It’s just my opinion, but…
When then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison secretly negotiated the AUKUS pact in 2021, he didn’t just commit Australia to the most expensive defence project in its history – he also blindsided France, abruptly cancelling a $90 billion submarine deal and damaging an important diplomatic relationship. Now, with the Trump Administration threatening to torpedo AUKUS, Australians are left wondering: Was this deal always a $375 billion mistake?
For that eye-watering sum, Australia could have transformed healthcare, built affordable housing, or lifted thousands out of poverty. Instead, we locked ourselves into a decades-long military splurge for submarines that won’t arrive until the 2040s – assuming they ever do. Meanwhile, the U.S. and UK get a massive economic windfall while we foot the bill for their shipyards.
Worse still, Trump’s comments expose the fragility of relying on America’s political whims. If Washington pulls out, Canberra shouldn’t just walk away – it should claw back every cent we have paid them. Why waste money on a deal that may never deliver?
Defence planning is vital, but not at the expense of everything else. If Trump kills AUKUS, it might be the best thing that ever happened to Australia’s budget.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Roswell, never downplay the veracity of your opinions… on a subjective scale of sturdiness, yours are well above average in the scope of context & acceptability.
The former prime minister Morrison, appropriately subjected to scathing criticisms regarding his incompetence, deceptions, malfeasances, along with the raft of personal defects such as sociopathy, an unremitting tendency to obfuscate and lie, as well as a Machiavellian-like willingness to knife colleagues and seniors in his single-minded aim to ascend to the summit of the greasy pole of political hierarchy, lied to the French president Macron and back-roomed a deal with the Americans to purchase USA nuclear subs; the Australian people kept in the dark on this issue for good reason… the charlatan Morrison knew that this was unacceptable and would be soundly rejected.
Current unfoldings in the States give rise to hope that the whole rotten deal may yet be scuppered. And yes, Oz should demand a refund for down-payments so far forwarded.
I wonder how much he personally benefited from the deal. I suspect considerably.
But, can we have the $500 million back or is that a silly question ?
@ Canguro, Terry Mills: Agreed, Get Australia out of Scummo’s USUKA sub debacle, which is just another example of Scummo turning everything he touches to manure, and the USA (United States of Apartheid) must return the Australian ”deposit”/tribute of $500/800 MILLION to be invested for the benefit of Australian voters in Australia services plus R&D.
@Cheryl: Always a sensible question when COALition politicians are involved. We still remember the Queensland Joh ”brown paper bags” for residential tourist developments, land clearing and indeed anything to do with the Queensland government, a policy that seems to be recurring in the present disastrous Crisisfully maladministration & misgovernment.
According to Turnbull on ABC 7.30 last night, the AUKUS Agreement doesn’t actually say that the USA must deliver the Virginia Class submarines to Australia let alone having a timeframe for delivery and even if they are delivered, they will remain US property under US control at all times: ownership does not pass to Australia.
We have been conned !
Angus is pushing for more and more defence spending:
@8.20 am.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2025/jun/13/air-india-crash-anthony-albanese-fiji-talks-g7-aukus-defence-pact-us-review-ntwnfb
And as we all know if it’s going to cost more than the total number of his fingers and toes he’s completely and utterly lost. Ah well, at least the journo tried to get an answer about the financial costs involved in the Angus brain fart.
I wouldn’t be too sure about the Trump thing sinking UFUCKUS,they’re getting money for nothing,which is right up his alley.Forget about getting a refund.
I understood from a report many months ago that any payments made by Oz were NOT refundable should the ‘deal’ become unable to be met, ie: subs can’t be delivered.
The sooner the ‘deal’ is scrapped, and the sooner the US in Oz’s north vacate the scene the better.
Of course, regardless, we ought just write off any ‘deal’ payments made so far, and whilst we’re at it send Marles to the naughty corner.
Aside from the fact this deal was done entirely in secret my single biggest question about the whole thing is – WHY DID LABOR AGREE TO IT IN PARLIAMENT?????????????????????
This deal signed us up to be their nuclear waste dump. This deal signed us up for billions and billions extra to pay for the US and UK to build subs. This deal signed us up to receive 3 subs (with the option for a couple more) which we are now finding out we probably will never get because every one they both build they need for themselves. This deal also signed us up for Scummo’s post political employment.
What we now need is for Chump to cancel this deal himself………mostly to get us out of another half billion dollar penalty payment like we had to do for the French.
AND AGAIN WHY ON EARTH DID LABOR GO ALONG WITH THIS DEAL?????????????????? Did they just blindly agree to this with zero details???
Pete, I’m told there’s two reasons for the ALP decision to proceed when in government:
1. Unwillingness to be seen to compromise or question “the alliance” in any way;
2. Not wanting to be “wedged” by the Opposition on Defence and/or Security – both highly polarised areas.
Both reasons (if correct) demonstrate Labor (when in opposition) being unwilling to give the then Coalition Government and particularly Mr. Dutton any possible reason to accuse it of being “soft” on the nation’s defence – something apparently seen at the time as an unforgivable sin in the toxic and bellicose political environment created by Mr. Dutton.
Whatever you may think of the Government’s decision to continue, it pays to bear in mind the simple fact of huge and unrelenting pressure from our Security/Intelligence/Defence establishment, the senior members of which believe it is inconceivable that “the alliance” should be questioned or (God forbid), be jeopardised in any way. And secondly, the equally simple fact that senior members of the US Armed Forces (and others) have for some time been almost permanent members of our Defence Department; add to that the never-ending lobbying of other US “interests” and you have a palpable force that would trouble any new Government, especially a Labor government which found itself entering into new and unknown territory. True it is the Government had time to reflect, but I think the pressure to “conform” was too great.