AUKUS explained: what are we actually getting for $368 billion?

When the Albanese government committed Australia to the AUKUS partnership in 2023, it locked us into the largest defence spending commitment in our nation's history. At $368 billion over three decades, we're talking about more money than Australia's entire federal budget for 2025-26 ($650 billion). But what exactly are we getting for this astronomical sum, and why weren't everyday Australians consulted on a decision that will define our strategic future?

The AUKUS breakdown: submarines, submarines, submarines

AUKUS isn't just about submarines, but let's be honest - the nuclear-powered submarine program is eating up the lion's share of that $368 billion price tag. Here's what the timeline actually looks like:

• 2030s: Australia will acquire 3-5 Virginia-class submarines from the United States
• 2040s: We'll begin building our own SSN-AUKUS submarines in Adelaide
• 2050s: Full operational capability with 8 nuclear-powered submarines

But submarines are just the beginning. AUKUS Pillar II includes cutting-edge military technologies like hypersonic weapons, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and cyber capabilities. The government argues these investments will make Australia a technological powerhouse and create thousands of high-skilled jobs.

The economic reality check

Let's put $368 billion in perspective. That's roughly:

• 15 years of current childcare subsidies
• 25 years of the entire PBS pharmaceutical budget
• More than double what we've spent on the entire NBN

The government promises 20,000 new jobs across the submarine industrial base, with major investments in South Australia, Western Australia, and New South Wales. Adelaide's Osborne shipyards are being transformed into a nuclear submarine construction facility, while Perth will become a maintenance hub for both Australian and allied nuclear submarines.

But here's the catch: most economic benefits won't materialise until the 2030s and 2040s. We're asking today's taxpayers to fund tomorrow's promises, with limited guarantees about cost overruns or delivery delays.

Strategic benefits vs. enormous risks

Proponents argue AUKUS will:

• Strengthen regional deterrence against potential threats in the Indo-Pacific
• Deepen integration with our closest allies (US and UK)
• Build sovereign defence capabilities reducing reliance on foreign suppliers
• Position Australia as a middle power with genuine strategic weight

The risks are equally significant:

• Cost blowouts are almost guaranteed (look at any major defence project)
• Nuclear waste management remains unresolved
• Skills shortages could delay delivery by years
• Strategic inflexibility - we're locked into US alliance structures for decades
• Opportunity costs - what else could $368 billion achieve?

The democratic deficit

Here's what really grinds our gears: this massive commitment was made without any meaningful public consultation. No referendum, no citizens' assembly, no comprehensive public debate. Political elites in Canberra decided our strategic future behind closed doors, presenting AUKUS as a fait accompli.

Polling consistently shows Australians are divided on AUKUS. A 2025 Lowy Institute poll found only 56% of Australians support the submarine program, with significant concerns about cost and nuclear risks. Yet both major parties treat AUKUS as untouchable, immune from democratic scrutiny.

Alternative approaches we could have considered

If Australians had been properly consulted, we might have explored:

• Conventional submarine alternatives costing a fraction of the AUKUS price tag
• Different alliance structures that don't lock us into great power competition
• Investment in other defence capabilities like missile defence or cyber warfare
• Non-military approaches to regional security through diplomacy and economic cooperation

We'll never know what Australians would have chosen because they were never asked.

Making defence decisions democratically

Defence policy shouldn't be exempt from democratic participation. Major strategic commitments like AUKUS will shape Australia for generations - decisions this significant deserve more than parliamentary rubber-stamping.

Under a Direct Democracy approach, AUKUS would have been subject to comprehensive public consultation. Citizens would have received detailed briefings on alternatives, costs, and risks. Regional communities hosting submarine facilities would have had genuine say in the decision. The final commitment would reflect the informed will of the Australian people, not just political elites.

The path forward

AUKUS is now locked in, but significant decisions remain: submarine basing locations, nuclear waste storage, cost allocation between states, and integration with other defence programs. Each of these choices will affect millions of Australians.

We can still demand democratic input on AUKUS implementation. Regional communities deserve genuine consultation on submarine facilities. Taxpayers deserve transparent reporting on costs and timelines. And Australians deserve the right to modify or even exit AUKUS if circumstances change.

Ready to have your say on Australia's biggest defence decision? Take our policy quiz to see where you stand on AUKUS and join thousands of Australians demanding real democracy on the issues that matter most.