This is part one in a series. For the full series, go here.
There is much about the AUKUS deal that is surprising — if not shocking.
There is the astronomical cost of $368 billion, double the most extravagant guesstimates made by experts before Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s announcement in San Diego earlier this month.
There are the hurried circumstances in the run-up to the federal election — all done within 24 hours — in which the ALP opposition committed itself to the deal proposed by then prime minister Scott Morrison.
And there is the extreme secrecy that has surrounded AUKUS from its inception, with Morrison having orchestrated events on a need-to-know basis, only ever consulting those who had a direct interest in expanding Australia’s defence budget.
The AUKUS arrangement emerged from the final desperate days of one of Australia’s worst governments. It was led by a prime minister who had a habit of fudging reality and who secretly sought to accumulate the powers of five of his ministerial colleagues, without having a coherent rationale.
At the same time, there has not been nearly enough scepticism about the AUKUS deal from Australia’s major media players. Some have even been offended that former prime minister Paul Keating would raise serious questions, focusing more on the manner than the substance of what he said.
For these reasons, Crikey will be introducing a bit of sunlight — the best disinfectant — into the fetid corners of the AUKUS machine.
You don’t have to be a China stooge to question AUKUS, yet that is how much of the public debate has been conducted so far.
To begin our coverage, this week we report on the activities of two of the biggest political names from the Coalition’s decade in office. They are former treasurer Joe Hockey and former defence minister (and before that minister for defence industry) Christopher Pyne.
The two have one thing in common: they both leapt from public office directly into the lucrative world of defence industry and investment. In Hockey’s case, he ceased his role as Australia’s ambassador to the US on January 30 2020. ASIC records show that his consultancy, Bondi Partners (which relies on Washington contacts), was registered on January 29 2020.
In Pyne’s case, he ceased as defence minister and retired from federal Parliament in April 2019. Within a month, the Pyne & Partners business name was registered. The record shows that predecessor entities had been set up by a former Pyne staffer before Pyne retired. These moves are separate from Pyne’s work with consulting firm EY, which he began within weeks of leaving Parliament. Pyne’s work with EY, where the former defence minister advised on defence matters, led to a Senate inquiry into whether or not he had breached ministerial standards.
Pyne and Hockey aren’t the first from the political class to turn to the defence industries after leaving office. The political revolving door is well known.
Brendan Nelson took a senior job with Boeing Australia after leaving the Australian War Memorial, where he had allowed defence manufacturers to be sponsors. Former SA senator Robert Hill chairs the Dragoman group, which represents defence interests.
Others have had cameo roles on the boards of defence manufacturers. Labor politicians have had less scope to move from government to the defence industry, but they have taken their chances. Kim Beazley was on the board of Lockheed Martin. Stephen Smith, now Australia’s high commissioner, moved eventually into the world of cybersecurity. Former MP David Feeney, who was briefly opposition assistant minister for defence, sits on the advisory board of the rapidly expanding armament and munitions company NIOA. NIOA’s board is chaired by Pyne.
As we report, Pyne and Hockey have both made the maximum use of their government contacts.
Crikey is actively seeking information and tip-offs in order to open up the little-scrutinised defence sector. Please send what you have to dhardaker@protonmail.com, which is an encrypted email service. Your information will be handled confidentially.
Obviously there should be a legal delay of 5 years before a retired politican can move to a position in any arms based company
or any company in an industry they’ve previously worked on while in office
Something really stinks about this deal – which has had virtually no scrutiny applied to it. I seriously hope Crikey can shine some light on it because no-one else seems to be trying. Imagine what we could do with that sort of money in terms of regional aid, renewable energy development and improving cyber security. All we get for it as it stands is visits from foreign nuclear subs we won’t have control of followed in the distant future by eight nuclear subs producing nuclear waste we don’t know how to store safely. Keating’s comments were spot on and extremely disappointing that a Labor Government has committed to this drivel. Why?
Great comment – this decision is, I think, way beyond ‘disappointing’. That the ALP so uncritically submitted to the demands made by the US military machine is sickening. Such decisions have always been expected of the LNP but Albanese’s simpering obedience to the machine exposes the ugly similarities of the duopoly.
John Menadue’s ‘Pearls and Irritations’ (no pay wall) has published some excellent article highlighting the problems of this utterly disastrous decision.
Yes Simon Crean was about the only Labor guy to publicly stand up against war – was it Iraq?
Yes, it was Iraq. That was in the dim and long forgotten past when the ALP had still had a conscience.
Poor fellow, my country…
It begs the question of what the US is blackmailing/threatening the ALP with – ? a re-run of 1975?
Albanese superglued the ALP to a bunch of Coalition policies, so it might just be that he likes them being Coalition Lite.
Brownshoes asks “Why?” With $368 billion and the whole premise of our culture at stake, it’s the most important question you’ll hear for the next 30 years of Australian foreign policy.
Who will answer it?
Nobody good, unless it is asked in the right quarters. We need to know — not just speculate or assume — what forces could conspire to cause what is an otherwise moderately progressive, independent minded government lead by Anthony Albanese to embrace the most cynical and corrupt project of the Morrison regime.
$368 billion, used intelligently, is enough Sturm und Drang to transform Australia into an Asian political leader that redefines regional commerce and diplomacy for the next millenium. And yet, the Albanese government has cast it in stone and hung it around our neck to sink our relationship with our largest trading partner, and surrender our sovereignity to a foreign military industrial complex that doesn’t care whether your grandchildren play Aussie rules, soccer, league, union or cricket, so long as its baseball and they drive an American automobile. This is not smart. It’s weird, unnecessary, and quite possibly not entirely proper.
Why?
Channel Nine isn’t going to find out for us. Nor is the monopoly Australian press. The ABC can’t investigate because it’s been defunded and stacked with cronies.
Why are Albanese and Wong doing this? Could some fearless journalist at Crikey please start by asking Keating off the record what he thinks is really going on, and how it might be investigated. What Keating said at the press club was only a polite veneer. Something is going on, and “lack of imagination” isn’t enough to explain it. It’s going to take some fearless investigative reporting to bring the truth out into the light and that’s what we’re paying Crikey to do.
Agree 110%. I especially endorse your final paragraph though I wonder if even Keating would dare to speak (really) unfettered?
As someone put it here recently, does someone have pictures of ‘dongs in Labradoodles’ of both ‘sides’?
It is clinically impossible to be so abysmally stupid as to endorse USUKA and still be able to put one foot in front of the other therefore the only question worth asking is “WHY?”
Brownshoes, you are correct that there is no light being shone on it by the MSM, not just Morloch but also Ninefax and the now emasculated ABC.
But if you’ve not done so, have a look at Rex Patrick @ Michael West Media, and look at an abundance of knowledgeable opinion at Pearls and Irritations.
join other concerned citizens and join IPAN.
Cheers.
Will do – thanks.
Hi Brownshoes, following on from Barnino’s reply to you, I joined IPAN (Independent and Peaceful Australia Network) Geelong and Victoria South-west in February this year. And for those who live in the Geelong area and who might be interested, they are conducting a ‘Rage against the war machine’ anti-AUKUS rally at 4 pm, every fourth Friday of the month from now until November. It takes place outside Defence Minister Richard Marles’ office, 100 Brougham Street, Geelong.
IPAN recently released a comprehensive report following extensive public submissions (283 in all) including an Australia-wide public survey.
Entitled, “Charting Our Own Course” the report explores the case for creating a more independent, Australian foreign and defence policy, and investigates the consequences across the social, political, economic and environmental spectrum of the increasing integration of the Australian military forces into the U.S. war machine.
The full report can be read online at ipan.org.au.
China’s naval buildup parallels its emergence as an economic superpower. It is understandable that China would want the capability to ensure its trading networks cannot be easily interrupted by other powers, including the AUKUS nations which not so long ago sent gunboats a to China to force open that nation to opium traders.
Opium traders??!!
Yes, at the time, Britain had a balance of trade problem with China that was literally as big as all the tea in China. To pay for that newly burgeoning middle class habit of the Industrial Revolution, Britain was sending boatloads of silver to the east. It desperately needed something to sell to the Chinese in order to balance its international payments. But what? After a Little thought, advisers to the king figured opium would be an outstanding export product.
It took a hundred years for China to get rid of the unwanted trade, rehabilitate its drug addled citizens, and wait out the lease on Hing Kong that was imposed as part of the settlement.
This time around, the Chinese are hoping not to fall into the same trap. Their modern naval fleet and newly built island fortresses give them half a chance of not being shut down by the Americans, who have more overseas bases than any other nation in histrory.
But does that mean China aspires to invade Bondi Beach? The commitment of $368 billion in tax payer funds for nuclear subs suggests we think it might.
But what if China is only interested in keeping the trading lanes open, and avoiding being invaded again? If that’s the case, mightn’t the $368 billion be better spent on other things?
For a start, what if we were to try spending just $100 million to fund the development of a new global superpower treaty that enabled super powers to commit to a new world order of non-aggression?
It’s something nobody tried after WWII, even when the Soviet Union was willing. Instead, we went straight to a Cold War which saw the US spend trillions on warships, based, and nukes.
Why not try something different this time, while there’s still time.
Is such an agreement possible? For $100 million, I’m sure we’d get the best people at the best universities lining up their word processors to try.
They even fought wars with China – to keep them hooked on that habit.
Eventually those giant red chickens were going to come home to roost…..
Yes, the old white-men’s club of AUKUS has no idea how insulting it is to the Chinese to arm the UK and Japan to have another go at China, after what Britain did to China in the Opium Wars and what Japan did to China before and during WW2.
The BRICS nations, the non-aligned nations and much of Africa are seeing (?and welcoming) a multipolar world that offers an alternative to the US stranglehold on the global economy and financial system. What a pity stupid Australia is hitching it’s little wagon to the wrong side of history, and bankrupting the nation’s economy in the process.
There should be much tougher laws against this revolving door syndrome, which is a massive opportunity for corruption involving billions of dollars. This is a much-needed exposé – more on this, please. And for all the people who are taken in by Kim Beazley’s nice kind teddy-bear act, note his chumminess with the Merchants of Death – Lockheed Martin, which was responsible for some of the biggest corruption scandals in that corrupt industry in the second half of last century, and the Ernst and Young defence advisory group. We don’t expect any better from the Tory side, of course.
This has been going on for years……………………
https://michaelwest.com.au/revolving-doors/
And for those who get flash jobs in the fossil fuel sector.
You have to admire the sheer, unadulterated hypocrisy of Morrison…………….
……….setting up his post-parliamentary gig with such an enormous slush-fund that he couldn’t possibly miss out on his lifetime expectation of tax-payer funded affluence (or as Kath & Kim would have it, “Effluent”, probably more aptly).
Not sure how having his pick of American weapons manufacturers would go down with Cheezels, though…………………
………not that that has ever been a consideration for Morrison in any of his other flights of fancy.
Even though I’m agnostic, one of my dearest fantasies is a Second Coming involving Christ, flaming whip in one hand and leading a camel with the other, going to have a little chat with ProMo about how little the latter’s actions really line up with WWJD.