The chance to question has been taken out of the hands of parliament
In a democracy, the most consequential decisions carry the heaviest obligation for public scrutiny — yet Australia's A$368 billion submarine pact, the largest defence commitment in the nation's history, has moved largely beyond the reach of parliament and people. Now, former environment minister and Midnight Oil frontman Peter Garrett is leading a crowd-funded independent inquiry, convened not by the state but by citizens, to ask the questions that formal institutions have not. The review, unfolding over five months, invites a reckoning with what it means for a nation to bind itself — financially, strategically, and morally — to a nuclear future it has barely debated.
- Australia's Aukus deal has quietly shifted this week: three second-hand submarines replace the original promise of new vessels, and US and UK nuclear subs will dock in Perth from 2027 — changes announced with little public deliberation.
- The sheer scale of the commitment — A$368 billion — combined with its opacity has galvanised a coalition of independent MPs, retired military officers, human rights lawyers, and union leaders to demand accountability outside government channels.
- A crowd-funded inquiry, rather than a parliamentary one, is now the primary vehicle for public scrutiny, a fact that itself speaks to how thoroughly these decisions have bypassed democratic debate.
- The panel's composition signals the inquiry's ambitions: a former ADF chief examines strategic credibility, a former premier brings political weight, and a woman whose father was blinded by British nuclear tests in the 1950s ensures the human cost of nuclear programs is never abstract.
- The government has responded with careful neutrality, welcoming 'appropriate oversight' — a posture that neither embraces nor obstructs the review as it moves toward an October report.
Peter Garrett, once the voice of Midnight Oil and later Australia's environment minister, is now leading something quieter but no less charged: an independent, crowd-funded inquiry into the country's A$368 billion Aukus submarine deal — the largest defence commitment Australia has ever made.
The Aukus agreement, struck in September 2021, commits Australia to acquiring nuclear-powered attack submarines from the United States, framed broadly around countering China's influence in the Indo-Pacific. The arrangement has grown more complex with time. This week, the government confirmed a significant revision: Australia will now buy three second-hand submarines rather than new ones, and from 2027, both the US and UK will be permitted to base nuclear submarines in Perth. China, which denounced the original deal as 'extremely irresponsible,' remains a central and unspoken presence throughout.
Garrett argues that a commitment of this magnitude — financial, strategic, and nuclear — has been made without meaningful parliamentary or public debate. The inquiry, organised by the not-for-profit Australian Peace and Security Forum, will run for five months and hold public hearings before delivering a report in October.
The panel reflects the breadth of what is at stake. Admiral Chris Barrie, former chief of the Australian Defence Force, brings military credibility. Carmen Lawrence, former premier of Western Australia, brings political experience. And Karen Lester, whose father lost his sight from British nuclear weapons testing in South Australia in the 1950s, carries the weight of lived consequence — a reminder that nuclear decisions leave marks across generations.
The inquiry has drawn support from independent MPs David Pocock and Andrew Wilkie, along with former parliamentarians, retired officers, and human rights advocates. The Prime Minister's office has offered a measured welcome of 'appropriate oversight.' What the review ultimately surfaces — about delivery timelines, nuclear waste, sovereignty, and the fraying relationship with China — will say as much about how Australia makes its gravest decisions as about the submarines themselves.
Peter Garrett, the former environment minister and lead singer of Midnight Oil, is taking on a role that sits far from the concert stage. He's heading up an independent inquiry into Australia's A$368 billion submarine deal—the country's largest defence project ever—and he's doing it with money raised from the public rather than government coffers.
The Aukus agreement, struck in September 2021, commits Australia to acquiring nuclear-powered attack submarines from the United States. The stated rationale involves countering China's expanding influence across the Indo-Pacific, though the deal's architects have been careful not to name that directly. When China first learned of the arrangement, it denounced the agreement as "extremely irresponsible." The deal has only grown more complicated since its announcement. Just this week, the government revealed a significant shift: Australia will now purchase three second-hand submarines rather than the original plan, which promised at least one new vessel. Additionally, from 2027 onward, both the US and UK will be permitted to station small numbers of nuclear submarines in Perth, Western Australia.
Garrett, who served as environment minister from 2007 to 2010, argues that the scale and secrecy of the arrangement demand scrutiny. He calls it the "most expensive" defence commitment in Australian history, yet one where "the chance to question, debate and decide has been taken out of the hands of the parliament and the people." The independent review, organized by the not-for-profit Australian Peace and Security Forum, is "long overdue," he says.
The inquiry will operate over five months, culminating in a report due in October, and will conduct public hearings to gather evidence and testimony. Garrett leads a panel of four other commissioners. Admiral Chris Barrie, the former chief of the Australian Defence Force, brings military expertise to the table. Carmen Lawrence, a former premier of Western Australia, brings political experience. Karen Lester, whose father went blind as a result of British nuclear weapons testing in South Australia during the 1950s, brings a perspective rooted in the human costs of nuclear activity. This last appointment carries particular weight—it signals that the inquiry intends to grapple not just with strategic questions but with the lived consequences of nuclear programs.
The review has drawn backing from independent MPs David Pocock and Andrew Wilkie, as well as a coalition of former parliamentarians, retired military and naval officers, human rights lawyers, and union leaders. The Prime Minister's office has responded cautiously, saying the government welcomes "appropriate oversight and transparency" of the deal.
The inquiry's mandate is sweeping. It will examine whether Australia will actually receive the submarines it is paying for—a question that matters given the complexity of international defence procurement. It will investigate where and how nuclear waste will be stored, a question with profound environmental and public health implications. It will assess whether the deal genuinely makes Australia safer or whether it increases regional tensions. It will probe whether the arrangement undermines Australian sovereignty. And it will scrutinize how the deal reshapes Australia's relationship with China, its largest trading partner, at a moment when that relationship is already strained.
What emerges from this inquiry will matter not just for Australia's defence posture but for how democracies make decisions about their most consequential commitments. The fact that it took a crowd-funded effort by a former minister to force these questions into the open suggests something about how such decisions have been made so far.
Citas Notables
An independent inquiry into the deal was long overdue, and the chance to question, debate and decide has been taken out of the hands of parliament and the people.— Peter Garrett
The government welcomes appropriate oversight and transparency of the submarine deal.— Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's office
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does a rock musician end up leading a defence inquiry? That seems like an odd fit.
Garrett's not leading it as a musician—he's leading it as someone who held ministerial office and believes in parliamentary accountability. The real point is that he had to go outside government to do it. That's the story.
The government says it welcomes oversight. So why does this feel like a challenge to them?
Because oversight and transparency are different things. Oversight usually means the government controls the process. This inquiry is independent, crowd-funded, and asking questions the government hasn't wanted to answer publicly.
What's the nuclear waste question really about?
It's about whether Australia is prepared for the long-term consequences of hosting and maintaining nuclear submarines. That's not just a technical problem—it's a sovereignty question. Who controls that waste? Where does it go? For how long?
Karen Lester's appointment seems deliberate.
It is. Her father's blindness from nuclear testing in the 1950s is a reminder that nuclear decisions have human costs that last generations. She's there to make sure the inquiry doesn't treat this as purely strategic.
Does the China angle complicate things?
Enormously. The deal is implicitly about containing China, but China is Australia's largest trading partner. The inquiry has to ask whether you can do both at once, or whether you're forced to choose.