "more than $10 billion to meet the facilities and infrastructure requirements" for the move to the nuclear-powered submarines. The effect of this promised splash remains to be seen, given the absence of Australian skills, which will have to be made up in US-UK training, and the total absence of any facility to host, let alone build nuclear powered submarines.

Nothing to fuss over. Australia's burghers are assured that this will be rectified by the construction of a new base at either Brisbane, Newcastle or Port Kembla (minds remain indecisively woolly on the subject of location) which will "enable the regular visiting of US and UK nuclear-powered submarines."

These arrangements are being pursued as part of the AUKUS security pact, announced last September to much fanfare and controversy – at least to those in Paris. While it advertised to the world that Anglosphere nostalgia lingers with corrupting influence, it left the government of Emmanuel Macron seething.


The AUKUS agreement effectively scuppered France's own submarine contract via the Naval Group with the Australian government. The original agreement to build 12 diesel powered attack class submarines, valued at AU$90 billion caused moments of salivation in Paris. French military industry would, or so it was thought, be raking in the cash and prestige.

But even before its termination, the doomed contract already looked like submerging without a trace. There were the predictable delays. There were questions about when the submarines would be operational, by which time they would be obsolete. Then came squabbles over the intellectual content of the project, which was, primarily speaking, a French rather than Australian matter.

For Beijing, AUKUS merely confirmed suspicions that Washington, Canberra and London were keen on encircling a boisterous rival in the Indo-Pacific. As Professor Li Haidong of the Institute of International Relations of China Foreign Affairs University put it, "The US is using the same approach employed to contain Russia in Europe after the Cold War to contain China in the Asia-Pacific region." To that end, the United States was "building a NATO-like alliance in the region, with AUKUS at its core, and the US-Japan and US-South Korea alliances surrounding it".

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne and blogs at Oz Moses.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Binoy Kampmark

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy