AUKUS and Australia’s domestic opinion

18 April 2023

It is one thing to want something. It is another thing entirely to want something enough to spend a lot of money acquiring it. The Australian public may be easily wooed by the idea of a shiny new defence capability that will, the government tells them, make them safer. They are less easily convinced by the proposition of spending somewhere between AUD 268 and 368 billion over the next 30 years to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. These figures are the government-provided estimate of what it will cost to achieve pillar one of the AUKUS security partnership formed between Australia, the UK, and the US, which entails equipping Australia with eight nuclear-powered submarines.

Public polling on AUKUS

A 2022 Lowy Institute poll found that 70 per cent of Australians strongly or somewhat supported the decision for Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. With the price tag in mind, however, the picture becomes more complex. A more recent Guardian Essential poll finds a less clear-cut domestic mood. Bringing in the cost of the submarines, it asked respondents whether Australia needs nuclear-powered submarines, as well as whether it is worth paying the AUD 268-368 billion to get them. 26 per cent believe they are both necessary and worth the cost; 27 per cent believe they are necessary but not worth the cost; and 28 per cent do not think Australia needs nuclear-powered submarines. This is a far cry from the Lowy finding of 70 per cent support.

The Guardian Essential poll also asked about Australia’s relationship with China. They proposed three options and asked respondents which most closely matched their views: Australia’s relationship with China is a positive opportunity to be realised; Australia’s relationship with China is a complex relationship to be managed; or Australia’s relationship with China is a threat to be confronted. A sizable majority picked the second option of complexity, at 66 per cent.

Views from the public: letters-to-the-editor

These two polls provide some snapshots into the public mood on Australia’s plans to acquire nuclear-powered submarines. One other place to look is in newspapers’ ‘letters-to-the-editor’ sections. While doing so comes with the huge caveat that only certain kinds of people write letters-to-the-editor, it is one of the few places where any aspect of public thought is readily available. As part of a research project, I downloaded every letter-to-the-editor that mentioned AUKUS, was published in any Australian newspaper, and was available via the database Factiva. The observations below come from a preliminary analysis of 889 letters, published in 23 national and regional newspapers, collected on 29 March 2023.

Whether people oppose the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines, have mixed views, or support it, they often do ground their assessments in strategic analysis and a consideration of other priorities.

The letters canvas a broad range of issues related to AUKUS and showcase a wide array of opinions. Early positive responses focused on the need for better defence capability, the perceived opportunities opened up for civilian uses of nuclear energy, and putting Australia in a better position regarding China. Such responses included discussions of deterrence, standing up to China, and making Australia stronger. While the government often avoids naming China explicitly in reference to its foreign security policies, these concerns mirror the language used by Defence Minister Richard Marles in his characterisations of what AUKUS is and what it is for.

Common concerns in early negative responses included unease about making Australia a bigger target; the issue of nuclear waste; opposition to being more entangled with the US; the monetary and diplomatic cost of the French contract cancellation; the cost of acquiring materials versus other priorities; the timescale versus the perceived imminent threats posed by China; and dislike of the secrecy and lack of debate before the announcement.

Many of the issues raised in the letters-to-the-editor have also been prevalent in commentary from experts and politicians. Concerns have been aired about the lack of transparency associated with the deal and the diplomatic and reputational costs of the handling of the French contract. A debate has raged about the Australia-US alliance implications, including matters of sovereignty and to what extent AUKUS commits Australia to join the US in a war with China.

In the earlier months of 2021, the personality of then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison loomed large among the opinions of the Australian public. People brought their views on Morrison himself into their discussion of AUKUS, especially in negative responses. Morrison’s reputation for lying and lack of transparency in the domestic political context was brought to the fore with regard to the treatment of the French in the AUKUS quarrel.

Enter the price tag: public views of the cost of AUKUS

After a considerable focus on AUKUS in the months after its announcement, attention petered out. In recent weeks, however, the pace of letter writing has increased dramatically, due to former Prime Minister Paul Keating’s dramatic intervention in the debate and the announcement of further details about the submarine acquisition.

It is here that the difference between the Lowy Poll and the Guardian’s Essential Poll are reflected in the letters-to-the-editor. Following the revelation of the government’s expected price tag of AUD 268 to 368 billion, discussions of ‘cost’, ‘money’, ‘spend’, or ‘spending’ has become considerably more prominent. While some have justified the high price tag by comparing them to other large expenditures in the budget, the majority of the focus on cost has been more negative.

Some letters argued that the money could be better spent on other defence items, while others focused on areas such as health, aged care, climate change, and education. In the former group, one common concern is that the submarines will be obsolescent by the time they arrive, with drones and fighter planes often the preferred alternative. These concerns echo those raised by experts. Former Senator and submariner Rex Patrick, for instance, put forward a list of alternative purchases that could be made using the same cost, including off-the-shelf conventional submarines, drones, hypersonic weapons, and F22 jet aircraft. Meanwhile, there are fears that technological advances will allow submarines to be easily detectable in the future.

Among those who focused on other areas of spending (like health), there were two broad camps. Some opposed the spending outright, while others supported it but argued that if such an amount could be spent on defence, then spending could also be increased in other priority areas.

No simple picture

The slice of the public that is represented in the letters does not hold a simple, black-and-white view of Australia’s plans to acquire nuclear-powered submarines, or AUKUS more broadly. Opposition and support vary widely, including views that present sophisticated strategic and economic analyses of the issues. Discussion ranges across topics including diplomacy, military capability, deterrence, signalling, regional dynamics, government priorities, nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear energy, trade, alliance relations, and government policy across the board.

It is worth keeping in mind the complexity and diversity of viewpoints, considering recent calls by commentators for the government to have a clearer narrative on AUKUS in order to convince the public of its necessity. In contrast to the picture painted by commentators, it does not seem clear at all that Australians lack an understanding of Australia’s strategic environment. Rather, whether people oppose the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines, have mixed views, or support it, they often do ground their assessments in strategic analysis and a consideration of other priorities. It is not correct to assume that a deficit model of the public, wherein they simply need to be filled with the right information and the correct narrative, will ensure their support for AUKUS. Rather, it is better to recognise the diversity and complexity of viewpoints, and to accept that people will have complex views on a complex issue.

DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of the 9DASHLINE.com platform.

Author biography

Dr Sian Troath is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. She works on the Mapping LAWS research project, which seeks to issue-map the debate on lethal autonomous weapons system. Her research focuses on Australian foreign and defence policy, robotics and autonomous systems, and trust in international relations. Image credit: Flickr/U.S. Secretary of Defence.