Given President Donald Trump’s clear and emphatic commitment to the AUKUS agreement, now might be the time for an honest and open conversation about how each party believes the pact could be improved.

As observed by US congressman Joe Courtney, a long-time friend of Australia and strong AUKUS supporter, the deal struck under Joe Biden, Scott Morrison and Boris Johnson has survived changes of government in all three countries.

It enjoys bipartisan support, and it’s “full steam ahead”, as Trump said. So, why is the Australian government so cagey about it?

Canberra is in possession of the Pentagon’s five-month review of AUKUS, and Defence Minister Richard Marles and Foreign Minister Penny Wong discussed it with their US counterparts on Tuesday (AEDT) as they met for the 35th AUSMIN dialogue in Washington.

We are constantly showered with babble about how strong the alliance is, and how wonderful and important AUKUS will be – and yet, both sides refuse to let the public in on key details about where it is heading.

The Pentagon, which at one stage dangled the possibility of briefings for interested reporters, is suggesting no version of its review will be made public. That’s very unfortunate and shows disregard for Australia and the UK.

Nor would Rubio or Hegseth answer questions when they briefly addressed reporters at the State Department on Tuesday. Marles and Wong at least took questions later. But the answers left much to be desired.

Marles refused 12 times to provide details about what the review says, other than to say it is about finding ways to “do AUKUS better”. That could be anything from minor tweaks to wholesale changes. The reluctance to engage on this suggests there’s stuff in there the Australians don’t want to talk about.

The deputy PM makes the point that it’s an American document, and so it’s up to the Americans to make it public or talk about what it contains.

That has the ring of fairness to it, but in that case, the Australian government has a duty to the Australian public to demand more transparency from the Americans, and to provide it if they refuse. When asked whether he thought the review should be made public, Marles said: “I’m not going to be drawn on that.”

Effectively, we are being told to trust the government in Canberra – and, in turn, to trust the administration in Washington – and leave it for them to sort out.

‘Most of what we learn about AUKUS and the industrial realities surrounding it, we are finding out via the US Congress rather than via our own parliament.’

Malcolm Turnbull, former PM

Sure, governments do this all the time. They sit on secrets until they decide what to do, and they’re ready to announce a response. And this is a defence deal – hardly the realm of transparency at the best of times.

But it’s also a deal that’s costing Australian taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, and is central to their future security. The level of disregard on display for the voting public is immense, and they deserve better.

“Of course it should be [made public]. We’re spending so much money,” says former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, an AUKUS critic. “You build trust with truth and transparency. Of the three parliaments … ours has been the least curious and the least informed, but has the most at risk.”

Turnbull praised Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy for saying last week that he was “clear-eyed” about the challenges surrounding the lagging production rate of US nuclear submarines.

“That’s good, but I don’t think the Australian public understand those risks,” Turnbull said. “Most of what we learn about AUKUS and the industrial realities surrounding it, we are finding out via the US Congress rather than via our own parliament.”

In lieu of the review’s publication, Australians will have to rely on whatever imperfect information reporters can glean from sources in the US, UK and at home.

But politicians can’t then turn around and accuse journalists of muckraking or negativity when they had the opportunity to just put the truth on the table to begin with.

Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What in the World newsletter.