The Nine mastheads have continued their full-throated backing of all things AUKUS, allotting prime weekend front-page space to Australia’s chief of Navy Mark Hammond, who — blow me down — laid out why the nation must get behind the Navy’s submarine project.
In a tour de force of military reasoning, the 37-year Australian Defence Force veteran also picked up some of the talking points advanced by the political class to defend the $368 billion decision sprung on the nation just a few weeks ago.
Hammond lamented that AUKUS was not being hailed as one of the great nation-building projects, such as the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric scheme.
“I’m glad we’re a nation that … is prepared to make the tough decision to spend a significant amount of national treasure on a capability that will remain absolutely relevant for many decades to come,” said the vice-admiral, stating how he was concerned Australia’s sea lines of communication and seabed infrastructure were vulnerable to attack. This adds to other AUKUS arguments such as protecting shipping lanes, the catch-all defence of democratic values, and — if the subs fail to materialise — the development of a new industrial and skills base.
Who needs a defence public relations unit when the SMH and the Age appear so ready to step up? And so soon after its “Red Alert” series, which depicted the hellscape Australia would become after a 72-hour pummelling at the hands of China?
On this occasion, Hammond castigated those with questions about the secret AUKUS deal. These people were “hand-wringing” doubters, he said, who Australians should ignore.
Inconveniently, perhaps, these doubters include two former prime ministers, Malcolm Turnbull and Paul Keating, as well as a significant number of Australia’s elected politicians who reside outside the joint ALP/Coalition enterprise. Bed-wetters, the lot of them. (At an earlier point in history, the doubters and skeptics might also have included professional journalists — but that’s a whole other story.)
This was the first time the chief of Navy has spoken publicly in defence of AUKUS. It is always worth remembering, of course, that Defence Department bods don’t answer questions: they make statements. And the chief’s “hand-wringers” denunciation veers uncomfortably close to expressing disdain for questioning.
If that be defence’s new media strategy for AUKUS, then Crikey suggests there are valuable media management lessons for the uniformed class to be learned from Colonel Nathan R Jessup’s approach in A Few Good Men. (Who can resist dipping into that famous courtroom scene?)
“You snotty little bastard,” spat Colonel Jessup as his word as a commanding officer came under question.
But Jack Nicholson as Jessup was just getting started in his defence of himself as guardian of the nation’s security.
“Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom,” he sneered.
“You have the luxury of not knowing what I know … and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth, because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like ‘honor’, ‘code’, ‘loyalty’. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline.”
Back in reality, Australia’s defence has a well-earned reputation for cooperating only with media outlets it can count on for support.
The department’s “defence of the realm” mentality means it refuses to engage with outlets, like Crikey, which might present uncomfortable questions.
Last week, we asked it to comment on the fate of the $2 million defence innovation review, which had been conducted by former Rio Tinto Australia managing director David Peever on behalf of the Morrison government.
The review was released in March, on the eve of the government’s AUKUS announcement, in a highly redacted form. It has not been handed to the current government, apparently on the grounds it was commissioned by the previous government. This extraordinary state of affairs was revealed in a report published 10 days ago in The Australian by Peter Jennings, the former head of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).
Jennings, far from an enemy of AUKUS, wrote that the inefficiency did not bode well for how defence could handle the extreme demands of the three-nation nuclear submarine pact.
Defence has not graced Crikey with an answer. Maybe the department was too occupied lining up an interview that suited its ends in a mass-selling daily.
It’s not really about the subs, though, is it? It’s about the optics and the politics.
And to the extent that it IS about the subs, I think we are asking the wrong question. It shouldn’t be about ‘should we or should we not spend $368 billion on submarines’, it should be:
– why are we spending $368 billion dollars on any single Defence project?
– can we afford to spend $368 billion on any single Defence project?
– if we do spend $368 billion on Defence, will spending it all on submarines give us the best Defence outcome?
There’s probably a couple of hundred more, as well. I look forward to seeing some of them below.
Hospitals, doctors, nurses, and looking after elderly should be at fore front of spending, not wasting money on submarines.
Where are they going to cut military spending to pay this over exorbitant price ( that) will blow out to even more over time.
Look after the priorities and look after ppl here,stop the bull sh*t on trying to be a small fish in a big pond @ subs.
It might be about the subs – just not our subs. More to soften us up to waste our money paying for the building of bases in Australia for US and UK nuclear subs and helping the bankrupt UK to pay for their new subs:
https://johnmenadue.com/aukus-designed-to-remove-public-resistance-to-australia-stationing-us-nuclear-submarines/
Peter, it will be a toss up to see who is bankrupted first.
Australia or U.K, the U. K can go to Charlie and ask him for a loan am sure he will oblige.
I suppose Australia can sell off a bit more of our country ( not allowing Aussies access) to pay down debt .
Good point. We’ve sold most of it off already; and without trade with China, it may well be us.
Can anyone explain how this works? I accept the report was commissioned by the previous government, but that can that really mean it is not available to the next government? Surely each government inherits all that is left by previous governments? If not, who now owns the report and decides when, if at all, it can be released? How is the owner of the report, which was commissioned (and presumably paid for) by the last government not subject to the authority of the current government?
It’s quite a startling revelation, isn’t it??!!?
Good point, no doubt ignored by the media…. probably because producers/editors claim Australians are not interested in boring or serious details and strategy papers etc.
Yes, who will not hand over a report to the incumbent government paid for by taxpayers money that is about the security of the country?
So an Admiral and channel nine entertainment so-called journos are rounding on those who dare to suggest spending billions on used subs that won’t arrive for a decade or so is a stupid decision? Why who would have thought of it?
If we ever get them they will an obsolete emcumbrance
And our “allies” will wipe their hands of the mess we’re in.
While being allowed to present unchallenged in media i.e. the bleeding obvious being ignored, observing the Defence Dept. & Prime Ministers making deals based on the back of cigarette packet analysis and personal relationships?
Begs the questions inc. what are Australia’s local and regional needs, strategy and supply or procurement to fit?
Appalling indictment of our media how they assist in supporting talking points while avoiding key questions and issues; well trained?
The wretched military and arms establishments have way too much power and influence. Marketed by decades of fear-mongering to keep their business afloat and thriving.
And very little accountability for spending. Where’s their “efficiency dividend”?
No other is just the tax payer subsidised deficiency dividend, over priced, over budget and late!
There is way too much profit to be earned for these wretched companies by lobbyists, influencers inflicting themselves on politicians way out of their depth. I cannot imagine just how many defense projects have been delayed , had cost overruns and deliver much less than they promised. No one takes any responsibility
It strikes me as unusual, as well as inappropriate, for a Defence executive to be cheer-leading for a government decision. That the Chief of Navy doesn’t see it that way may be because for over a decade or more they’ve become used to running the show?