The report of the so-called independent public inquiry into AUKUS, and the subsequent reaction to it on social media, offer a troubling insight into the state of Australian public debate.
The ‘inquiry’ received more than 1,000 submissions and recommended abandoning Australia’s nuclear-powered submarine program. Its organisers reported 83,000 downloads of the final report within 24 hours. Online, the intensity of opposition to AUKUS and the certainty of many commentators could leave readers believing that Australians had overwhelmingly rejected AUKUS. Yet the Lowy Institute’s 2026 polling found that 68 percent of Australians supported acquiring nuclear-powered submarines, while only 29 percent opposed them.
The contrast exposes a growing weakness in Australian public debate. We’re confusing the intensity of participation with the breadth of public support, and personal conviction with established fact. More concerning is how these misunderstandings can influence what political leaders believe Australians want.
Public inquiries are essential to democracy. So are parliamentary scrutiny, green papers, white papers and community consultation. Governments should be challenged, particularly over decisions involving hundreds of billions of dollars and Australia’s future security. But those conducting inquiries have responsibilities too. Independence from government doesn’t guarantee impartiality, and neither guarantees methodological rigour.
What the organisers called an inquiry into AUKUS shows the distinction. More than 1,000 Australians chose to make submissions. Their participation was legitimate and their views deserve consideration. But this was a self-selecting group, not a representative sample of Australian opinion nor of experts in the field. Submissions provide evidence of what participants believe, not necessarily what the broader population thinks.
The inquiry heard competing perspectivesformer defence ministers Kim Beazley, Christopher Pyne and Linda Reynolds and former home affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo. Yet its final report reached remarkably definitive conclusions, describing AUKUS as Australia’s worst, most costly and riskiest defence decision ever. The relevant question is how contrary evidence was tested, weighed and reconciled with those judgements.
The stronger the conclusion, the greater the evidentiary burden. Recommending abandonment of a major defence capability requires more than identifying its shortcomings. It requires serious consideration of the consequences and alternatives. This exercise didn’t develop a comprehensive replacement capability pathway. Assertions that Australia could simply buy conventional submarines off the shelf overlook difficult questions about availability, operational requirements, industrial capacity and delivery.
This doesn’t establish that AUKUS is the right decision. It means the alternatives warrant the same scrutiny as the policy being criticised.
The social media response reveals a related problem. Complex questions about radioactive waste storage, submarine acquisition and long-term costs are frequently debated with extraordinary certainty, despite the substantial technical, environmental and economic uncertainties involved. Those who question oversimplified or ideological claims on these issues can encounter personal abuse rather than reasoned answers.
George Costanza famously told Jerry Seinfeld, ‘It’s not a lie if you believe it.’ It was funny on television. It’s considerably less amusing when conviction substitutes for evidence in national security debate.
Political disagreement is now faster, louder and circulates in more-fragmented channels. A relatively small number of motivated participants can generate enormous noise, reinforcing one another’s positions until online intensity begins to resemble national consensus.
The danger extends beyond misleading social media users. Political leaders, advisers and journalists can mistake the loudest voices for the majority. A controversy can develop and harden across fragmented networks faster than institutions can evaluate the underlying claims. This creates pressure to respond before the evidence has been properly assessed, narrowing the choices governments perceive as politically available.
Online petitions and report downloads show the distinction. Signatures demonstrate participation, downloads indicate interest, and neither establishes endorsement by the broader population.
Consider also the suggestion among some supporters of the inquiry that limited mainstream media attention reflected institutional suppression. The inquiry received coverage from the ABC, The Guardian and other media outlets. Editorial judgements can legitimately be questioned, but insufficient coverage isn’t evidence of conspiracy. When favourable reporting validates a conclusion, criticism demonstrates hostility and limited attention proves suppression. Every outcome reinforces the original belief.
These problems aren’t exclusive to AUKUS opponents. Supporters can be equally dismissive of legitimate concerns about cost, sovereignty and delivery. The government itself has considerable explaining to do. October research from the United States Studies Centre found only 23 percent of Australians believed that the government had properly explained AUKUS, while just 31 percent were confident that Australia would receive the submarines promised by the United States.
Australians can support the strategic objective while doubting its implementation. Equally, criticism of AUKUS doesn’t automatically constitute support for cancellation.
There are consequences for national security leadership. Governments cannot wait for unanimity before making difficult decisions, particularly when strategic risks extend beyond electoral cycles. But neither can they dismiss criticism simply because its loudest advocates are unrepresentative. Consultation informs decisions; it cannot replace the responsibility to weigh evidence, explain trade-offs and exercise judgement.
Everyone gets a say in a democracy. That doesn’t mean everyone gets their way. And just because your social media feed agrees with you doesn’t mean Australia does.
Leave a comment