Two privately owned subsea cables off the coast of Perth suffered faults over the weekend, prompting Subco chief executive Bevan Slattery to urge the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to investigate. This immediate call to state authority highlights the primary function of the state: safeguarding accumulated private wealth, even when that wealth controls critical national infrastructure. The faults occurred "straight after each other and in close proximity" within the Perth Cable Protection Zone.
The AFP has confirmed receipt of a crime report, now under assessment. David Brewster, a senior research fellow at the National Security College at the Australian National University, emphasized the cables' importance. Australia relies on 16 subsea cables for 99 percent of its international communications. Their disruption would have a "massive impact" on the country's economy and daily life. Every app, cloud application, and Google search depends on these international links.
Private Control, Public Risk
These vital arteries of global communication are not public utilities. They are "all privately owned," Brewster noted, with ownership increasingly concentrated in the hands of US tech corporations like Meta, Google, and Amazon. This structure means that while the public bears the risk of disruption, the profits from their operation flow to private shareholders. Cables, about the width of a garden hose, can be cut accidentally by ship anchors or deliberately. Brewster cited "numerous incidents in Europe and around Taiwan" over the last three or four years, with some "fairly obvious" cases pointing to "state actors, Russia and China." The Perth faults occurred within a protection zone extending 60 nautical miles off City Beach, to a depth of 2,000 metres and one nautical mile each side of the cables.
The State's Limited Hand
Despite the critical nature of this infrastructure, the Australian government holds "very limited power to actually influence what is being done into how these cables are operated or repaired." This admission underscores the inherent contradiction of a state tasked with protecting a nation's interests while its essential services are controlled by foreign private capital. Brewster also pointed out that no single government department or agency is responsible for the cables. Multiple departments hold jurisdiction over various aspects of the subsea cable sector. He argued for nominating an agency to take responsibility, asking, "Who do you call when a cable is being cut or disrupted?" For private operators, he said, it's "not clear to them who takes responsibility within government."
Solutions That Miss the Mark
Brewster's proposed "best protection strategy" involves laying "a lot more cables." He stated that "the more cables you have, the less vulnerable you are." This solution, however, does not challenge the underlying private ownership model that creates the vulnerability in the first place. It merely suggests expanding the very system that grants foreign corporations immense control over national communications. The focus remains on mitigating symptoms rather than addressing the structural issue of privatized essential services.