This is part one of an ongoing investigative series by David Hardaker.
It was a year ago this week that Scott Morrison appeared alongside Boris Johnson and Joe Biden to unveil the AUKUS security pact which would bind Australia, the UK and the US for decades. After years of work in the background, Morrison’s secret weapon was finally ready.
Game-changing doesn’t quite capture it.
AUKUS is the largest commitment to defence spending Australia has ever made — about $170 billion, according to the latest estimate from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. At a single stroke Morrison boxed Australia into a “forever” pact with the Anglosphere powers, blindsided France, and ambushed the Labor opposition.
Until that moment Australia had only one nuclear reactor, at Lucas Heights in Sydney. Suddenly it was signing up for eight more in the form of a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines. For this there was no consultation. No white papers. No parliamentary debate.
It was just Morrison, apparently acting alone and in secret — a modus operandi which has defined his career stretching all the way back to his time as CEO of Tourism Australia.
The results of that have been disastrous before. Might it be different this time?
Twelve months on Crikey is taking a look inside the AUKUS deal, how it began and where it is going. It is for the moment a partial picture because so little detail has been released. We will report more over the coming months. But one thing is sure. Whatever the strategic value of AUKUS it bears the indelible mark of Liberal politics.
From Morrison in Canberra to former attorney-general George Brandis in London and former senator Arthur Sinodinos in Washington, the deal — enormous as it is — has been a one-party affair. How fortuitous for Morrison that Australia’s London and Washington diplomatic posts were occupied by former Liberal politicians given his determination to keep AUKUS secret from the Labor opposition.
Whether or not it is all in the national interest is almost impossible to know yet.
The moment of creation
So when and why did Morrison decide to overturn the applecart?
We have only one AUKUS creation story to go on: the one brought to us by two journalists from The Australian, Simon Benson and Geoff Chambers, who were given special access to Morrison for their book Plagued.
According to Benson and Chambers, Morrison’s lightbulb moment occurred around September 2019 in the weeks after he attended the G7 summit in the French coastal hamlet of Biarritz. It was then he began “turning his mind to submarines”.
“Poring over the defence contracts that Australia had signed up to, the prime minister wanted to assure himself that there would be no regrets in the $90bn French deal for 12 Attack-class subs signed in 2016,” they wrote.
As prime minister, Morrison liked to be photographed as the lonely leader, carrying the weight of office and the nation’s future on his shoulders. Here was a word picture to match his Churchillian self-image.
The problem is: how to trust the story? Morrison’s propensity for myth-making invites speculation as to what really happened. Did a crow perch on the balcony thus reminding the prime minister of a biblical exhortation to act? Was it one of his (many) undeclared conversations with former US secretary of state, the ever-belligerent-towards-China Mike Pompeo?
A long-time Canberra Defence strategist put it politely to Crikey that our imaginings were off the mark. Morrison, he said, was very aware of the growing China threat from his years in cabinet. And the idea of nuclear submarines had been kicking around Canberra for years, as a dream made impossible due to the US refusal to share its nuclear secrets with anyone beyond the UK.
An idea made in conservative circles
So who was Morrison’s first confidant? According to Benson and Chambers, Morrison brought in his senior defence adviser, Jimmy Kiploks, to make discreet enquiries with senior Defence officials as to the possibility of Australia acquiring nuclear-powered submarines.
And who is Kiploks? It will surprise approximately no one to learn that he was a Liberal Party member, with records from 2010 showing him atop the ACT branch of the Liberal Party, where he was aligned with the conservative Zed Seselja (later a Morrison government minister).
But Crikey has found more buried deep in the archives of Adelaide University’s On Dit student newspaper. Back in his student days the young Kiploks ran for election on a stridently pro-gambling platform. Declaring himself a member of the Skycity Adelaide casino action club, Kiploks vowed to “fight for pokies, Keno, TAB and a casino on campus”.
Maybe it was all just student hijinks (Kiploks hasn’t responded to our attempts to contact him) but the pro-gambling, conservative Liberal branch politician must have been pinching himself when he was later in the presence of POTUS himself as part of Morrison’s delegation at a meeting of the Quad powers at the Biden White House.
The circle expands
Perhaps the key player in Morrison’s inner circle, though, has been Andrew Shearer, the head of the Office of National Intelligence (ONI), whose rise in Canberra has been closely tied to conservative Liberal governments.
Shearer’s Canberra career has seen him on the staff of former Liberal defence minister Robert Hill, as well as adviser to prime ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott — though not Malcolm Turnbull. (Shearer was opposed to Australia’s decision to contract with France’s Naval Group over Japan.)
Shearer’s conservative pedigree includes time as a CD Kemp Fellow at the conservative Melbourne policy group the Institute of Public Affairs. Morrison appointed him as cabinet secretary in August 2019, just weeks before his lightbulb moment on the AUKUS subs deal.
A year later Morrison appointed Shearer to run the ONI, a role which gave him almost daily access to the prime minister for security briefings. Morrison made the appointment over Labor’s objections that Shearer was a “partisan operative” who reportedly did not have their confidence.
Too bad. The ONI job is a statutory appointment, so there’s nothing the Albanese government can do about it until Shearer’s term expires in 2025. It has to live with it — or work around it — like the other partisan appointments in the federal government.
Shearer declined Crikey’s request for comment.
The word spreads to Defence
Evidence given to parliamentary committees late last year began to fill in the gaps on who knew what and when of the emerging plan to dump the French deal and move to the new US and UK one.
Senate committee evidence shows that the circle widened first to secretary of Defence Greg Moriarty and Defence Force chief Angus Campbell, who scoped out possibilities from around March-April 2020. This was around the time that Morrison had “begun the process of abandoning” the French subs deal, according to the version Morrison gave to The Australian Financial Review.
By December 2020 Defence had reported its findings to Morrison. It was only then that Morrison’s department head, Phil Gaetjens, was brought into the loop. It was to be a further six months, in June 2021, before a select group of other Prime Minister and Cabinet officials was introduced to the plan.
Former finance minister Senator Simon Birmingham recalled having a discussion with Morrison in about March 2021, around the time he believed when members of the cabinet’s national security committee were also informed.
It meant that for at least 18 months Morrison’s secret was shared with a narrow group, most of whom were khaki-clad — or wearing navy whites — and who were used to operating in the shadows. (One exception was former chief scientist Alan Finkel.)
Commentators would later marvel at how tightly the AUKUS secret was kept. But now we know that keeping plans secret is no great achievement for Scott Morrison: it is second nature to him and key to how he operates, for better or (as is often the case) worse.
Next: All the prime minister’s men.
If you have any information about this story you would like to pass on please contact David Hardaker via dhardaker@protonmail.com.
This is an extremely important story and I hope Crikey can do it full justice.
The Churchill comparison might be very apt, though not in a way that flatters Morrison. One notorious aspect of Churchill’s character was his enthusiasm for instigating wild and reckless projects. Gallipoli in 1915 is an example where he got his way and disaster followed. During the Second World War some of the most senior British generals considered that shutting down Churchill’s interventions was one their most critical tasks. For example, on 10 September 1944 the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Alan Brooke, wrote in his diary
In Churchill’s defence, and unlike Morrison, it has to be recognised he was always willing to appoint people he did not agree with to important positions so long as he thought they were capable. Disagreement, even very heated disagreement, was allowed. Morrison and the Liberal Party in contrast work to infiltrate a cabal of their loyal apparatchiks to run everything.
Thanks for the quote, Rat – very enlightening.
Morrison is a very stable genius.
Just a reminder of the origin of that phrase – so much more apposite than Trump realised.
It was from Robert Heinlein’s 1959 novel Starship Troopers and described the genetically altered dogs who accompanied the troopers and were, in general, much smarter than the grunts.
OMG – not another! But if his keeping secret his decision on the French subs from his staff is true, we dodged a scary 3 year 2nd term. Steps need to be taken to prevent this and secret multi-portfolio decisions being o\possible again.
Brooke also states that Churchill never over-rode him in any decision. Brooke was the strategist, not Churchill, and Churchill was well aware of this. By comparison, Hitler frequently made decisions his generals did not agree with. The two vastly different command structures had a great bearing on the war’s outcome also. After the war, while the war crimes trials were in progress, the chief German in charge of planning for all three German services (Jodl) was asked why they had lost. He replied that the start of their invasion of Russia was delayed for six weeks while they kicked the British (and Australians) out of Greece. This gave them too little time before the onset of the Russian winter, and this cost them the whole war. He could not understand why the Allies tried to save the Greeks. In fact it was only done because they were historic allies, and without much hope of success – which turned out to be true. Churchill still cops abuse from Australians over the strategic mistake of Greece, which cost many Australians their lives. But it turned out to have won the war, at least according to the top German general, who should know. I think he was hanged after his trial. Brooke virtually predicted the Allied course years ahead. He was a genius at knowing what could be done with the forces at hand, and what could not. I’m sure he would not have gone anywhere near Gallipoli. The original plan for Gallipoli would have worked had the admiral in charge not chickened out, Churchill’s mistake was in not realising he would. And after that the whole thing started to involve the army, and Churchill was carried along, with his navy in more of a support role. Navigationally challenged.
The quote from Brooke’s diary is correct, he used the diary as a sort of safety valve to say things he could not say aloud, although I think he must have unloaded a lot on his wife. The strain on both men must have been unbelievable. Churchill unloaded on everybody, of course, which indicated his fighting spirit.
Off topic, sorry, but, hell, we don’t speak German or Japanese.
Astounding, really, that this LNP bunch felt to overturn a long running decision to avoid nuclear, for many reasons, not least of which was the lack of infrastructure, staff training, and the enormous cost. When the US feel the time is right to invent and fabricate and trigger yet another pointless war with China, Australia is pretty much locked in. Nobody wins in a war with China, and the US know they would lose, as their war games clearly show. They will use Taiwan as a proxy, happily destroying that country in the process, just like Ukraine.
The US are NOT OUR FRIENDS. We are little more than a business opportunity, and our miniscule influence in a major conflict is of little consequence to them apart from the news-cycle optics. We can destroy our markets with our primary trading partner, and open the door for US aligned operators to take those same markets, as we kow-tow to our US masters.
Yes, Albo, I am now talking to you.
Like with Ukraine, the US would be happy to see Australia wiped off the map, to advance their agenda of world military domination, preferably sacrificing no US troops, and just those lesser-mortals of another nation, like ours, Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Venezuela, and numerous other Central American previous democracies.
Defence blundered with the Collins Class debacle, being knowingly lumbered with well outdated weapons systems software, requiring horrendously expensive upgrades, and by whom? You guessed it, US suppliers. No integrity, no scruples, no ethics, not much of anything really, except any scam to generate profit.
Every single conflict in which the US has dragged us, was based on lies and corporate malfeasance. Every one of them.
Why would the China issue, and AUKUS be any different?
“Nobody wins in a war with China,” When was the last war the USA won anyway?
Good point, Vicki.
We know that of the dozens since 1945, none have been “won” by the US, though winning was never the objective. As always, they were about profit within the Military Complex, and resources theft, and ALL based on lies.
It is perhaps worth remembering that the total US personnel losses in WW2, amounted to some 500k, including those in Europe around 180k.
Russia lost some 26 million. They know what pain warfare causes.
China lost even more, perhaps 30 million.
Good point, but I fear their current internal war on democracy may be their worst yet.
You nailed it. Don’t forget Chile and the CIA’s dirty tricks dept.
Not sure where you are going re “US would be happy to see Australia wiped off the map like Ukraine!”.The US has poured more money into Ukraine than the rest of the world combined!
This has many connotations re a war with China. Going on the update in Ukraine it seems that the US is far far superior to Russia in regards to ability to fight a war even though they have not given Ukraine their best artillery. Is this not a warning to China to back off as China would be assessing every bit of the war games going on in Ukraine. They may well state today they will back Russia but they also have been known to change sides when the need arises.
Saying all this I am not stating the the US and China will ever go to war but without the above thoughts China needs the US and the rest of the world to keep their economy on track. Xi knows this and knows full well that he will be thrown out if China’s economy keeps falling.
Russia has proven that you do need the rest of the world from a trade perspective but not necessarily the Golden Billion in the West. What they have also proven is that the Golden Billion need the resources from Russia to keep their economies afloat. The West is not “the World” although we like to think we are.
As to China, for what reason should they “back off”? Taiwan is their internal business and nothing whatsoever to do with the Golden Billion. The SCS is just securing their sea lines of communication against hostile action by the Golden Billion.
There are over 15,000 freight trains each year traveling between China and the EU alone. Good luck trying to replace Chinese manufacturing capability without driving inflation sky high and destroying the already battered economies of the Golden Billion.
This is off topic, but Taiwan really cannot be dismissed as China’s “internal business”. If Mao had managed to take it in 1949, or within a year or three, things would obviously be different, but Taiwan has been self-governed for over seventy years, so would we not all support their right to self determination? The issue is how, and how far would we go. The ‘One China’ policy is of course a diplomatic formula aimed at maintaining the status quo, but on it’s own possibly not enough to protect Taiwan. I favour low profile support for Taiwan, both military and diplomatic, by way of making invasion a less attractive prospect for China. The Pelosi visit did not qualify as low profile.
As for the how far, I do not believe we should invest in nuclear submarines to lurk in China’s littoral waters.
Absolute rubbish to suggest that Formosa is China’s ‘internal’ business unless of course the indigenous Formosan people who the Chinese started displacing relatively recently should be simply wiped from memory just like our own first nations.
Mike, you miss the point. The Ukraine adventure by the US / NATO could have been stopped dead in its tracks, easily. Putin and Lazarov attempted a dialogue many times, always rejected by the US / Ukraine.
A pull back of NATO involvement in Ukraine, and a committment to discontinue NATO membership would have fixed it.
The US financial funding has gone directly to the US Military Industrial machine. These proxy wars are about only the two things I mentioned above. Always the same playbook.
To my mind the key issue for the submarines, not launched until the late thirties or later, is the evolution of AI and drone technology. No capital ship on the surface or underwater will be safe. You’ll have thousands – hundreds of thousands – of deadly drones, worth under $100k, each demolishing capital ships worth at least a billion or more. I was speaking to a CSIRO guy the other day, expert in AI, and his belief is that the submarines will never be finished. We are talking about a technology that will protect them. There is none and won’t be one. Is there someone who can tell me I’m wrong?
Peter McLennan
Not my field of expertise, but didn’t one of our “outdated” Collins-class subs go undetected by the US Navy in war games? I really don’t know how AI could make detection any more possible, but I’d be intrigued to know.
From memory, we have diesel subs as they are quiet hence harder to detect. The nuclear powered subs (boomers) are poised to launch nuclear missiles. As many have commented, by 2040 drones will probably make all of them obsolete. The shenanigans in the South China Sea were probably about us dropping sonar buoys to track subs.
I am also not an expert in this field but having been in the forefront of the internet in the few years since that has been in operation I can not see how AI will not be future of all wars if it is not already ready for one now. You have only to see what Ukraine are doing with $10,000 drones guided by youths to realise that drones are already far more useful than ever imagined. As for the sub going undetected have you ever thought that maybe the US allowed that to happen?
I understand that an operating reactor leaves a noticeable detectible signature which is louder that an electric motor operating off a battery.
We already have water penetrating satellite capability unimaginable just 25 years ago. I very much doubt that there’s any such thing ‘silent running’ now. Who knows what they’re already secretly capable of, let alone in 20 years time.
Ever since the iphone in my pocket could outperform, or at least compete with a late 80’s Cray, and take a quite reasonable picture, and tell me the name of that song after 3 seconds of listening, I won’t even try to guess what technology will rule in 20 years from now.
Certainly whatever was dreamt up by the coalition yesterday will surely send Australia down the gurgler, yet again.
Anyone who does not think that China (and the USA etc) are not currently developing autonomous killerbots – in contravention of international law – might be interested in a brdige I have to sell, on the Moon traversing the Sea of Tranquility.
Multiple cheap drones are the obvious future. Remember how airborne drones caused massive damage to a Saudi oilfield/ refinery
This is such a no brainer. One only has to see YouTube to see how tiny cheap drones take out some of the mightiest Russian tanks. 10 drones of a type might cost $100K each, 100,000 of them will only cost tens of dollars each. That is the future. Time for our govt and military to get the message…
Waste of money on something that will be obsolete before it’s operable. Just Morrison (and typical of the LNP in general) trying to look hairy-chested. Also trying to swing votes with those they trained to be fearful…..
Morrison is one person you wouldn’t wish to be fighting beside you in the trenches….as my late grandfathers would’ve said.
I must’ve missed the chapter which reported our trillion dollar debt has disappeared hence we are now in a position to outlay $170bn on 20th century equipment.