NICOLA SMITH: Is AUKUS still on track after urgent review of Australian Submarine Agency was announced?

The surprise appointment of former defence secretary Dennis Richardson to conduct an urgent review of the Australian Submarine Agency has reignited doubts about whether the $368 billion AUKUS submarine program remains on track.

Mr Richardson’s task to rapidly assess the agency’s direction and governance follows the sudden resignation of deputy director-general David Hallinan last month and reported concerns about how the government body is being run.

The AUKUS security partnership, first unveiled in September 2021, aims to deliver a nuclear-powered submarine capability for Australia with the help of the US and the UK, as well as boosting trilateral defence cooperation on cyber and artificial intelligence and other cutting-edge technologies.

The first stage of so-called “Pillar 1” would see British and American nuclear submarines rotating through Perth from 2027 before the sale of US Navy Virginia-class attack submarines to Australia in the early 2030s. In the latter stage, Australia will construct a new SSN-Aukus fleet in Adelaide.

But in Australia, the ambitious — and for some — controversial program has been dogged by doubts about the progress of the trilateral venture and whether it can meet its targets.

On Friday, Defence Minister Richard Marles countered that while “not everything is perfect” at the ASA, it would be “astounding” if it was. Now was right time to check the settings were right, he said.

“We want Dennis to have a look at this in a short, sharp way, kick the tyres if you like, just check to make sure that we’ve got everything in the right place and to work out where we’re not going as well as we should,” he told ABC Radio National breakfast.

“We’re asking ASA to do a really big thing and they have done a great job up to date, up till now. Importantly, we are meeting our timelines and our milestones.”

Shadow defence minister Andrew Hastie quickly took aim. During the most dangerous strategic environment since WW2, “Labor should be getting on with the job,” he said.

“Our US and UK partners are depending on us to meet our AUKUS commitments, and we don’t have a moment to lose.”

But cutting through the politics, what do independent experts think? Can AUKUS deliver on time?

Before she stood down from the State Department in July, former assistant secretary for political-military affairs Jessica Lewis, was one of the most senior US officials overseeing AUKUS, focusing on the program’s “Pillar 2” to create a new defence ecosystem between the three countries.

“Frankly, the progress that has been made over three years is fairly extraordinary,” she told The Nightly.

Firstly, the early and rapid bipartisan congressional support for the defence partnership had signalled huge momentum from the US side, she said, referring to the National Defence Authorisation Act to create an exemption for Australia and the UK from US defence export control licensing.

Given Washington’s strategy of power projection in the Indo-Pacific, the new Trump administration was expected to continue strong support for AUKUS, she said.

But she added: “I think a lot has been done. I do think there’s a lot more to go.”

The next challenge was to make the ecosystem work and realise the potential of not only Australian, British and American defence companies but universities and research institutions.

“The US military always used to say ‘crawl, walk, run’. I think we’re moving to walk. And then we need to get ourselves to run,” Ms Lewis said.

Among the previously reported concerns on the US side is disquiet over slow progress in preparing for the stationing of British and US submarines out of WA, under Submarine Rotational Force-West.

But Ms Lewis argued that for a project as “transformational” as AUKUS, bumps in the road were expected and there was no need for alarm bells.

“This is complicated, sophisticated work,” she said. “Generally, people (in the US) are happy with the progress that has been made.”

While Washington would “pay attention” to the Richardson review, it would likely be viewed as an internal Australian issue, Ms Lewis said.

“There is, obviously, a lot of faith in the Australian military, in terms of its ability to resolve issues.”

However, Euan Graham, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said the US and UK would have concerns about the ASA review, which had prompted a sceptical reaction within defence circles.

“The only reason that AUKUS got off the ground was because the United States recovered its confidence in Australia’s ability to manage something as complex as a submarine program,” said Dr Graham, arguing that Australia had a “cultural problem around problem ownership.”

The review sent the “wrong signal” at a time when Australia — already facing manpower, skill and morale challenges — was experiencing a “credibility problem” with the public over the AUKUS timeline.

“(AUKUS) remains uniquely controversial here,” said Dr Graham, criticising the Government as “very poor” with its strategic messaging.

But the old adage that the project was “too big to fail” was true, he said.

“The thing that gives me guarded optimism is that this is still, on balance, a good deal for America.”

Jennifer Parker, expert associate at the National Security College, said she saw no reason for alarm in the “prudent” review.

“I certainly think there are a lot of key milestones that have been achieved, and I would loosely say that (AUKUS) remains on track,” she said.

Among the key achievements was a swift landmark agreement on an “Optimal Pathway” to achieve the construction and delivery of SSN-AUKUS, the NDAA, and progress on specialised training, she said.

“I know it’s trendy to really criticise AUKUS, but I actually think they’ve kicked a number of goals.”