AUKUS Inquiry must welcome every side of the debate

To shape the national debate, the AUKUS Inquiry must be seen as open, balanced and willing to test every argument, writes James Beattie.

As a strong person opposed with AUKUSI welcome the public investigation of the agreement.

There have already been two public hearings. Melbourne and in Fremantle – and the next planned to Adelaide Exclusively on July 16, 2026 Trial for Indigenous Australians Back in Adelaide on July 17th.

However, I would like to issue a word of caution about how the Inquiry proceeded and how it was publicly framed in order to maximize the impact it could have on the Government, the Opposition and the Australian public at large.

Under Royal Commissions Act 1902The Prime Minister and the Federal Cabinet have the power to initiate all federal royal commissions, and the Governor-General then formally establishes such inquiries on their advice. Terms of reference for royal commissions are also set by the Prime Minister and Cabinet and therefore may be biased by the inclusion or exclusion of certain issues in the terms of reference.

The government also decides who will chair the commission and how much time commissioners will have to gather, read, listen, reflect, synthesize and report on the issue at hand. If they are Machiavellian or politically naive enough, they can determine the outcome of the commission almost from the beginning, even while trying to project a fair image of “objectivity.”

That’s why the announcement of many royal commissions is greeted with excitement. sarcasm and their findings accepted with skepticism.

However, anyone can hold a public inquiry into any matter. They can raise funds, request applications, appoint committee members, hold hearings, and prepare reports. Such inquiries may seek to transcend the often politically motivated royal commissions routinely called for in Australian politics, or simply aim to provide a public arena where participants can blow off steam as their voices go unheard against the din of consensus among the dominant political parties of the day.

These are not the only options. But I think the AUKUS Inquiry risks falling between the parallel stools of the politically motivated royal commission model (which amounts to the performance of listening) and the well-intentioned but hermetically sealed complaints-fest, which amounts to the performance of being heard.

Given this, the Inquiry’s commissioners and media advisors will need to work extremely hard to establish any credibility or buy-in with the public or interest groups who have more mixed or ambivalent views of the deal or who openly support it.

For me this wouldn’t be a bad thing. The AUKUS tracklist has been passed around from Coalition to Labor to One Nation, and is now so worn and worn from overuse that I’ll be very happy never to hear another note from it again. But if the public simply turns a deaf ear to a different, dissenting hymn, the Inquiry’s final report may fall on deaf journalistic and political ears and be easily dismissed and ridiculed.

All five members of the commission of inquiry expressed either clear opposition to AUKUS or serious concerns about it. They’re not sitting on the fence. Perhaps their choice was deliberate: if the panel had included one or two commissioners who were genuinely undecided about the pros and cons of the agreement, or who actively supported the agreement, this might have dissuaded some anti-AUKUS members of the public from participating for fear that their views would not be taken seriously.

But this is idle speculation, given that the Investigation is currently ongoing. More important is how the commissioners conduct the rest of the investigation as it progresses.

Investigation terms of reference Give us modest reason for hope. They frame problems in a way that does not give the appearance of a predetermined outcome. However, unlike a royal commission, this Inquiry has no power to compel anyone to appear before it. I understand that the organizers of the inquiry have made concerted efforts to bring diverse voices into the room.

Still, so far the former Minister of Defense appears Linda Reynolds He is the only serious AUKUS supporter. He got ahead of the investigation. I believe the organizers will continue to work hard to bring a wide range of voices into the mix.

Especially people like the Prime Minister Anthony AlbaneseSecretary of Defence Richard MarlesMinister of Foreign Affairs Penny Wong and Opposition leader Angus Taylor must be pursued repeatedly before a public hearing. Most of the inquiries to AUKUS so far have been either greensor from international relations And defense from experts or experienced journalists Those who have a highly ritualized approach to interviewing politicians, bouncing back and forth between Dorothy Dixers and nutters, and sometimes feeling unsure of what strategy to follow at any given moment.

I think that publicly inviting such politicians and other opinion leaders and responding to some of the concerns and questions raised by the public and commissioners would significantly increase the credibility of the Inquiry.

There can be no harm in pressing for a formal and public appearance by some of the agreement’s key architects and advocates; they are clearly influenced by AUKUS, and some have staked their political careers and reputations on it. If they choose not to appear, it will be important to include this in the Inquiry report and press releases.

Similarly, inviting experts with extensive security and international relations knowledge and experience to explain or answer questions can enhance the credibility of the Inquiry. I understand that at least one such expert, Hugh WhiteIt is expected to take place in Canberra hearing. I hope the investigative secretariat will try to ensure this. Sam Roggeveen He appeared at the Sydney trial.

These experts are certainly not card-carrying doves on defense and national security. But there are very complex and logical ways to evaluate the advantages and pitfalls of the submarine deal. Public disclosure and interrogation of their views would significantly increase the credibility of the Inquiry and its final recommendations, providing a valuable counterweight to the views of AUKUS enthusiasts such as those below. Jennifer ParkerHis views tend to dominate AUKUS’ coverage in mainstream media.

Since then Scott Morrison I founded the AUKUS pact on the Coalition Government, the Labor Party and the public, who were unaware of anything. I have been listening intently to the compelling pro-AUKUS arguments made by politicians, defense experts, and security experts, but so far I have come up empty-handed. As an old-school philosopher, there are few greater intellectual pleasures than learning that you were wrong about something important—discovering that you missed an important piece of information or made a fundamental error in reasoning.

Of course, I have other values besides the truth, and AUKUS does not go easy on any of them.

But are there any defenders of AUKUS who can decisively refute the lies of security and defense experts who think they have this secret incomplete information or who have comprehensively and convincingly opposed the agreement? Can they also convincingly demonstrate the moral, political and economic value of AUKUS? If so, I invite them to surrender. Please explain why I should change my mind.