Peter Dutton opens door to transparent defence debate, proving anything is possible

For a senior minister in a government that 1) persecuted Witness K and Bernard Collaery, 2) passed laws blocking intelligence officials from revealing crimes, and 3) prosecuted whistleblowers and had journalists raided after embarrassing leaks, Peter Dutton has suddenly shown a commendable commitment to throwing off the shackles of secrecy.

The opposition leader is now under fire from both the government and the defence commentariat for daring to reveal that as defence minister he had hopes the United States would hand not one but two Virginia-class nuclear submarines to Australia by 2030.

Such vessels take around six to seven years to build, so we’re talking about boats that are already under construction. The views of the US Navy about such an idea are unknown but, presumably, not particularly positive. The boats would have to come with their own American crews as well, given our sailors don’t know how to operate a nuclear-powered vessel.

Defence Minister Richard Marles lashed Dutton for damaging the national interest with his “loose” comments. Defence industry experts mocked the idea that the Americans would degrade their own capability to give Australia two attack subs with training wheels. Another academic declared himself flabbergasted — “flabbergasted!”, as Mike Carlton’s Rox Messup would say — that Dutton had made the remarks.

Get Crikey FREE to your inbox every weekday morning with the Crikey Worm.

Perhaps it’s something about submarines that brings out this sort of leaky behaviour. Recall that in 2016 Tony Abbott had to furiously deny he’d handed a secret draft white paper on the submarines to Greg Sheridan after he was dumped as PM — a paper purporting to show the Naval Group contract subs had been delayed. Abbott also professed himself flabbergasted — “flabbergasted!” — at that decision.

It’s thus admirable of Dutton to put his name to the claims and cut out the middleman — an action presumably necessitated by the fact that Sheridan has been kicking the living bejesus out of the nuclear subs decision from the moment it was announced.

As always, hypocrisy is a standard part of politics, and it’s amazing what transformation can take place when a person enters the refined world of a ministerial suit and the cloying embrace of classified briefings — and when they exit it. We now look forward to Dutton calling for Collaery’s prosecution to be no-billed, Julian Assange to be returned home and an end to the prosecution of David McBride.

But sometimes hypocrisy is useful for more than just the hypocrite. With all the secrecy surrounding successive submarine decisions, what precisely has been achieved? At least $4 billion wasted. Allies — first Japan, then France — upset or infuriated. Allies bewildered. And, seemingly, a colossal hole in our submarine capability looming in the 2030s and 2040s. All these brilliant achievements have been secured behind closed doors, with everyone sworn to secrecy, and little public debate before decisions are served up for media consumption, carefully staged to fit in with the government’s political agenda.

The idea that major acquisitions that will have dramatic fiscal consequences — in this case, well north of $100 billion — and shape our strategic capacities for generations should be publicly debated before announcements are made appears anathema to the national security industry. In his own way, Dutton has struck a blow for proper public debate before we commit more money to what appears to be a bottomless ocean trench of naval procurement.