By Denis Bright
The issue of AUKUS has resurfaced from the murky depths of undersea politics. ABC News graphics (featured image) reminds readers of the latest additional payment to fast track the AUKUS deal with its proposed cost of at least $368 billion.
Public policy interest in the AUKUS submarine saga is now being propelled by doubts about US construction deadlines for the high technology nuclear-powered submarines. The US Navy confirmed that it will halve the number of nuclear-powered submarines on offer in its 2025 budget. Second-hand LA Class submarines will not be available for sharing with Australia as they will be needed in the USA. Even the construction schedule for AUKUS-class submarines in Adelaide is now in doubt (ABC News 13 March 2024).
For readers who are new to this issue, I might restate some background to the AUKUS deals. The commercial military industrial complexes do not advertise their hidden details. Making a request to Gemini-Google Bard provided this summary for verification by readers:
- US Virginia-class submarines: Australia will acquire at least three (and potentially up to five) Virginia-class nuclear-powered attack submarines from the US. The first of these might be in early 2030s. The leading corporations from the US military industrial complexes are General Dynamics and Huntington Ingalls Industries (Newport News Shipbuilding). Numerous supportive technology companies engage in preparations for these developments including involvement from Boeing.
- AUKUS-class submarines: Provided through US and British commercial providers of a new class of nuclear-powered attack submarines during the 2040s. The British firms particularly embedded in the AUKUS Programme are:
: BAE Systems will play a critical role in the construction of the AUKUS submarines.
: Babcock International will be involved in construction and maintenance.
: Rolls-Royce will be involved in design and delivery of the nuclear reactors.
- Temporary Rotational Deployment UK Astute-class and US Virginia-class submarines are planned on a rotational basis to HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.
The US Studies Centre in Sydney (9 February 2024) offered commentary by its Director Professor Peter Dean and research associate Alice Nason:
AUKUS has become a case study in generational politics. Public opinion polling reveals only 33 per cent of Gen Z and millennial voters believe it’s a good idea for Australia to have nuclear-powered submarines, compared with 66 per cent of voters aged sixty-five and over.
Still, on some things, all generations agree: a plurality of Australian voters feel nuclear-powered submarines are not worth the cost to Australian taxpayers. Only 21 per cent of voters believe the submarines warrant their $368bn price tag.
These apprehensions, especially among young people, should alarm our policymakers. The people who are expected to staff Australia’s new submarine enterprise as of now don’t support it. This is only the tip of the iceberg for Australia’s workforce challenge.
Australia will build up a sizeable military industrial complex over the next half-century if the AUKUS deals proceed as planned. Lobbying in support of AUKUS has attracted retired political leaders from both sides of politics who are committed to the goal of a more militarized Australia (Anton Nilsson Crikey.com 23 January 2024).
From the far-off United States, Anna Massoglia and Dan Auble from the Open Secrets site were able provide details of lobbying by major corporations in during 2023 just in support of AUKUS. Boeing, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics topped the lobbying spending with a combined expenditure of over $US80 million.
David Hardaker of Crikey.com exposed the roles of conservative lobbyists in support of the efforts of the military corporates (31 May 2023). This is an exercise in investigative journalism at its best:
A Crikey investigation into the power of conservative political lobbyists CT Group has revealed that two US companies represented by CT are set to be among the biggest winners of the “forever” AUKUS defence deal hatched by former prime minister Scott Morrison.
One of the companies, General Dynamics, is the lead contractor for constructing the US navy’s fleet of nuclear-powered submarines. The other company, Centrus Energy, is the leading provider of nuclear fuel for US national security purposes and for naval reactors.
CT’s US entity, CTF Global LLC, has acted as a lobbyist for General Dynamics and Centrus Energy since it set up shop in Washington in 2018, taking on the client list of long-term lobbyist Larry Grossman who was seeking to extend the global reach of his firm.
The evolution of the CIT Group as defence lobbyists came as it reached the peak of its political influence in Australia at the end of 2018 with its then-Australian CEO Yaron Finkelstein joining Morrison’s staff as principal private secretary.
In parallel with Australia, the CT Group also enjoyed the closest of relationships with then-UK prime minister Boris Johnson. David Canzini, a former CT executive, was part of Johnson’s team as a deputy chief of staff.
Readers can follow the investigative trails offered through Crikey.com:
[textblock style=”6″]
Explore the Series
- Crosby Textor: the pollsters that took over the Liberal Party and became a global power.
- Mere coincidence? Crosby Textor is the common link in Morrison’s AUKUS deal.
- Scott Morrison issues blanket denial on nuclear submarine questions.
- Spooks and spies: Crosby Textor moves into shadowy territory.
- Crosby Textor group’s influence on the Liberals has been pervasive. Is it time to cut the link?
- Crosby Textor’s influence on prime ministers helped it dominate the Anglosphere.
[/textblock]
In this era of cost-of-living politics, no one on either side of politics seems to worry about the irregular additional costs of the AUKUS deals. There was an unexpected allocation of $A835 million to France was imposed on the Labor Government for breach of contract from the cancellation of Malcolm Turnbull’s submarine deal.
The Register of Lobbyists and the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme (the Scheme) from the Attorney-General’s Department do not provide easy access to the specific roles played by lobbyists for firms associated with military industrial complexes. Just knowing which lobbyists have an association with a company like the CT Group is of little practical purpose in investigative journalism. This is a sample register extract for the CT Group which was mentioned in the Crikey.com articles.
The LinkedIn site offers more clues by showing which ex-politicians or former military personnel and policy advisers with links to Australian and global military industrial companies through both lobbying activities or the convening of forum events or other corporate links. There is nothing sinister about the openness of the opportunities offered through LinkedIn which opens a new world of connections for further investigation by journalists.
Here are just three examples.
The anecdotes from LinkedIn can be followed up with a direct communication to the person listed and further research on his/her activities within the military industrial complexes through quite legal lobbying or forum events.
However, cheering on the military is historically a dangerous practice. During the reign of Queen Victoria, the British Empire was once united around the need for Freedom of Navigation to advance its economic diplomacy against China in the two Opium Wars. The US and France joined Britain in the second round in the Opium Wars (1856-60).
Britain once had a balance of payments problem with China during the Days of Empire. It authorized the export of opium to China to address this imbalance.
Imperial China rejected Britain’s efforts against China in the two Opium Wars.
Critical discussion might be painful to political elites. Armed conflicts in a nuclear age are even worse. Let’s pause for some reflection before more jingoism gets Australia into real trouble through over-commitment to global corporate military industrial complexes and the expansion of a stronger home-grown variant in Australia.
[textblock style=”6″]
Denis Bright (pictured) is a financial member of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA). Denis is committed to consensus-building in these difficult times. Your feedback from readers advances the cause of citizens’ journalism. Full names are not required when making comments. However, a valid email must be submitted if you decide to hit the Replies Button.
[/textblock]
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
CTI from the same swamp as Hungarian PM Orban’s former GOP trained advisors, recommended by Netanyahu, Finkelstein & Birnbaum with similar targets to dog whistle in immigrants, the EU, Islam, Soros, ‘the great replacement’ etc.?
To Scott Morrison, the author of so many of our woes, AUKUS was just an acronym that he latched onto : it had no substance but enabled the US and UK to milk the Australian taxpayer for billions of dollars for submarine technology that is proving itself to be verging on the obsolete.
Time for us to quietly walk away – there is a very useful saying in diplomatic circles : Oh dear, what a pity, never mind !
More chance of locating the Loch Ness monster.And Terence,that should be ‘bilk’ rather than milk.
Are taxpayers defending our national sovereignty or just helping to expand military complexes abroad and at home ?
The US suppliers are making the AUKUS deals more and more expensive. There must be some limit to our generosity.
It is already becoming manifestly apparent that surveillance and weapons delivery systems are far more efficient by aerial drones than undersea manned submarines : at a pinch, if you really want submarines look to remote controlled undersea robotic machines.
The days of packing submarines with human beings are over, AI has seen to that.
Australia has become the 51st US state once again with this AUKUS deal: It is at the expense of our commercial ties with China.
It appears there’s much guessing about what AUKUS is really about. That’s understandable based upon how very little of substance has been promulgated. And is not likely to be.
To me it’s highly unlikely to be about traditional / ballistics / big bang warfare. More about security of communications and maintaining a balance of economics and détente. It’s just easier to keep the tech quiet by running it under military tech provisions extant.
Me too, just guessing.
One yank clown’s semi-informed analysis on a possibly positive foreign policy proposal regarding thermonuclear restraint recently tabled by the Chinese Govt;
Hoping this might be possible gateway towards a general attitude shift.🤞
AUKUS payments combined with a future global recession will tear Australia apart when cost-of-living issues multiply. Reform of Labor Policy making processes is needed to avoid total policy paralysis. Having been elected the Labor Government should have reviewed commitment to AUKUS as with Stage 3 Tax cuts
Thank you Denis for an interesting article about Aukus.
Terence Mills, as usual.
Maybe ASIO should also be checking out the lobbyists and retired political insiders who are cheering on the corporate military industrial complexes of both Britain and the USA. What’s good for apologists for China in ASIO assessment, should perhaps apply to Australians who lobby on behalf of other foreign powers against our own longer-term financial interests through connections to foreign military industrial companies which may not have our national interest at heart.
From ABC News in relation to the unnamed politician with Panda Bear tendencies: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-03/politican-accused-of-spying-was-recruited-during-term/103539790
I agree that LinkedIn is a great resources in identifying elites and political insiders with connections to the military industrial complexes and forums advertised on that site which promote AUKUS e.g. AUKUS Forum, Missile Industries Corporation-Missile Corp, Nuclear Taskforce, Australian Submarine Agency etc
Then there is the intelligence problem posed by ownership of the Murdoch and News Corporation Network.
Here is what Google Bard tells us about this corporate network which is a fierce defender of AUKUS:
“News Corporation (often shortened to News Corp) is a global media company. Its Australian operations are primarily owned and controlled by the Murdoch family, with Rupert Murdoch as the executive chairman.
While the Murdoch family holds a controlling stake, there are other shareholders, including major investors like Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia.”
Also from Google Bard:
“Here’s a breakdown of what News Corporation and the Murdoch family own in Australia:
Newspapers:
National: The Australian
Major Cities: The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), Herald Sun (Melbourne), The Courier-Mail (Brisbane), The Advertiser (Adelaide)
Regional and Community: Various newspapers across the country
Magazines: Titles including Vogue Australia, GQ Australia, Donna Hay, and Delicious
Digital News Websites: news.com.au and various websites associated with their newspapers
Subscription Television: Foxtel (majority share)
Sky News Australia: News channel on broadcast and subscription TV
Book Publishing: HarperCollins Publishers Australia
Other Business Interests: Property holdings, various digital ventures
Unfortunately, there is no single, comprehensive list of all property holdings directly owned by Rupert Murdoch or his family. Here’s why, and what we can find out:
Reasons for Difficulty:
Private Companies: Many significant property holdings may be held through private companies or family trusts, which aren’t required to make their assets public.
Global Spread: Murdoch’s holdings span multiple countries. Regulations about disclosures vary, making a complete list even harder.
Dynamic Holdings: Property portfolios can change over time, with some properties bought and others sold.
What We Can Find:
Notable Properties: News reports and articles often highlight major acquisitions or sales. Here are some well-known ones:
United States: Beverly Hills Estate (The Chartwell Estate), Moraga Estate vineyard in Bel Air, a New York City penthouse.
Australia: Cavan Station, a massive pastoral property in New South Wales.
United Kingdom: Residences in London and Oxfordshire.
Real Estate Companies: Murdoch or his companies may have stakes in real estate firms, further complicating the identification of specific properties.
Where to Search (with caution):
News Articles: Search for “Rupert Murdoch property” or variations to find recent reports. Be mindful of the news source’s reputation.
Real Estate Websites: Some high-end listings may hint at potential celebrity buyers but won’t outright confirm Murdoch’s ownership.
Company Filings: This requires more in-depth research and might only reveal the holding company, not the property itself.”
Should ASIO overlook this foreign ownership of our media landscapes and property portfolios?