Who’s tough enough not to pull the AUKUS trigger?

Feb 4, 2025
AUKUS text on Australia, United Kingdom and the United States flag Closeup Full 3d flag background image waving in wind, 3d rendering. Contributor: Borka Kiss / Alamy Stock Photo Image ID: 2JRY714

A time may come when someone must write the history of Labor’s 2025 historic electoral triumph over the Coalition, and the “rope a dope” strategies and tactics which took Opposition leader Peter Dutton in, then spat him out. If it all comes to pass, students of Labor history will note that it was two key figures of the left, Penny Wong and Anthony Albanese himself, who rode AUKUS to victory in the successive AUKUS Cups.

When the word was first heard, in 2021, Albanese was not supposed to be the jockey. Scott Morrison, or his defence minister, Peter Dutton had been groomed. Richard Marles, mastermind of the Labor right had not even been pencilled in as defence minister. He was the decoy. The iron will and determination of Albanese, even in the face of Labor bedwetters of the left, caused an upset.

Everyone recognised that Scott Morrison and his intelligence advisers had conceived of AUKUS primarily as a scheme to defeat Labor, rather than, if the time came, to find military allies to defeat China. The plan was a monstrous political wedge, a plan which would have, or should have, gone against all Labor’s instincts with only Morrison as its champion. All the more so given that Labor had a leader who led a faction called the Hard Left, with a history of scepticism about close entanglements with its white English-speaking allies. Notionally, it joined our power and influence to Britain, fast going down the economic drain, and to the United States, which was as much a liability as an asset in planning a place for Australia in the future of Asia.

The scheme, hatched in secrecy without being canvassed with Labor or even most of Morrison’s colleagues, embraced high-level technology interchanges, and access to nuclear-powered submarines for Australia. It involved repudiation of a submarine contract Australia had with France. The very word “nuclear” in the new deal was calculated to enrage Labor and Albanese. Albanese was virtually the last survivor in active politics of those who had fought in Labor’s nuclear wars during the early 1980s.

Once announced, Blind Freddy could see the political wedge involved. It was a tender issue within the ALP. It was also one in the electorate. But the Australian defence and intelligence community had been following an American lead in predicting and inciting a war with China. It was clear that present and former government had left Australia ill-prepared, assuming we wanted to get into such a daft confrontation. But Morrison, his advisers and his ministers did not expect that Labor would join the bandwagon, and without internal debate. Any debate would have exposed Labor’s disunity on the pact (which persists, the reason debate has been suppressed). It has also seen an unseemly brawl between Albanese, no strategic genius, and Paul Keating, as well as Gareth Evans and Bob Carr. Albanese and Wong, and amazingly Marles, a poor advocate and communicator, claimed that these were all out of date on Australia’s circumstances.

Labor has as many AUKUS groupies as the Coalition

Jumping in also involved a significant move to the right by the party. Labor has always had a significant right-wing faction which assumes Australia’s role in the Western alliance. Some of its members, including a one-time unsuccessful Labor leader, have never seen an expensive American weapon they did not want to buy, an American view of the world with which they have not wholeheartedly agreed, even if it was new to them, or an opportunity to kowtow to America’s right-wing foreign policy establishment they have not taken up. But the party mainstream considered itself a partner, not a subject of the alliance, and Australia’s interests as its own, even when they may have coincided with some American interests. Albanese’s denials to the contrary, it certainly appeared that driving American submarines implied a significant loss of independence of thought or action.

Albanese was the successor to Bill Shorten, who had snatched defeat from the jaws of victory at the 2019 elections. Albanese had come to believe that Shorten lost because he had too many policies, particularly too many bold policies. He wanted a few concentrated policies, ones not calculated to cause alarm and despondency.

Albanese believed, moreover, that the Coalition had natural advantages in the electorate on issues such as defence, national security, law and order, immigration and the management of the economy. It ruthlessly exploited these advantages, not least by misrepresenting Labor’s position. This included, from the mid-1950s, a running allegation that Labor presented security risks and was under the influence of the Communist Party.

Must Albanese resist being weak, soft, woke, and hopeless? 

That perception was fading by the early 1980s, but was revived from 2001, with the war on terrorism and the alleged invasion by boat people. Dutton may not mention the word “communist” with quite the same frequency as did Harold Holt, but references to being “weak”, “soft”, “woke”, repeated references to terrorism, to aliens and vulnerability, and the constant verballing of ASIO are code words for the same type of attack. It is not uncommon for some Labor members to behave as if they have bad consciences on the matter. Albanese, in particular, does not like being characterised as weak. That, and his obstinacy once he is being criticised, means he is difficult to shift from a position he has adopted, even if that position was merely tactical.

Labor’s desire to look resolute and tough finds expression in AUKUS. Morrison’s approach was frankly party political, for domestic purposes, but Albanese has persuaded himself that his approach is guided by national interest rather than partisan advantage. Though party people had expected that Labor would review its policy once it took power in 2022, it found itself relatively free from much Opposition criticism over AUKUS. The pact of such a money spinner for the defence and intelligence lobbies, and the consultancies, means that it is not subject to much detailed analysis and criticism. Dutton provided much of the framework of AUKUS policy. But his non-stop criticism of Albanese for being weak, insecure, pro-China, anti-American or anti-Israeli, or that he is failing to promote Australian interests rest on different foundations. That does not, however, stop opinion polls tending to agree that the Coalition is sounder on defence, and would better defend Australian interests.

Albanese did have an unexpected opportunity to sound “tough”, but has by now largely blown it. The conduct of the Morrison government raised significant issues of accountability, integrity, transparency, deliberate cruelty to the disadvantaged and corruption. There were calls for an ICAC-style operation at the Commonwealth level. The calls came mostly from the Greens and Independents, and from community candidates of the type now called Teals. Labor did not inspire these campaigns, and for a long time doubted there was much of a problem. But it ultimately jumped on the bandwagon. Its support was critical, but once Labor took power it watered down legislation for which it had campaigned.

The only way in which tough policies on integrity “work” for Labor is that many of those who think that such policies are critical agree that Labor is weak and disappointing on the issue, but probably slightly more credible than the Coalition. There are still no significant differences between Labor and the Coalition on refugee policy, national security and integrity in government. On the other hand, Labor has been a patsy on anti-terrorism matters. It has been increasingly authoritarian on matters such as internet censorship and has failed to take charge of debates on issues such as antisemitism. The Coalition is aggressive in calling for more vigour, but the actual policy differences are slight.

The current Labor leadership would have fought in South Vietnam and supported conscription

De-emphasising particular policies at election time is a matter of tactics rather than strategy or morals. Hiding them behind trees can be more problematic – a reason why even Albanese’s best friends acknowledge that his leadership and achievements have been quite disappointing. Some bitter critics — people whose disappointment has led to resignation from the party — say the modern Labor government, dealing with the Vietnam and conscription issues of the 1960s, would have decided to be enthusiastic champions of both. No one more so than Albanese, who (despite the counter example of his hero, Tom Uren, a leader in the campaigns) would probably claim that those opposing that war were “Trots”, and a “distraction”.

In the election coming up, it is Dutton, not Albanese who wants to be a small target. Albanese must defend his record in government and ask voters to compare leaders where they will take Australia in three years, if not the three years since the 2022 election. Each of the policies outlined by Dutton are more symbolic than real. Dutton is not invested in any particular model of nuclear power, or any particular costs. Whatever will happen, if anything, will not happen in the next term of government anyway. (A similar remark can be made of nuclear submarines.) Dutton is putting up the plan as a proof that he will be different and not a “Greenie”. Incidentally, but not unintentionally, he is showing the hydrocarbon lobbies that he is on their side. On most of the other policies, including Indigenous affairs, alleged government waste, the cost of living, he wants the public to think that he could govern and manage routine affairs better than could the Albanese team. With recent experience of both teams of ministers, voters can make their own judgments. It is likely they will decide on the basis of assessments about managerial competence rather than on the basis of balance sheets.

The Coalition campaign will not be on policies, detail, or the arithmetic. It will be on attack and on the theme that Labor is hopeless and incompetent. I doubt it will depend on an argument that it is corrupt, but it will suggest that it may sometimes be well-meaning but has no idea about how to make things happen. And, on many subjects is not fair dinkum anyway, since it has adopted Coalition policies it does not believe in. The major attack dog, Dutton, continually suggests symbolic policies – on matters such as Indigenous flags, antisemitism, social media outrages, for example. He is inviting Labor to agree with him that there is a need for more toughness, more coercion, more bullying and more straying beyond what it claims to be points of principle. He wants to test whether there are lines Labor will not cross. If there are – then they are weak, and shams. If they can be tricked into continually showing that Labor has no moral or practical bottom, they are again showing themselves to be weak reeds, blowing on a wind stirred up by the Coalition. Alas, that is the current default position.

Thank heaven that Labor can at least stand for the defence of the nation. Sounding resolute and keeping Chairman Xi sleepless at night. Or sounding firm at least – if not threatening or looking for trouble. Albanese has many reasons to be fairly calm, in part because there appears to be a declining appetite for open hostilities, no doubt to the disappointment of the lunatics who actually want a war. Donald Trump is currently sounding a lot less bellicose at the military level, even if pretending to be still committed to higher tariffs. Some judge this to be, at most, a negotiating tactic. Trump also seems calmer about economic competition. In any event, he has been so busy making fresh enemies that he may lower the temperature on some long-standing ones. As long as each conflict is to be all about him, and all controversies revolve around his idiosyncrasies, Kevin Rudd is just the man to take charge of this project.

Share and Enjoy !