AUDIO: Maralinga: Australia’s experience of nuclear testing ABC Radio p.m Mark Colvin reported this story on Friday, September 5, 2014 DAVID MARK: It happened in the 1950s. But the truth about a series of nuclear tests in which Britain let off atomic bombs at Maralinga in the South Australian desert only started to emerge in the ’70s.
Even now, there are still survivors demanding justice. Many are now dead, but there are still fears about the effects of the big doses of radiation they absorbed having on their children and even their grandchildren.
The journalist Frank Walker has written a book about Maralinga and he told Mark Colvin about what Australian servicemen actually experienced at the test site. ………… Continue reading
British scientists tested dead Australians for nuclear radiation, Australian Times.co.uk Startling evidence that British scientists secretly tested up to 21,830 dead young Australians, without the knowledge of their parents, for radiation contamination following nuclear weapons tests in the 1950s. By Estelle Vosloo on 1 September, 2014 Dead Australians were tested for nuclear radiation contamination following nuclear tests, according to a new book.
The author of Maralinga, Frank Walker, laid his hands on minutes of a top secret UK Atomic Energy Research Establishment meeting in England on 24 May 1957 approving a program to determine the long-term effects of the tests on Australia and its citizens.
In his book, Walker describes how officials at the meeting, chaired by Professor Ernest Titterton, decided to first obtain soil samples from pasture regions near Adelaide, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth to check for fallout from the nine nuclear bombs detonated at Maralinga in the Australian Outback and the Monte Bello Islands, off WA.
The group also sought to collect animal bones from the regions around where the nuclear explosions were carried out.
In the document, the professor says that the final phase of testing would be to determine if Strontium-90 was being absorbed by the Australian population – most likely through the food chain.
“We have to find out if Strontium-90 is entering the food chain and getting into humans,” says the document. The scientists then agreed to start testing the bones of dead Australian infants and children for radiation contamination.
Acting on these orders, hundreds of bones from the bodies of 21,830 dead babies, infants, children, teenagers and young adults across Australia were collected without the knowledge of their parents, according to Adelaide newspaper, The Advertiser.
In a 2001 report to then federal health minister, Michael Wooldridge, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency said it had detected varying levels of Strontium-90 in the bone ash samples it had collected from hospitals in Adelaide, Sydney, Perth, Brisbane and Melbourne………..http://www.australiantimes.co.uk/news/uk-australian-news/british-nuclear-tests-australia-maralinga-radiation-contamination.htm
19 Aug 14 News that Australian officials have concluded a deal to sell uranium to India raises concerns the federal government may have violated its international nuclear non-proliferation obligations, the Australian Conservation Foundation said today.
“India’s nuclear industry has many continuing and unresolved safety and security problems,” said ACF’s nuclear free campaigner Dave Sweeney.
“In 2012 the Indian Auditor General released a damning report warning of ‘a Fukushima or Chernobyl-like disaster if the nuclear safety issue is not addressed’.
“ACF is concerned a uranium export deal with India would violate the 1995 nuclear non-proliferation (NPT) Review and Extension Conference commitment to require full-scope safeguards as a condition of supply, and Article IV of the Treaty of Rarotonga – the South Pacific Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty – which obliges signatories to not supply equipment or material to countries not under full scope safeguards. India is not under full scope safeguards.”
The former head of the national security advisory board in India, K. Subrahmanyam, said in 2005: ‘Given India’s uranium ore crunch and the need to build up our … nuclear deterrent arsenal as fast as possible, it is to India’s advantage to categorise as many power reactors as possible as civilian ones to be refuelled by imported uranium and conserve our native uranium fuel for weapons-grade plutonium production’.
“Clearly, Australian uranium would boost India’s nuclear weapons capacity,” Dave Sweeney said.
“Australian uranium in India will free up India’s uranium stockpiles to be used in its nuclear weapons program.
“Australian uranium is definitely fuelling radioactive waste and risk. It is also potentially fuelling the spread of nuclear weapons. Neither is desirable or acceptable.
“Before PM Tony Abbott inks a deal with New Delhi, the federal government must show that any bilateral agreement requires India to take measureable disarmament actions and does not breach international agreements to which Australia is a party.” For context and comment contact: Dave Sweeney, 0408 317 812
Scott Ludlam Greens spokesperson for Nuclear Senator for WA S August 18, 2014 Australia will be directly complicit in fuelling the nuclear arms-race between India and Pakistan if reports are confirmed that a uranium deal with India is on the cards.
Prime Minister Abbott seems set to continue his high-profile series of international gaffes, missteps and humiliations, this one for the sole benefit of the mortally wounded uranium sector.
India’s scandal-prone nuclear industry has been plagued with accidents and near-misses at reactor sites; events including fires, floods, partial reactor collapses and more recently the construction of two Russian-designed plants in the tsunami-zone in the south of Tamil Nadu.
- Subrahmanyam, former head of the National Security Advisory Board in India, said: ‘it is to India’s advantage to categorise as many power reactors as possible as civilian ones to be refuelled by imported uranium and conserve our native uranium fuel for weapons-grade plutonium production’.
India first produced weapons-grade plutonium from a Canadian-supplied reactor it pledged to use only for ‘peaceful purposes’. Instead of fuelling this arms race, Australian industry should be partnering with India’s vibrant solar sector
The Don’t Bank on the Bomb report in 2012 revealed that most Australian banks have provided loans to nuclear weapons companies at some stage since 2008. Disappointingly, none have shown a willingness to divest, but they draw the line at financing projects specifically for nuclear weapons work.
Australia: The Future Fund goes Ballistic, Tim Wright, http://www.dontbankonthebomb.com/2014/07/30/australia-the-future-fund-goes-ballistic/ Opinion polls show that Australians overwhelmingly oppose nuclear weapons. So when we learned in 2011 that our major federal government investment fund – the so-called Future Fund – has substantial investments in nuclear weapons companies, there was widespread public uproar.
Melbourne’s leading daily newspaper, The Age, ran a front-page story with the headline: “Australia investing in nuclear arms.” The following day, readers reacted angrily on the letters pages, and a cartoon depicted businessmen being hurled through the air by an exploding nuclear bomb. “The Future Fund goes ballistic,” read the caption.
We uncovered this controversial information using freedom-of-information laws, which allow any member of the public to gain access to documents held by Australian government agencies. There was no charge for this service.
When the news broke, the Future Fund stated that it had no plans to divest from companies involved in nuclear weapons production, even though it had earlier divested from cluster munitions and landmines. It claimed that countries such as the United States, Britain and France possess nuclear weapons legitimately.
Not satisfied with this response, we encouraged friendly senators to quiz the Future Fund leadership about their position in the parliament. This helped keep the issue on the political agenda. The minister overseeing the fund, Senator Penny Wong, was forced to defend the position.
We then commissioned legal advice from a team of top barristers, who found that the Future Fund had failed to comply with its own stated investment policies. Continue reading
Australia One Of Ten Nuclear Horns (Daniel 7:7) June 9, 2014 ~ Andrew the Prophet Australia investing in nuclear arms May 26, 2011 THE federal government’s $74 billion Future Fund is investing Australian taxpayers’ money in foreign companies that make components for nuclear weapons.
Records obtained under freedom of information laws show the fund has $135.4 million invested in 15 companies involved in the design, production and maintenance of nuclear weapons for the United States, Britain, France and India.
About $3.8 million of this is invested in Larsen & Toubro, a Mumbai-based company involved in building a fleet of nuclear-armed submarines for India. The company has also helped test a launch system for India’s nuclear missiles.Any investment involving the production of nuclear weapons for India is particularly controversial because New Delhi is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
The Future Fund has also invested taxpayers’ money in global defence industry behemoths Boeing, BAE Systems, Northrop Grumman and Thales, all of which are involved in the manufacture ofnuclear missiles for the US, Britain or France.……..
The Future Fund was set up in 2006 with the proceeds of Telstra’s privatisation to cover the Commonwealth’s superannuation obligations in coming years. Its board is appointed by the Treasurer, but is independent of the government.
Its policy is to invest only in companies ”whose economic activity is legal in Australia and does not contravene international conventions to which Australia is a signatory”……..
But activists from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons claim the investments contravene the fund’s policy because the manufacture of nuclear weapons is illegal in Australia. ”The Future Fund has a policy not to invest in activities that would be illegal in Australia and it’s absolutely clear that it would be illegal in Australia to do what these companies are doing,” the group’s Tim Wright told The Age.
”For the fund to be saying it’s not inconsistent with their investment policy is completely wrong.”
The group also claims the fund might be contravening the Australian law that prohibits assistance to anyone involved in the ”manufacture, production, acquisition or testing” of nuclear devices both inside and outside Australia. And it argues that the investments contravene the spirit of the international convention, which calls on nuclear weapons states to pursue ”good faith” action on disarmament.
”Conducting simulated nuclear tests and building new nuclear-tipped missiles and nuclear-armed submarines, which will mean that nuclear weapons are around for many more decades, are contrary to this good-faith obligation,” he said…….http://andrewtheprophet.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/australia-one-of-ten-nuclear-horns-daniel-77/
AUSTRALIA has struck a defence agreement with the United States that prepares the ground for more American troops, aircraft and ships to operate from Australian bases to ward off threats in South East Asia.
- The outcome will give the two countries the capacity for “additional reach” into the region as a result of talks in Washington overnight between Tony Abbott and US President Barack Obama…….the agreement means Australia is open to hosting more US Marines in Darwin over time and may also consider the use of a Western Australian naval base as a port for US destroyers…….
In the coming months, the world will mark the 70th anniversary of Pacific battles in Saipan, Guam, the Mariana Islands, New Guinea, Palau, the Philippines and Burma. More anniversaries will be recognized next year to commemorate battles in Bataan, Manila and Iwo Jima, followed by anniversaries of the firebombing of Tokyo, the battle of Okinawa and then, in August 2015, the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Each event represents death and destruction of the past in a region scarred by militarism and an ongoing legacy of war without end
The Militarized Pacific: An Anniversary Without End 14 May 2014 By Jon Letman, Truthout | Op-Ed “……..(Another) Asia-Pacific Pivot The plight of the Marshall Islands is the back-story of today’s increasingly militarized Asia-Pacific, but David Vine, associate professor of anthropology at American University, sees nothing particularly new about Obama’s Asia-Pacific pivot.
“Very early on islands were identified as playing a very important role in expanding the reach of the United States, and US commerce in particular,” Vine says, citing early US military forays into Okinawa and the tiny Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands southeast of Japan. In the 1960s US nuclear weapons were kept in Okinawan ports and have been documented as passing through Japanese islands despite Japan’s stated opposition to introducing and storing nuclear weapons.
Similarly, in 1987, the nation of Palau, under pressure from the US, dropped its opposition to the entry of US nuclear armed and powered vessels into its territory.
Vine talks about the post-World War II “forward posture” of creating a wall of Pacific islands as close as possible to Asia for its own strategic interests. He describes Pacific island nations like the RMI, Palau and FSM as being technically sovereign but, like American Samoa, Guam, Saipan and the Northern Mariana Islands, effectively run as colonies. Vine says these islands exist under conditions that overwhelmingly benefit US military interests, perhaps best illustrated by the US insisting on the “right of strategic denial.” This “right,” claimed under COFA, grants the US exclusive military control over half a million square miles of the Pacific and includes provisions allowing for the use of RTS on Kwajalein through 2066 with the option to extend to 2086. Continue reading
Declassified documents from the National Archives of Australia, including the 1985 Cabinet minute about the SPNFZ Treaty, show clearly that Australia designed the treaty to protect US interests in the Pacific, including the deployment of nuclear-armed warships and the testing of nuclear missiles.
International legal experts, including Don Rothwell, professor of international law at the Australian National University, have raised concerns that uranium sales to India would breach Australia’s obligations under the treaty. Rothwell has prepared a legal opinion stating that the SPNFZ Treaty prohibits members from selling uranium to countries that do not accept full-scope nuclear safeguards under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
This is consistent with past Australian government policy.
Delaying The Nuclear-Free Zone In The Pacific http://concernedyapcitizens.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/pacific-islands-report-delaying-the-nuclear-free-zone-in-the-pacific/ By Nic Maclellan At the height of the nuclear arms race between the United States and Soviet Union, a treaty to create a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, or SPNFZ, was opened for signature on Hiroshima Day, 6 August 1985, at the Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Rarotonga.
Twenty-eight years after it was signed on that day by Australia, New Zealand and island nations, the United States still hasn’t ratified its protocols, in spite of a request from president Barack Obama to the US Senate more than two years ago.
Next week, as Forum leaders gather in the Marshall Islands – site of sixty-seven US nuclear tests at Bikini and Enewetak Atolls – the US government will be eager to keep nuclear issues off the agenda, as it has been since the Treaty was first mooted. Declassified documents from the National Archives of Australia, and US diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks, highlight longstanding opposition in Canberra and Washington to a comprehensive nuclear-free zone that might hamper US nuclear deployments in the Pacific.
The Forum meeting, and the US Senate’s continued stalling, coincide with on-going concerns that Australia’s decision to sell uranium to India threatens to breach Australian treaty obligations. As Conservative Australian governments in the 1960s debated the acquisition of nuclear weapons and purchased aircraft capable of delivering nuclear strikes in Southeast Asia, the labour movement across the region proposed a nuclear free zone designed to ban the bomb in this part of the world. The SPNFZ Treaty was finally negotiated in the 1980s after decades of campaigning by unions, Pacific churches and the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific movement. Continue reading
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER $14BN LEAP OF FAITH: BANDT HTTP://WWW.ADAMBANDT.COM/JOINT_STRIKE_FIGHTER_14BN_LEAP_OF_FAITH_BANDT 23 April 14
Greens Acting Leader Adam Bandt today said that Tony Abbott’s plan to spend close to $14 billion on 58 plagued joint strike fighter jets was a poor use of taxpayer funds at a time of supposed Budget restraint.
“Tony Abbott’s priority should be pensions not poorly performing planes,” said Mr Bandt.
“Tony Abbott is taking us on a $14bn leap of faith. So much for the Budget emergency.
“The JSF project has been plagued by delays, overruns and blowouts. There are even doubts about the jet’s performance capability.
“The Government should be 100% certain before spending close to $14 billion of taxpayers’ money that the jets are fit for purpose and genuinely in the national interest. “There are too many uncertainties over this project for Australia to commit to it in this way,” said Mr Bandt.
The Obama administration has pushed through a streamlining of the licensing process in order to facilitate an increase in military exports – in part to compensate U.S. arms manufacturers for a decline in orders from the Pentagon…..
The more advanced weaponry U.S. allies purchase, the more they are locked into future acquisitions. The United States emphasises “interoperability” among its allies. Not only are purchasers dependent on the United States for spare parts and upgrades, but they must consider the overall system of command and control (which is now C5I — Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Combat systems and Intelligence).
World Cuts Back Military Spending, But Not Asia, Inter Press Service Analysis by John Feffer WASHINGTON, Apr 14 2014 (IPS) - For the second year in a row, the world is spending a little less on the military. Asia, however, has failed to get the memo. The region is spending more at a time when many others are spending less. Continue reading
Australian policy on nuclear weapons hopelessly conflicted http://www.smh.com.au/comment/australian-policy-on-nuclear-weapons-hopelessly-conflicted-20140410-zqt9l.html April 10, 2014 At a meeting in Hiroshima of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative (NPDI), a group of 12 countries led by Australia and Japan, Foreign Minister Julie Bishop made much of Australia’s supposed commitment to ridding the world of nuclear weapons.
- But Australian policy on nuclear weapons is hopelessly conflicted. With one hand, it promotes nuclear disarmament, yet with the other, it clings anxiously to US nuclear weapons for national security. Australia wants to get rid of nuclear weapons and keep them too.
- There is no secret about this: Bishop wrote in February that Australia “has long and actively supported nuclear disarmament … and worked tirelessly toward the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons” and also that Australia “will continue to rely on nuclear deterrence” for its security as long as nuclear weapons exist. She is the latest custodian of a bipartisan policy that has been passed down through consecutive governments for decades.
- As long as nothing much was happening with nuclear disarmament, Australia could safely advocate it. But the emergence of a global movement to examine the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, and a related push for a treaty banning them, has put Australia on the spot.
International conferences held in Oslo last year and in Nayarit, Mexico, in February concluded that any nuclear detonation would completely overwhelm humanitarian and disaster response capabilities, and cause unacceptable long-term harm worldwide.
Australia cautiously participated in these meetings, but clearly with misgiving. And at the United Nations last October, when 125 countries, including Japan and five other NPDI members, made a joint statement on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, Australia baulked – and weaselled out.
Pressed to explain why Australia could not join the statement, officials said the sentence, “It is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances,” was incompatible with Australia’s reliance on nuclear deterrence.
Calls for a new treaty to ban nuclear weapons have further exposed the contradictions in Australia’s policy. There is no legal reason Australia could not join such a treaty tomorrow: Australia has no nuclear weapons. As a member of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) it has sworn off them.
The official response, however, has been to oppose such a ban because it would not “guarantee” nuclear disarmament. This is a ludicrous excuse, given that none of the approaches Australia and the NPDI advocate will “guarantee” disarmament either (in fact most of them are hopelessly bogged down).
That a polished performer like Bishop would field such a flimsy rationalisation only shows how bare the intellectual cupboard at the Foreign Ministry is. They can’t find a better argument, because there isn’t one.
Despite the increasing visibility of its inherently contradictory policy, the government blithely continues to seek a high profile on nuclear disarmament.
- The people of Hiroshima will surely welcome Bishop’s earnest undertakings to address the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons and pursue nuclear disarmament. They will be less impressed by her extraordinary statement that “the horrendous humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons are precisely why deterrence has worked” – in other words, that Australia depends for its security on the very humanitarian consequences it claims to be working to avoid.The contradictions emerge even within the NPDI. The purpose of the NPDI is to support implementation of the 64-point “action plan” on non-proliferation and disarmament agreed by the 189 members of the NPT. Australia is a prominent proponent of the plan. But the very first of these 64 actions requires Australia to “pursue policies that are fully compatible with the treaty and the objective of achieving a world without nuclear weapons”. How is relying on nuclear weapons compatible with the objective of achieving a world without nuclear weapons?
- The circle simply cannot be squared. Follow the tortuous reasoning to its conclusion and it reduces to “Australia supports nuclear disarmament, just as soon as it has happened”.
- As the humanitarian initiative gathers momentum, and as a ban treaty looms closer, Australia’s policy will become increasingly untenable. It will soon have to choose: nuclear weapons – yes or no. If the answer is yes, the only honest course is to drop the pretence of working towards a world free of nuclear weapons and leave the NPT. If the answer is no, then there are policy challenges ahead – but overcoming them would put Australia on the right side of history.
- Richard Lennane is a former United Nations disarmament official and Australian diplomat.
Julie Bishop says banning nuclear weapons impractical ABC Radio National, Tanya Nolan reported this story on Friday, April 11, 2014 TANYA NOLAN: Foreign Minister Julie Bishop is representing Australia at a 12 nation summit in Hiroshima today discussing global efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons. Disarmament activists in Hiroshima are lobbying hard for agreement to be reached on a global ban on nuclear weapons.
But Australia is one of a group of countries that is unlikely to support any such push: Ms Bishop says banning weapons won’t get rid of them and any global treaty would be impractical without the support of the world’s nuclear armed states – something unlikely to be achieved.
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons say Australia’s position is out of step with the views of most Australians.
It’s released a survey of 1,500 Australians who were asked whether they think the Government should support a global ban on nuclear weapons.
I spoke to Dr Tillman Ruff, co-chairman of the campaign who is in Hiroshima for the Non-Proliferation Disarmament Initiative.
So the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, ICAN has released its poll showing 84 per cent of Australians think the Government should support a global treaty banning nuclear weapons. Don’t you think it would have been more accurate to pose the question would a global ban on nuclear weapons be effective without the support of those countries that have nuclear weapons?
TANYA NOLAN: But Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has a point doesn’t she, that any global ban on nuclear weapons won’t be effective if you can’t get the nuclear armed states on board?
TILLMAN RUFF: Well, of course the elimination of nuclear weapons is going to require the states that have them to do that. I mean I think that’s obvious, but what we’ve seen essentially over the last 70 years is a failure of the nuclear armed states to live up to their legally binding obligation under the non-proliferation treaty to disarm.
There are currently no negotiations underway and arguably our, the danger of nuclear weapons being used, many experts are suggesting is actually increasing. Proliferation is certainly not under control so it’s hard to claim that business as usual is getting us very far, very fast.
So, you know, the states that have the weapons have so far shown really no serious intent to get rid of their nuclear weapons. ……….
Why are there U.S. marines in Darwin? Independent Australia Nick Deane 10 April 2014, The recent arrival of over a thousand marines in Darwin provides a risk for Australia, yet absolutely no reward, writes Nick Deane.
IF ONE COUNTRY INVITES the armed forces of another onto its territory, one would expect the government of the host country to have seen strategic benefits in the arrangement.
Furthermore, one would also expect, in a democracy, that this government would be happy to explain these benefits to its people. That should be simple enough.
In the case of Australia playing host to a garrison of more than 1,000 United States marines in Darwin for the next six months, the public has been offered no explanation about the strategic benefits. All we have been told (via a letter to IPAN-NSW from the Minister for Defence on 7 December 2012) is that the marines’ presence is an extension of our existing, long-standing alliance with the U.S. — as though the passage of time alone is sufficient justification for us to willingly accept foreign forces on our territory.
What is missing is any discussion of the strategic advantages to Australia that come from the presence of the U.S. garrison.
It is probably taken for granted that the advantage lies in the supposed ‘protection’ that it brings us. But are the marines really here for our protection?
And who actually benefits, in strategic terms, from this arrangement?
Certainly, the strategic benefits to the U.S. are large.
‘Australia’s strong ties with America provide it with the means to preserve U.S. influence and military reach across the Indo-Pacific.’
Note: that’s the United States’ influence and military reach……..
where is the benefit to Australia?
What we get out of it is the certainty that we are now directly involved, if hostilities break out between America and China. That would make parts of Australia potential targets for attack…..http://www.independentaustralia.net/article-display/why-are-there-us-marines-in-darwin,6370
Submarines on collision course in busy sea, BRENDAN NICHOLSON, THE AUSTRALIAN, APRIL 10, 2014
AS submarines increasingly become the clandestine weapon of choice in the Asia-Pacific, an admiral from the US Pacific Fleet says regional nations must tell each other where their boats are operating or risk a deadly underwater collision.
The head of the US Pacific Command’s submarine force, Rear Admiral Phillip G. Sawyer, told a conference in Canberra yesterday the rapidly increasing number of submarines had created a greater chance of an underwater crash………
A US submarine had already collided with a supertanker in the Strait of Hormuz.
It also emerged yesterday that the Abbott government is about to start negotiating with industry in Australia and with allied nations on how to structure the consortium which is to take on Australia’s biggest ever defence project — the building of new submarines for an estimated $40 billion.
The Australian was told the government will soon issue an “intent to consult” notice to major companies keen to join the submarine project.
A 130-strong expert team is being built up in Adelaide to integrate the best technology available in Australia and internationally into the new submarine.Defence Minister David Johnston and navy Chief Vice Admiral Ray Griggs told the conference they were talking to Japan about the possibility of using some of its technology.
That sparked claims from the opposition that the government was backing away from an election commitment to build 12 submarines in Adelaide.
Premier Jay Weatherill, who will join Tony Abbott in China this week, said yesterday that Senator Johnston appeared to be backing away from a commitment to build the next fleet of submarines in the state.
“Of course when you hear language like this from the federal government it is a cause of concern,” he said. “I think that there is only one solution — to build submarines here in South Australia. Not in South Australia and the nation’s interests in terms of manufacturing, but in terms of our defence needs.”
But Steve Ludlam, chief executive of the Adelaide shipbuilder ASC, said he would not be concerned if the government shifted its focus to a submarine design from overseas.
Additional reporting: Sarah Martin http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/submarines-on-collision-course-in-busy-sea/story-e6frg8yo-1226879396585#