(Image: DALL-E)

At long last, the details of the AUKUS nuclear submarine partnership between Australia, the US and the UK have been made public.

Eighteen months after a historic commitment between the three countries was sketched out, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak stood together in San Diego to lay out the plan. Australia will buy some Virginia-class submarines to tide the country over until the delivery of a new class of nuclear submarines, the SSN-AUKUS.

The cost to acquire, build and maintain eight nuclear submarines and the accompanying expansions to Australia’s naval bases and shipbuilding infrastructure? A cool $268 to $368 billion by 2055, subject to the vagaries of long-term planning. 

To some, it’s a no-brainer to spend more than half the Commonwealth’s entire annual revenue on replacing the Collins-class submarines to potentially stave off aggression from China or, in the worst-case scenario, to defend us from an attack.

But just for the sake of discussion, we asked Crikey staff to imagine: what would you spend $368 billion on instead of the AUKUS deal?

John Buckley, reporter

With $200-odd billion, the government could raise rates of income support on pensions, JobSeeker, youth allowance and other payments to $88 a day (in line with the Henderson Poverty Line) until the end of the decade — give or take to get the nation through the worst of inflation headwinds — and probably build a strong case for keeping rates there. Parliamentary Budget Office costing from May last year estimated the cost of such an increase would be $88.7 billion over the four years from May 2022 to 2024-25.

Cam Wilson, associate editor

If I’m getting rid of AUKUS, I’m going to spend $15 billion on expanding Australia’s long-range missiles to keep the hawks happy. Then I’m looking to spread the love around. With thanks to the good people at Guardian Australia who estimated the cost of these measures, I’m spending $30 billion to build 36,000 social housing units each year for the next 30 years, $130 billion on building high-speed rail up the east coast, $90 billion on boosting public research by increasing funding for universities and public institutions like the CSIRO, expanding preschool for children aged three to five for $12 billion, and kicking every taxpayer a $1000 cash bonus for cost-of-living pressures for $12 billion. Even then, I have enough left over cash to buy Twitter at its Elon Musk sale price (~$56 billion Australian) because, frankly, I’m sick of hearing about it.

Gina Rushton, news editor

Apparently (according to the Australia Institute) a $12 billion investment in household electrification over five years could eliminate a third of our emissions and save households $40 billion a year by 2028. Or, cynically, if we didn’t want to spend it on mitigation, maybe we could just prepare for the lost earnings we will miss out on in the climate crisis. The United Nations has estimated that under two degrees of warming, Australia’s economy would miss out on $115 billion in lost earnings over the next decade or $350 billion over the next 20 years. Universal free childcare forever could also be cool.

Maeve McGregor, reporter

I question the $368 billion price tag. At its inception, the trilateral AUKUS arrangement was spare on the cost of adding a fleet of eight nuclear-powered submarines to Australia’s defence arrangements. There were initially whispers it could cost a staggering $8.4 billion each submarine, not including operating and support costs. Defence experts then weighed in, suggesting a total price tag of about $180 billion was more likely. 

And yesterday media leaks added some $20 billion to that total. The Sydney Morning Herald’s foreign affairs and national security correspondent Matthew Knot framed the issue of cost as the “$100 billion, and quite possibly $200 billion, question”.

Today Australians learnt none of those estimates was even close to the mark, with the breathtaking cost of submarine security to conversely reside between $268 billion and $368 billion over 30 years.

If the Department of Defence’s track record in managing and delivering major projects is any guide, it’s likely those figures are a gross underestimate. The auditor-general’s 2021-22 review of Defence spending, tabled last month, discovered cost overruns of some $17.5 billion, relaying serious concerns about the failure of the department to implement measures guarding against cost blowouts. Though the government has said the submarine project will be overseen by a multi-agency body in an effort to guard against similar problems, the Greens are unconvinced, likening the project to “mortgaging our future”.

I agree with John. This is money that should be spent on welfare and making sure no one is living in poverty. We’re also experiencing a serious crisis in social and affordable housing. According to the Greens, an annual investment of $5 billion a year would go a long way to fixing the problem.

Anton Nilsson, reporter

How about 73.6 billion Magnum Almond ice creams for $5 each? 

What are your ideas for how the AUKUS money could be better spent? Let us know by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.