Crossbenchers are calling for a “transparent” inquiry into Aukus, with one independent MP accusing both major parties of “drinking the Kool-Aid”, as the US prepares for its own review into the trilateral defence pact.
In a letter sent on Friday to the defence minister, Richard Marles, 10 crossbench MPs and senators called for an urgent parliamentary inquiry into the deal between Australia, the US and the UK. The deal is anticipated to cost Australia up to $368bn.
There had been “limited opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny” of Aukus, despite increasing concern amongst the public, the letter said.
The independent Andrew Wilkie, a former lieutenant colonel, told Guardian Australia an inquiry would be a chance to “reset” Australia’s defence strategy.
“I think we need an independent inquiry because the problem we’ve got here is that both the Labor party and the Coalition, they’ve all drunk the Kool-Aid and they’re believing whatever the admirals are telling them, and they’re invested in the current arrangements.
“It is now up to the crossbench to start generating the conversation and lead the conversation … to influence the government to set up an independent inquiry.”
Wilkie said Australia should abandon nuclear submarines, in favour of conventional submarines.
The government has continued to back the deal.
Anthony Albanese said on Friday it was appropriate that the new Trump administration review the deal, likening that to moves in Britain and Labor’s own defence strategic review, released in 2023.
“We are very confident, though, that Aukus is in the interest of all three of our nations, and that it will play an important role in peace, security and stability around the world at a time when that is absolutely necessary,” he said in the Fijian capital of Nadi.
The foreign minister, Penny Wong, said that the pact was a “multi-decade, multi-government” project.
“It will be many governments and many leaders and many defence ministers and many foreign ministers [who] will have to make sure this project, this partnership, continues and delivers.”
The Greens have called for Aukus to be abandoned altogether. Senator David Shoebridge said it is “remarkable” that Australia is the only nation of the three involved to have not undertaken a review.
“No credible independent observer thinks that Australia will be given Virginia class submarines by the mid 2030s, at exactly the same point in time when the US will have a postwar record low number of those critical assets,” he said.
Shoebridge said he believes the US review would lead to a “double shakedown” of the Albanese government, to force Australia to pay more towards the US’s industrial bases.
Unlike Wilkie, Shoebridge said there should be a parliamentary review into the pact, which he said would be a more transparent process.
“The primary benefit of a parliamentary review is to allow for the marshalling of the overwhelming body of evidence from the Australian public, observers and defence analysts, that highlight the dangers of Aukus.”
“The process of the parliamentary review, particularly if there are Greens and critical crossbench members … will provide important transparency.”
The independent Monique Ryan criticised the Aukus deal was conceived in secret and without public consultation.
Ryan said it was “entirely reasonable” that the US review the deal as the UK had, “and I think that we should too”.
The review should examine the strategic rationale for Aukus, she said.
“It should look at the opportunity cost of committing to nuclear submarines as opposed to other options, it should look at the feasibility and time of the nuclear program … and the options for the country if those submarines can’t be delivered in time.”
Crossbench MP Allegra Spender has also urged a parliamentary inquiry, arguing Aukus won’t work “without wider community interrogation and engagement”.
Ryan said the government should establish an ongoing review committee for Aukus, given evolving geostrategic pressures.
“It doesn’t make sense to set and forget something that was set in 2021, with minimal public consultation, without parliamentary debate.”
The UK parliament announced its parliamentary inquiry into Aukus in April.
The British government’s own major projects agency stated in a 2025 report that the UK’s plan to build the nuclear reactor cores needed to power the Aukus submarines was “unachievable”.
“There are major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable,” the report from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority said.
A host of Australian organisations have lodged submissions to the Commons committee in the UK – among them the Australian Security and Peace Foundation (ASPF), which argued it was in neither the interests of the UK or Australia to be part of a US-led China containment strategy, “particularly when US government decision-making is increasingly unpredictable”.
In response to the US Aukus review announcement, founding board member of the ASPF, Maj Gen Michael Smith (Ret), argued “it is even more important that Australia urgently conduct a parliamentary review of Aukus, inviting full public consultation”.
Smith said future Aukus submarine bases, as well as existing US bases and so-called “joint facilities”, could contribute to Australia unnecessarily becoming a military target in the geopolitical rivalry between the US and China.
In its own submission, the Western Australian government argued Aukus was vital for regional and global security, and was critical to ensure a “free and open” Indo-Pacific region.
