Aukus is ‘worst, riskiest and most costly’ Australian defence decision ever, public inquiry into submarine deal says

Nov 4, 2026 · 4:38 AM UTC · 0 reactions · 0 comments · 6 views

More from World news | The Guardian world Compare coverage Trending Talk Blindspots Daily Sources Live wire

Report led by Peter Garrett and former defence chief Adm Chris Barrie says agreement should be suspended and calls for royal commission Get our daily political email , free app or daily news podcast A public inquiry into the $368bn Aukus nuclear submarine agreement has called the plan “the worst, riskiest and most costly defence decision ever made by an Australian government”, urging its immediate termination. Former Labor senator and Midnight Oil frontman Peter Garrett and former chief of defen

About this source

The Guardian — World publishes from United Kingdom and files mainly under world. We currently carry 5,842 of its stories.

All The Guardian — World coverage →

Original article

World news | The Guardian

Read full at World news | The Guardian →

Story provenance

Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record

inspect →

Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.

Record

Original publisher	World news \| The Guardian
Canonical URL	https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/nov/04/aukus-worst-australian-defence-decision-ever-public-inquiry
Publication time	Wed, 04 Nov 2026 04:38:39 GMT
Retrieval time	2026-11-04T04:42:34.082Z
Last seen	2026-11-04T04:42:34.082Z
Headline source	Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite)
Excerpt source	publisher description
Excerpt method	Publisher-supplied description / RSS summary field.
Summary	None yet
Summary source text	description
Citation coverage	No WeSearch summary has been generated for this story yet.
Cluster	RG8Y6l9t7Zzb · 1 stories
Cluster logic	Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison.
Ranking reason	Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking.
Publisher visit	Yes — open original
Substitutes article?	No — link-out required for full text

Rights status (four layers)

Publisher-declared

No publisher-confirmed rights record for this source yet.

Machine-readable

No source-specific machine-readable restriction detected beyond the public feed.

WeSearch interpretation

WeSearch declared handling (basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed). This is WeSearch policy, not a legal grant on the publisher's behalf.

Unknown

Retrieval and training permissions are not asserted unless the publisher confirms them.

WeSearch handling by dimension

Indexing	May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)?	Allowed
Snippet	May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown?	Allowed
AI summary	May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article?	Limited
Retrieval / RAG	May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation?	Not asserted
Model training	May the content be used to train AI models?	Not asserted
Commercial reuse	May the content be reused commercially?	Not permitted

Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.

Open original publisher → Source rights JSON → Machine-readable provenance → Rights framework → WESEARCH-STORY-PROVENANCE-V1

Anonymous · no account needed

Discussion

0 comments