Antinuclear

Submission re AUKUS. Undemocratic decision, strategically flawed, fiscal madness – Anonymous

24. Anonymous

Submission to the AUKUS Public Inquiry

Executive Summary
This submission argues that the AUKUS agreement, announced in 2021 without
public consultation or a parliamentary vote, is a strategically flawed, fiscally
catastrophic, and democratically illegitimate proposal. The planned acquisition of
up to eight nuclear-powered submarines at an estimated cost of $368 billion over
30 years is not a defence strategy but an act of imperial subordination. It will not
secure Australia; it will make Australia a permanent forward target in a
great-power conflict that does not serve its people’s interests.

I call for an immediate moratorium, a reallocation of the vast majority of the
proposed funds towards genuine human and ecological security, and a complete
reorientation towards defensive, transparent, and regionally cooperative defence
postures.

The Democratic Deficit: A Backroom Pact Without a People’s Mandate. The most damning fact about AUKUS is not merely its cost or its nuclear risk, but
its origin. It was announced as a fait accompli—a secretive pact between three
heads of government, bypassing Parliament, the press, and the public. In what
functional democracy does a $368 billion commitment spanning three decades
occur without a single national debate?

I submit that the Inquiry must state plainly: the process itself is a failure of
sovereignty. A decision that binds every Australian, every First Nations person,
and every future generation must be subjected to a parliamentary vote and, given
the nuclear dimension, a national referendum. The absence of either is a stain on
Australian governance.

The Fiscal Madness: $368 Billion as a Monument to Misallocated Sacrifice

Let us be mathematically precise. $368 billion over 30 years is approximately
$12.3 billion per year. That is not a rounding error in the defence budget; it is the
annual equivalent of Australia’s entire higher education funding, or roughly double
the annual expenditure on the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), or the
full cost of transitioning the national electricity grid to 100 per cent renewable
energy with storage.

The advocates of AUKUS speak of “value for money”. But value for whom? The
primary beneficiaries are foreign corporations: General Dynamics Electric Boat
(United States), BAE Systems (United Kingdom), and Lockheed Martin (United
States). Australian taxpayers will pay, Australian workers will build
foreign-designed components, and Australian ports will host foreign-controlled
nuclear material. When cost overruns occur—and they will, as every major military
procurement programme in history has shown—the Australian Treasury will absorb
the blow while corporate profits remain protected.

I am told this is a matter of national security. Yet history teaches that the phrase
“national security” is often used to shield decisions that cannot survive public
scrutiny. Strategic decisions affecting the fate of millions should not be made in
secret by a handful of political leaders. The American and British leaders who
signed AUKUS knew that if they went to the Australian people and said, “We are
cancelling hospitals and housing to buy American-made submarines powered by
foreign-owned nuclear reactors”, the answer would have been a resounding no. So
they did not ask.

Consider the opportunity cost. With $12 billion annually, Australia could:
Build 50,000 units of public housing each year, eliminating homelessness within a
decade.
Fund free public university education for every Australian student.
Establish a Pacific Climate Resilience Fund that would make Australia the
undisputed leader in regional cooperation rather than a gunboat power.
Develop a world-class, land-based air and missile defence network using
conventional, unmanned, and distributed systems—far more survivable than eight
large nuclear submarines.

In my view, the AUKUS submarines are not a defence investment; they are a fiscal
black hole dressed in naval uniform.

The Nuclear Gambit: A Covenant with Catastrophe

Nuclear propulsion is not like diesel propulsion. It is a technology that carries a
half-life measured in millennia, and Australia has no civilian nuclear power
industry, no nuclear waste storage facility, no deep geological repository, and no
public consensus on hosting radioactive materials.

Where will the spent nuclear fuel be stored? The United States and United
Kingdom have explicitly refused to take back Australian waste under current
arrangements. That means high-level radioactive waste will remain on Australian
soil—probably near coastal bases, probably on or near Indigenous land, and
probably for a period longer than the entire history of European settlement on this
continent. The Northern Territory, South Australia, and Western Australia have all
fought against proposed facilities for low-level waste. Now Australians are expected to accept a permanent high-level waste stream without a single
community agreeing to host it.

And what of the operational risks? A nuclear submarine fire in dock—as occurred
on HMS Superb in 2011 and USS Miami in 2012—could release radioactive
particles over a major Australian city. A collision underwater, a grounding in the
Great Barrier Reef, or a reactor coolant leak in the Tasman Sea: each scenario
represents a potential environmental and humanitarian disaster. I submit that the
Inquiry must demand full liability disclosure. Who pays for a nuclear accident in
Sydney Harbour? At present, the answer is simple: nobody knows.

The non-proliferation argument is equally hollow. For decades, Australia has
lectured the world on the importance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Now it is importing weapons-grade uranium, or highly enriched fuel, aboard
foreign warships operating from Australian ports. Our neighbours in the
Pacific—who still bear the scars of French, British, and American nuclear
testing—watch with alarm. In my view, AUKUS does not strengthen the
non-proliferation regime; it undermines Australia’s moral authority to speak
against nuclear proliferation elsewhere. it undermines Australia’s moral authority to speak
against nuclear proliferation elsewhere.

The Strategic Illusion: Buying Vulnerability, Not Security The strategic rationale for AUKUS rests on a single claim: that nuclear-powered submarines are essential to counter China’s growing naval power in the
Indo-Pacific. I believe this claim fails on three grounds: geography, doctrine, and
escalation.

Geography Australia’s strategic interest lies in its immediate neighbourhood—the archipelagos
of South-East Asia, the South Pacific, and the eastern Indian Ocean. Nuclear
submarines are blue-water platforms designed for global power projection, not
littoral defence. The chokepoints through which Australian submarines would need
to transit—the Lombok Strait, the Ombai Strait, and the Torres Strait—are readily
monitored by undersea sensors. In wartime, those chokepoints become killing
zones.

A cheaper, more survivable alternative exists: a fleet of smaller conventionally
powered submarines equipped with air-independent propulsion (AIP), combined
with distributed minefields, long-range land-based anti-ship missiles, and
unmanned underwater vehicles. These systems are available today, cost a fraction
of AUKUS, and do not require nuclear reactors.

Doctrine Who commands these submarines in a crisis? Under AUKUS, they will be built with
American combat systems, American weapons, and integrated into American
naval command structures. Australia is effectively purchasing a ticket to ride on
American strategic decision-making. Yet American strategic decisions are made in
Washington, not Canberra.

In a Taiwan Strait conflict, the United States may decide to use Australian
submarines as forward-deployed assets without Australian parliamentary approval.
In my view, the submarines become triggers for war, not deterrents against it.

Escalation. Nuclear submarines are high-value targets. An adversary confronting AUKUS
submarines will not simply ignore them. It will pre-position hunter-killer
submarines, deploy anti-submarine warfare aircraft, and, if necessary, target the
bases that host them, including HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.

In a major conflict, those bases become legitimate military targets. I believe that
the very act of acquiring these submarines makes Australian territory a target in a
war not of Australia’s making. This is not defence. It is a strategic dependency with
potentially catastrophic consequences.

The Human Cost: First Nations and Forgotten Communities

This submission would be incomplete without recognising the specific impact on
First Nations peoples. The AUKUS agreement was signed without the free, prior,
and informed consent of the Traditional Owners of the lands and waters where
bases will be expanded or constructed. HMAS Stirling on Garden Island (Western
Australia) is situated on Whadjuk Noongar land. The proposed east coast base
locations—potentially Port Kembla (Dharawal Country), Brisbane (Turrbal and
Jagera Country), or Newcastle (Awabakal and Worimi Country)—all lie on unceded
territories. or Newcastle (Awabakal and Worimi Country)—all lie on unceded
territories.

Where will nuclear waste be stored? The most geologically stable locations in Australia are often remote areas, many of which are subject to Native Title claims
or contain sites of cultural significance. The history of nuclear colonialism in
Australia is long. From Maralinga to the Monte Bello Islands, Indigenous communities have borne the burden of British and Australian nuclear testing.

In my view, AUKUS threatens to repeat that history. Radioactive waste, once
created, cannot be unmade. It will remain on or near Indigenous land for
thousands of years—a radioactive monument to a decision made in a foreign
capital without a single Indigenous voice in the room.

I submit that the Inquiry must demand a dedicated process of Indigenous consent,
not merely consultation. Consent includes the right to say no. Without that right, the process is a sham.

Recommendation 3: A New Defensive Naval Strategy

The Australian Defence Force should develop and fund a defensive, affordable, and
transparent naval strategy centred on:

Twelve conventionally powered, air-independent propulsion submarines built in
Australia with technology transfer from non-nuclear states.

A distributed network of land-based anti-ship missile batteries with a range
exceeding 500 kilometres, covering northern approaches.

Unmanned underwater and surface vessels for surveillance and mine warfare.

A legislated doctrine requiring a parliamentary declaration of war before Australian
forces may be deployed in offensive first-strike roles.

Recommendation 4: Indigenous Consent and Nuclear Waste Prohibition

No AUKUS-related facility should be built, expanded, or operated on land subject to
Native Title or Aboriginal Land Rights without the free, prior, and informed consent
of the relevant Traditional Owners, including a legally enforceable right of veto.

Furthermore, the storage of any high-level nuclear waste from AUKUS submarines
on Australian territory should be prohibited unless and until a standalone,
community-approved, multi-party national waste strategy is enacted. As of 2026,
no such strategy exists.

Recommendation 5: Regional Diplomatic Reorientation

The Australian Government should convene a South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone
(SPNFZ) review in partnership with Pacific Islands Forum members to reaffirm and
strengthen regional opposition to nuclear propulsion, radioactive waste, and
nuclear weapons.

Any implementation of AUKUS should be subject to the approval of SPNFZ parties.

Conclusion

I recognise the necessity of defence, the brutality of war, and the importance of
industrial mobilisation in times of national crisis. History demonstrates that
societies are capable of extraordinary transformation when resources are directed
towards genuine national priorities. In my view, AUKUS does the opposite. Rather
than strengthening Australia’s sovereignty, it risks transforming Australia into a
forward operating base within a wider strategic rivalry dominated by larger
powers.

AUKUS is not a defence plan. It is a debt plan. It is a waste plan. It is a radioactive
legacy that will outlive every person in this room. It was signed in secret, sold as
security, and financed by borrowing against our children’s future. The submarines,
if built, will not necessarily deter war; they may instead ensure that Australia
becomes an early target in any major conflict.

The only thing more expensive than cancelling AUKUS is proceeding with it.
Cancellation costs political pride. Proceeding may cost far more.

I urge the Commissioners to recommend cancellation. Failing that, I urge them to
recommend a moratorium, a referendum, and a substantial reallocation of funds
towards housing, healthcare, climate resilience, and genuine human security
rather than the military ambitions of great powers.

September 12, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Submission 12 re AUKUS- lack of process, transparency, accountability – David Bowyer

This submission is made as a concerned member of the Australian public.It does not oppose AUKUS outright, nor does it dismiss the legitimate security challenges Australia faces in an increasingly contested Indo-
Pacific region. It asks something more fundamental: whether the decision-
making process that produced this commitment met the standard of transparency, rigour, and democratic accountability that Australians should reasonably expect before accepting what may be the most
consequential and expensive defence arrangement in the nation’s history.

Process and transparency The September 2021 announcement was
made abruptly, without prior public deliberation, and appeared to surprise
even some within government. The simultaneous termination of the
existing French Attack-class submarine contract — at significant financial
and diplomatic cost — demonstrated that credible alternatives had been
actively pursued until shortly before the announcement. This inquiry
should establish what documented strategic analysis justified the shift to
this specific capability, why that analysis has never been made available
to the public, and whether the secrecy surrounding the decision was
genuinely operationally necessary or primarily political.

Strategic rationale The publicly stated logic — that nuclear-powered
submarines provide superior area-denial and deterrence capability across
Indo-Pacific sea lanes — has never been openly stress-tested against
Australia’s actual strategic environment. Which specific, credible threat
scenarios require this capability? Have the opportunity costs been
formally assessed — including what equivalent investment in cyber
capability, surface vessels, air defence systems, drone technology, or
regional diplomatic partnerships might deliver? If those assessments exist,
they should be published. If they don’t, that is itself a serious concern.
There is also a capability gap that has received insufficient public
attention. Australia will not have operational submarines under AUKUS
until the late 2030s at the earliest. What is the documented plan for
managing our submarine capability in the intervening period?

Alliance dependency and strategic risk AUKUS creates deep,
structural reliance on US and UK support for training, maintenance,
technology transfer, and nuclear fuel. This is not a criticism of those
relationships — it is a risk that must be honestly named and managed.
ANZUS carries no automatic mutual defence obligation comparable to
NATO’s Article 5. The political volatility demonstrated in US foreign policy
since 2016 shows that alliance commitments previously taken for grantedcan shift.

What contractual, legal, and strategic fallback positions has
Australia secured in the event that US political will changes? Australians
deserve a documented answer, not reassurance based on assumption.

Financial exposure Publicly cited cost figures have varied significantly
and no completed, independently audited cost model appears to exist in
the public domain. Australians carry this liability. They are entitled to know
its full extent — including exit costs — before the commitment becomes
irreversible. The experience of the French contract cancellation, which
itself generated substantial financial and diplomatic costs, should serve as
a warning about the consequences of inadequate financial planning.

Nuclear stewardship Australia has no domestic nuclear power industry
and therefore limited existing institutional capacity to manage naval
reactor waste. Has a decommissioning and long-term storage framework
been formally established? Has it been independently verified by relevant
scientific bodies? Has any environmental impact assessment been
completed and made available for public scrutiny? These are not
hypothetical concerns — they are obligations that will fall to future
generations of Australians.

Conclusion These are not obstructionist questions, and this submission is
not an expression of reflexive opposition. They represent the minimum
standard of accountability and transparency that a functioning democracy
should demand before accepting a generational strategic, financial, and
environmental obligation on behalf of its citizens. This inquiry has an
opportunity — and a responsibility — to provide the public scrutiny that
the original decision conspicuously lacked.

September 12, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Labor and Coalition vote down bill to strip tax breaks from charities funding Israel war machine

Labor and the Coalition have voted down a Greens amendment to strip tax breaks from charities funding illegal Israeli settlements and the IDF. Stephanie Tran reports.9 Sept26, https://michaelwest.com.au/labor-and-coalition-vote-down-bill-to-strip-tax-breaks-from-charities-funding-israel-war-machine/

The Labor Government has joined with the Coalition to vote against a Greens amendment which would have stripped deductible gift recipient status from Australian organisations found to be supporting an illegal occupation by funding Israeli settlements and organisations linked to the IDF.

Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi introduced the amendment in the Senate this week, arguing that Australian taxpayers should not subsidise organisations whose funds support illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank.

Genocide is a war crime. Ethnic cleansing is a war crime.

“But in this country, you can send money to fund those war crimes, and you’ll receive a tax deduction,” Faruqi told the Senate.

Both Labor and the Coalition opposed the amendment.

Faruqi referenced investigations by MWM which revealed that Australian charities registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC) were hosting fundraisers linked to the IDF and Israeli settlements in the West Bank while benefiting from DGR status.

“These charities are helping to bankroll the genocide in Gaza by channelling funds to organisations linked to the IDF and to violent illegal settlements off the back of Australian taxpayer money.” 

The proposed amendment would have amended the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to provide that an entity would not be entitled to DGR endorsement if it had supported an “illegal occupation”.

Last month, the UK Charity Commission launched an investigation into charities in England and Wales donating funds to illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine.

ACNC rules “don’t extend to … international law”

Faruqi said the amendment was necessary because the existing regulatory framework did not adequately address conduct that breached international law.

“By maintaining DDR status for these supposed charities, the government says that this violence is okay. That is what this government is doing. That these murders are okay. That this ethnic cleansing is okay,” she said.

“How can supporting ethnic cleansing, settler occupation, and murdering Palestinians be ensuring the safety of vulnerable individuals overseas? It cannot, and the ACNC has not been able to answer these questions.”

When she previously moved the amendment in March, Labor senator Anthony Chisholm told the Senate that the ACNC’s external conduct standards did not extend to conduct under international law.

Faruqi said that meant charities could continue to fund activities that are unlawful under international law while retaining their tax concessions.

“Labor is more than happy for those who participate in, sustain, and fund the illegal occupation of the West Bank, an occupation that Labor itself has recognised as illegal, yet it gets a tax deduction,” she said.

Labor senator Tim Ayres said, “charity registration can be revoked by the ACNC where the governance and external conduct standards are not met”.

However, Ayres reiterated the government’s previous position that “the external conduct standards don’t extend to conduct under international law.”

Subsidising illegal occupation

Faruqi challenged Ayres over whether the ACNC was investigating specific organisations identified in the MWM investigations.

She cited the Chai Charitable Foundation, which received more than $19m in tax-deductible donations in 2025 and had hosted campaigns for organisations that publicly stated they provided direct support to IDF soldiers.

She also referred to reporting by MWM which revealed that the Foundation had hosted fundraising campaigns linked to settlements in Tekoa and Hebron in the West Bank.

Faruqi also cited investigations into United Israel Appeal Australia, which reported $50m in revenue in 2024, and funded the Lone Immigrant Soldier program, which provides support to immigrants serving in the IDF. The organisation has also funded settlement-related activities in the West Bank.

“Minister, do you know if the ACNC is investigating these organisations?” Faruqi asked.

Ayres heads off allegations

Ayres responded that “the ACNC is an independent regulator and it’s accountable for the work that it does on an independent basis”.

When Faruqi pressed him on whether he should know whether the organisations were receiving tax deductions and whether the allegations demonstrated that existing safeguards were insufficient, Ayres said he could not respond to questions about individual organisations.

Faruqi challenged the government over the external conduct standard requiring charities operating overseas to take reasonable steps to protect vulnerable people.

“Palestinians living under occupation, displacement, and genocide”

“are clearly vulnerable people. Australians are deeply distressed that tax-deductible donations may be supporting organisations connected to the very forces and settlements harming them,” she said.

“Minister, why won’t the government listen to those concerns and support this amendment, so that it can be crystal clear that Australian tax concessions cannot be used to subsidise what your own government recognises as an illegal occupation? What is the problem here?”

Ayres said the government’s “approach in relation to the broader question has been very clear”. 

“I don’t really understand the relationship that you’re trying to draw between the purposes of this piece of legislation, which is about DGR status and a whole range of things,” he said.

Escalating settler violence

The amendment comes as violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank has escalated, with two Palestinian teenagers murdered last week by Israeli troops.

Sixteen-year-old Khalil Abu Alia and 19-year-old Omar al-Nassan were killed in the Palestinian village of al-Mughayyir after settlers entered the village under police and military escort.

Abu Alia, who was about to begin year 11, was shot in the neck while standing on the doorstep of his home. Al-Nassan, who had recently graduated from the same school, was also shot and died before reaching hospital.

The two teenagers were among five students from the same school killed in Israeli attacks this year. The other victims included a 17-year-old Palestinian youth footballer and two 14-year-olds.

The organisation said the community was the 66th Palestinian community to have been wiped out since October 2023.

“These are whole worlds and lives extinguished in evil, depraved, and violent attacks that have become part of everyday life for Palestinians,” Faruqi said.

Coalition, Nats, Labor, One Nation – same deal 

The Coalition also opposed the amendment.

Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie accused Faruqi of conflating support for the IDF with criminal conduct and criticised what she described as

“abhorrent anti-Semitic comments.“

At the same time, Israeli forces demolished the homes of 12 Palestinian families in Khirbet al-Taban in the South Hebron Hills, leaving all 70 residents homeless, including 28 children, according to Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem.

“Listening to Senator Faruqi, it would seem that supporting the IDF or the families of the IDF is somehow now a crime in Australia,” McKenzie said.

She said the Coalition would not support the amendment and “look forward to voting no as soon as possible”.

Faruqi, meanwhile, argued that the amendment was about preventing Australian tax concessions from supporting activities Australia itself recognises as unlawful.

“The International Court of Justice, in 2024, called on parties, states such as Australia, to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of illegal situations created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories,” she said.

“Labor allows Australian charities to funnel money to support ethnic cleansing, apartheid, violence, and occupation.”

“She accused Labor of hypocrisy“

over its position on Palestinian statehood and Israeli settlement expansion.

“It is completely disingenuous for the government to say it supports a Palestinian state while effectively subsidising its destruction,” Faruqi said.

“Supporting these heinous crimes deserves a criminal investigation, not a tax deduction.” 

“Labor says they mourn the death of Zomi Frankcom, but in the same breath, they hand tax benefits to those who support the murderers.”

September 10, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

SUBMISSION to AUKUS Public Inquiry -Anonymous

The subs are only to sail to the South Chin Sea to assist the U.S. in antagonising our biggest trading partner who is not a threat to Australia. China is not interested in invading us. China wants a peaceful world built on trade not war. This is all about the U.S. wanting to be the supreme power in the world.

8 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l6zeHF54DyFQ8tdc18G7_DE8X5GRh8D-/view

I believe Australia should not go ahead with AUKUS

1 The expense is unaffordable.

2. 30 plus- year-old subs will be at the end of their workable life. Decommissioning will be highly expensive and we have nowhere to store the nuclear waste

3. The war in Ukraine has shown that conventional machines are out-dated. Drone subs are a much better protection than outdated methods.

4. The subs are only to sail to the South Chin Sea to assist the U.S. in antagonising our biggest trading partner who is not a threat to Australia. China is not interested in invading us. China wants a peaceful world built on trade not war. This is all about the U.S. wanting to be the supreme power in the world. WE should not get involved in the U.S’s games. The U.S. economy is built on war and selling armaments. It spreads disinformation to keep its economy from collapsing.

5. The U.S. is in trillions of debt. The debt is now over 50% of GDP. It’s only a matter of time before the U.S. is unable to fund its debts. This could well happen before any subs arrive here. Billions of taxpayes’ money gone for nothing.

September 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

SUBMISSION to AUKUS Public Inquiry – Christine Hooper

Why not JUST underwater drones ( Pillar 2?) for surveillance and security rather
than subs? It seems that’s the way to go but we end up with old school and now
second hand old school. Subs are known to need a lot of money for refurbishment
and maintenance. Can we afford this whole thing? So why go down this path? It
seems we are tied to America to our detriment.

6 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Wqnq1Fts4PfMIVN8smmpGJI9uLx_P__l/view

AUKUS seems to be trumped up (no pun intended) to funnel money to the US and
UK. It seems that the submarines will not arrive in a timely manner if at all.
America is struggling to build its own subs and the UK sounds like it’s in disarray in
terms of submarine building. Will we actually receive these submarines? From
what I have read it seems highly unlikely.

Where will the submarines and “visiting” US submarines dock? Do we want nuclear
submarines docking close to major Australian cities? I think not. Will there be safe
guards against any nuclear accident? How will the submarines be refueled with
nuclear “energy”? Where will that nuclear substance be manufactured and stored?

Why would we suddenly welcome nuclear powered craft near our cities…or
anywhere for that matter?

Where will the ports be built and will any natural environment be destroyed to
build them?

There has been no transparency re this deal- no discussion. It was just announced.
Why not JUST underwater drones ( Pillar 2?) for surveillance and security rather
than subs? It seems that’s the way to go but we end up with old school and now
second hand old school. Subs are known to need a lot of money for refurbishment
and maintenance. Can we afford this whole thing? So why go down this path? It
seems we are tied to America to our detriment.

Can we afford this when we’re in economic downturn? People are in need of
financial help and there are many homeless. Shouldn’t this money be spent on
these issues?

Are we really potentially under threat? Or is this an American beat up to try to
remain the major “power”?
It just doesn’t make sense.

September 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

SUBMISSION to AUKUS Public Inquiry – Josephv PHILIPPA

5. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tFNT8jn9CR1DB9LkxAXCZ5EZS96GNv7Y/view

Money is desperately needed for useful social purposes. such as housing, health
and education instead of being squandered on supporting the American military
industrial complex.

September 6, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

SUBMISSION to AUKUS Public Inquiry – Nicole Munro

1 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1r3Lm3deFhvlIqu9QY-T71ea2wVcvc8CU/view

I am writing as a concerned citizen about the impacts of the AUKUS deal. I am
deeply troubled by Roger Cook’s potential plan to build a weapon’s hub in Collie
WA. The government needs to consider both our safety and the environmental
impacts of this deal. We need climate solutions, and investment in renewable
energy infrastructure, not more carbon emitting machinery. We should also not be
tying ourselves to the ever increasing instability of the United States. No one
wants any of this, aside from the politicians who are pushing it for their own
personal gain. The cons far outweigh the pros. It’s time the government listen to
the people they supposedly represent.

September 6, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment