For a senior minister in a government that 1) persecuted Witness K and Bernard Collaery, 2) passed laws blocking intelligence officials from revealing crimes, and 3) prosecuted whistleblowers and had journalists raided after embarrassing leaks, Peter Dutton has suddenly shown a commendable commitment to throwing off the shackles of secrecy.
The opposition leader is now under fire from both the government and the defence commentariat for daring to reveal that as defence minister he had hopes the United States would hand not one but two Virginia-class nuclear submarines to Australia by 2030.
Such vessels take around six to seven years to build, so we’re talking about boats that are already under construction. The views of the US Navy about such an idea are unknown but, presumably, not particularly positive. The boats would have to come with their own American crews as well, given our sailors don’t know how to operate a nuclear-powered vessel.
Defence Minister Richard Marles lashed Dutton for damaging the national interest with his “loose” comments. Defence industry experts mocked the idea that the Americans would degrade their own capability to give Australia two attack subs with training wheels. Another academic declared himself flabbergasted — “flabbergasted!”, as Mike Carlton’s Rox Messup would say — that Dutton had made the remarks.
Perhaps it’s something about submarines that brings out this sort of leaky behaviour. Recall that in 2016 Tony Abbott had to furiously deny he’d handed a secret draft white paper on the submarines to Greg Sheridan after he was dumped as PM — a paper purporting to show the Naval Group contract subs had been delayed. Abbott also professed himself flabbergasted — “flabbergasted!” — at that decision.
It’s thus admirable of Dutton to put his name to the claims and cut out the middleman — an action presumably necessitated by the fact that Sheridan has been kicking the living bejesus out of the nuclear subs decision from the moment it was announced.
As always, hypocrisy is a standard part of politics, and it’s amazing what transformation can take place when a person enters the refined world of a ministerial suit and the cloying embrace of classified briefings — and when they exit it. We now look forward to Dutton calling for Collaery’s prosecution to be no-billed, Julian Assange to be returned home and an end to the prosecution of David McBride.
But sometimes hypocrisy is useful for more than just the hypocrite. With all the secrecy surrounding successive submarine decisions, what precisely has been achieved? At least $4 billion wasted. Allies — first Japan, then France — upset or infuriated. Allies bewildered. And, seemingly, a colossal hole in our submarine capability looming in the 2030s and 2040s. All these brilliant achievements have been secured behind closed doors, with everyone sworn to secrecy, and little public debate before decisions are served up for media consumption, carefully staged to fit in with the government’s political agenda.
The idea that major acquisitions that will have dramatic fiscal consequences — in this case, well north of $100 billion — and shape our strategic capacities for generations should be publicly debated before announcements are made appears anathema to the national security industry. In his own way, Dutton has struck a blow for proper public debate before we commit more money to what appears to be a bottomless ocean trench of naval procurement.
Isn’t this fun… Peter ‘Depth-Charge’ Dutton firing in all directions. Dive! Dive! Dive!
If the USA builds these nuclear subs, they operate with US crews and they are maintained by US technicians, in what sense are the subs Australian? If push comes to shove who gets the final say on whose orders they carry out? It seems Australia would just be footing the bill for some of the USA’s fleet. Will the quantity of goodwill that buys Australia be value for money?
Perhaps the idea is to use the US personnel as a human shield in the waters around Australia?
Anyway, I think you’re being too hard on Dutts, he clearly doesn’t look too good in the photo atop the article.
No its LNP Policy. They are private contractors ie sub contractors. Remember privatization without considering the consequences.
Will the crews be ANZACS – I don’t think so.
Does this mean
No wonder the Australian $ is sinking against the greenback. Perhaps Dutton should do the decent thing and retire/descend and take up a Subway franchise.
footlong?
Frivolity is hard to swallow given a) cost of nuclear under-sea boats b) inevitability of further budgetary stress, reduced national independence in eyes of global competitors and . . . c) that the LNP political class walks away sans responsibility. A future Australia and Australians at the very least have potentially inherited far more than any citizen could have imagined. The Morrison Govt will go down in history for destroying relationship with a fellow Pacific nation; only to sign over to another who requires far more than a commercial contract?
Apologies graybul.
I was going to post much the same as Ratty did – why are we paying for another country’s troops in our waters – but he beat me to it. My intent was more to mock the concept rather than be frivolous or cause offence. Upon reflection, I could have more accurately called them mercenaries.
And surely you’ll agree Pete looks like he’s had a few sleepless nights?
My apologies Jeb. Frivolity not directed at you. More generally because hate direction Morrison has launched us.
Our unlamented neoliberal also acted like a pirate with his treatment of refugees under sail and was happy rolling out the pork barrel at election time. Most of the remainder should walk the plank of shame.
Given how we have offended everyone – how about a couple of subs from Japan, France and the US, surely one or two of them will avoid the Collins rebuild fiascos.
A mercenary navy? How neoliberal of Dutton.
A nice thouhgt, but still… Mercenaries have no particular loyalty or duty to one country and often do the job they were hired to do. US Navy crews on a US Navy vessel will, I am confident, do the job the US orders them to do no matter how much money Australia hands over. We’d be getting a much better deal with mercenaries.
Australia will not be buying or even hiring anything with this proposed deal. It will merely be sponsoring some US submarines, much as anybody might pay to get a name on a team’s football shirt. Maybe the Yanks will kindly agree to paint some Australian symbols and slogans on the vessels in suitable discreet locations.
Remarkable that overnight ‘under water’ matters are ripe for discussion. However, if Dutton was still defence Minister he’d be describing this public airing as a threat to our national security.
Yepp! Why not just put another star on the flag of the U.S and we can then let them take over our Military
This whole sub fiasco is a indictment of a failure to look forwards without clear thinking.Remember the two ships we brought from the U.S eons ago and how long did they last?
Not forgetting the helicopters not fit for purpose and a dud jet fleet. We keep making epic fails on these big budget items. Boys and their toys!
Did Spud ever have “…a ministerial suit…” to wear when enjoying “…the cloying embrace of classified briefings…”?
Or did the “ministerial suite” with a sexy big desk suffice?
Dutton Under Fire? Time to rename this AUKUS agreement of questionable existence. I suggest DUFUS.