Analysis of: Peter Garrett to head independent inquiry into the Aukus submarine pact
The Guardian | June 1, 2026
TL;DR
Australian civil society launches independent inquiry into the $368bn AUKUS submarine deal after parliament refused proper scrutiny of what may be history's largest military expenditure. The pact locks Australia into US imperial strategy while socializing costs and nuclear waste onto workers.
Analytical Focus:Contradictions Historical Context Interconnections
The announcement of an independent inquiry into Australia's AUKUS submarine pact, led by former minister Peter Garrett, reveals a fundamental contradiction at the heart of liberal democratic governance: decisions affecting hundreds of billions in public resources and binding strategic commitments spanning decades are being made without meaningful parliamentary scrutiny or public debate. While the UK parliament conducted a year-long review and the US Pentagon held its own inquiry, Australia—the junior partner bearing enormous financial risk—has conducted no comparable examination of a deal that will reshape its economy, environment, and geopolitical position for generations. The material stakes are staggering: $368 billion in public expenditure, direct funding of US defence industrial capacity, commitment to store nuclear waste that 'will remain toxic for thousands of years' without an identified storage site, and the effective integration of Australian military planning into US strategic objectives in the Indo-Pacific. The recent announcement that Australia will receive secondhand rather than new submarines—framed as 'placing a premium on simplicity'—reveals how the junior partner in an imperial alliance absorbs risk while the hegemon maintains flexibility. Defence Minister Marles' admission that there will be 'no fundamental shift in cost' despite downgraded deliverables exposes the asymmetry inherent in such arrangements. The inquiry emerges from a coalition of trade unions, civil society groups, and Labor veterans including former PM Paul Keating, representing a nascent challenge to the bipartisan consensus on militarization. That this scrutiny must come from outside parliament—with Garrett explicitly stating the inquiry 'is doing the job that a proper parliamentary inquiry should be doing'—demonstrates how thoroughly national security ideology has captured formal democratic institutions, rendering them incapable of questioning expenditures that would face intense scrutiny in any other domain.
Class Dynamics
Actors: US military-industrial complex, UK defence industry, Australian political establishment (bipartisan), Australian defence contractors, Trade unions, Civil society organizations, Australian working class/taxpayers, Labor Party dissidents
Beneficiaries: US defence industrial base (directly funded by Australia), UK submarine manufacturers, Defence contractors and consultants, Military leadership and bureaucracy, Regions hosting submarine rotations (short-term employment)
Harmed Parties: Australian taxpayers bearing $368bn cost, Communities near future nuclear waste sites, Workers in sectors defunded to pay for submarines, Populations in communities potentially targeted in US-China conflict, Environmental and public health interests
The AUKUS arrangement crystallizes a hierarchy where the US hegemon maintains strategic flexibility while extracting financial contributions from allies, who in turn suppress domestic democratic scrutiny through appeals to 'national security.' The Australian political class—both major parties—has aligned with imperial interests against the economic interests of the working class majority, creating space for dissent only among retired politicians and civil society actors outside the parliamentary consensus.
Material Conditions
Economic Factors: $368bn public expenditure over decades, Direct Australian funding of US defence industrial upgrades, Opportunity cost of social spending forgone, Nuclear waste storage costs extending indefinitely, Collins-class extension adding $11bn+, 0.15% of GDP annually diverted to military
Australia's role as a buyer and junior partner exemplifies dependent development within the imperial system. Rather than developing sovereign industrial capacity, Australia funds US and UK production, receives secondhand equipment, and accepts technology transfer only for bespoke variants decades away. The labour involved—submarine construction, maintenance, basing—will be shaped by external decisions about technology and timing.
Resources at Stake: Australian public treasury, Nuclear waste storage land, Port facilities at HMAS Stirling, Future east coast base land, Rare earth minerals (referenced in Trump deal), Strategic position in Indo-Pacific shipping lanes
Historical Context
Precedents: Australia's historical alignment with imperial powers (UK then US), ANZUS treaty (1951) establishing US alliance framework, Vietnam War participation under alliance pressure, Iraq War 'coalition of the willing' (2003), Pine Gap intelligence facility hosting, Historical pattern of junior allies bearing costs while hegemons retain flexibility
AUKUS represents the latest phase in the long-term integration of Australian military and foreign policy into US strategic objectives, now intensified by great power competition with China. This follows the historical pattern identified in theories of imperialism where secondary powers are incorporated into hegemonic systems through military alliances that constrain their autonomy while binding their economic resources to the dominant power's strategic needs. The shift from UK to US hegemony in the Pacific after WWII established the template; AUKUS deepens it during a period of hegemonic transition and crisis.
Contradictions
Primary: The fundamental contradiction lies between the democratic legitimacy claims of the Australian state and its systematic exclusion of public deliberation from decisions binding the nation to a specific geopolitical alignment and massive resource commitment for generations—the inquiry explicitly exists because parliamentary scrutiny has been foreclosed.
Secondary: Contradiction between 'sovereign' Australian submarines and complete dependence on US/UK technology and goodwill, Contradiction between promised new submarines and delivery of secondhand vessels, Contradiction between nuclear submarine acquisition and absence of nuclear waste plan, Contradiction between Labor's historical peace constituency and bipartisan military consensus, Contradiction between regional stability rhetoric and escalatory military buildup
The independent inquiry represents an attempt to force these contradictions into public view, potentially catalyzing broader opposition. However, absent a fundamental shift in class forces—stronger union mobilization, sustained public pressure, or geopolitical changes altering US calculations—the trajectory favors continued implementation despite democratic deficits. The contradictions may intensify if cost overruns, delivery failures, or regional conflict escalation make the deal's terms politically untenable, creating openings for the opposition crystallized around this inquiry.
Global Interconnections
AUKUS must be understood within the broader architecture of US hegemonic maintenance during a period of relative decline and intensifying great power competition. The deal serves multiple functions for American imperialism: it extends the military-industrial base's market while having allies fund its modernization, it locks regional partners into strategic postures that prioritize US interests, and it advances the 'containment' framework against China that organizes US Pacific strategy. Australia's role echoes that of NATO allies in Europe—providing bases, purchasing equipment, and accepting the risks of proximity to potential conflict zones. The $85 billion rare earths deal signed alongside Trump's AUKUS endorsement reveals the economic dimensions underlying military arrangements: securing supply chains for critical minerals needed for both military hardware and the broader energy transition. Australia's integration into US strategy thus spans both the military and economic spheres, with defence commitments serving to guarantee resource access. This pattern—military agreements securing economic extraction—has characterized imperial relationships throughout capitalism's history, from gunboat diplomacy to contemporary 'partnership' frameworks.
Conclusion
The Garrett inquiry, whatever its immediate political impact, illuminates a crucial terrain of struggle: the democratic deficit that enables massive military expenditures while social needs go unmet. For working-class movements, the challenge is connecting opposition to military spending with positive demands for the social investment that $368 billion could otherwise fund—healthcare, housing, climate adaptation. The coalition of unions and civil society backing this inquiry represents a potential nucleus for such politics, but realizing this potential requires moving beyond expert criticism toward mass mobilization capable of challenging the bipartisan war consensus. The contradictions AUKUS embodies—between democratic rhetoric and authoritarian decision-making, between sovereignty claims and imperial subordination, between promised capabilities and actual deliverables—create openings, but only organized class forces can exploit them.
Suggested Reading
- Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of how finance capital drives military alliances and the division of the world among great powers directly illuminates AUKUS as an instrument of US hegemonic maintenance during inter-imperialist competition.
- The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein (2007) Klein's examination of how crisis and security narratives enable massive public expenditures that benefit private interests while bypassing democratic deliberation parallels the AUKUS decision-making process.
- The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of the capitalist state as an instrument of class rule helps explain why parliamentary institutions systematically fail to scrutinize military spending that serves ruling class interests.