Antinuclear

Submission- Bevan Ramsden -re new agreement on  Naval Nuclear Propulsion- leads to war against China

Submission no. 4 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions

This submission urges that the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties recommends against
the Australian Government signing this Agreement as it in not in the best interests of the
Australian people on a number of grounds.
These grounds include:

a) The nuclear weapons grade fuel and nuclear reactors pose a significant threat to the
health of the Australian People who live or work within the nuclear zones associated
with the storage of the imported nuclear fuel, the construction of nuclear
submarines and the designated facilities for disposal of nuclear waste produced by
these activities plus nuclear zones associated with the porting of foreign nuclear
submarines. For this reason, the Agreement should not be signed by the Australian
Government. Annex A provides supporting material explaining the danger and risks
to health of workers and residents in defined nuclear zones as per the Australian
Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill, 2023 and the Australian Radiation Protection and
the Nuclear Safety Authority (ARPANSA).

(b) This Agreement is one step and a necessary one for Australia to construct hunterkiller nuclear submarines. It is the contention of this submission that such a project is
not in the best interests of the Australian people as the acquisition of hunter-killer
nuclear propelled submarines through this Agreement process ties Australia and
indeed commits Australia, to use them in a war with the US, for example against
China. Such a war which would be devastating for the Australian economy and way
of life, could bring a missile attack upon us and is unnecessary as there in no military
threat posed to Australia by China or any other enemy of the United States. For this
reason, the Agreement should not be signed by the Australian Government.

(c) This Agreement requires Australia to be responsible for the management,
disposition, storage, and disposal of any spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste
resulting from the operation of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants transferred pursuant
to this Article, including radioactive waste generated through submarine operations,
maintenance, decommissioning, and disposal.”

Australia has no such facility and indeed there appears to be no example world-wide
of such a facility that can guarantee such disposition, storage and disposal of spent
fuel and radioactive waste in a manner that is safe for our population for thousands
of years. Having this requirement dumped on Australia will put the Australian
people’s health at risk for many, many years. For this reason, the Agreement should
not be signed by the Australian Government

(d) In any case the Agreement is one sided as it does not guarantee the cooperation of
the UK or US in fulfilling the objectives of the Agreement if in doing so that would
“constitute an unreasonable risk to its (own)defence and security (Article I).”
This means Australia is paying both the US shipyards and UK shipyards billions
without any iron-clad guarantee of getting the nuclear fuel, nuclear reactors or being
able to construct, therefore nuclear-propelled submarines. This is a further reason
for recommending against the signing of the Agreement in its present form.

(e) Further the Agreement is also one-sided in responsibility as (para 22) says “ The
Agreement requires Australia to indemnify the UK and the US against any liability,
loss, costs, damage, or injury (including third party claims) arising out of, related to,
or resulting from nuclear risks (risks attributable to the radioactive, toxic, explosive
or other hazardous properties of materials) connected with the design, manufacture,
assembly, transfer, or utilisation of any material or equipment, including naval
nuclear propulsion plants, parts thereof, or spare parts transferred or to be
transferred pursuant to the Agreement (Article IV(E)).” Yet another reason for
recommending that the Australian Government does not sign this Agreement in its
present form.

(f) The final reason for recommending that the Australian Government not sign this
Agreement is that there has been no public consultation on the implications of the
Agreement for the Australian people and especially those living and working in
nuclear zones as defined in the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023. The
fact that there has not been any public consultation is acknowledged in the
Agreement:
“ATTACHMENT ON CONSULTATION
Public Consultation 55. No public consultation has been undertaken, given the
classified scope of consultations between the Parties on the Agreement, including
matters relating to national security and operational capability.”
(The italics are mine)

September 8, 2024 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized