Antinuclear

Submission- Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Australia -re new agreement on  Naval Nuclear Propulsion.

Submission no. 6  https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions

In contributing to this inquiry, the WILPF Australia Board will:

• Introduce WILPF Australia.
• Note that the National Interest Analysis is negligent in that it makes no serious attempt to assess
  the public interest of the proposed Agreement
• Highlight the significant national interest arguments against acceding to the terms of the
  agreement which need to be given proper consideration
• Recommend a complete rejection of the Agreement as it would serve to implement decisions
  previously made without proper consideration of the national interest.

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)
WILPF Australia is a feminist peace-building organisation of volunteer activists which is anti-war, antiviolence, non-profit, and non-aligned, bringing civil society together to bring about a sustainable peace.
WILPF staff, sections and members have been active and vocal supporters of the international treaty to
ban nuclear weapons for over a decade, following consistent antinuclear organising and advocacy since the dawn of the nuclear age.

The National Interest Analysis is negligent

The National Interest Analysis is predominantly a summary of what appears in the draft Agreement. There
are only two direct references to the National Interest:

• at item 6, referring to allowing access to information and material necessary to implement a
  nuclear-powered submarine program
• at item 10, referring to the need to achieve the “Optimal Pathway”
• 
  Other issues directly relating to the draft Agreement which would appear to be contrary to the National Interest are not considered, including:
• Article IV (C) – the agreement commits Australia to paying whatever price the US or the UK wish to
  charge for the “Special Nuclear Material contained in complete, welded Power Units, and other
  Material as needed for such Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants”. The statement that the prices with
  be “based on the fair market price of comparable enriched uranium” at IV(B) neglects to consider
  that there will be no market price for the goods under consideration. Committing Australia to
  paying whatever the UK and the US wish to charge is not in the national interest
• Article XI – Intellectual Property – commits Australia to handing over any intellectual property and
  patents developed by Australians to the US and/or the UK where it derives from “information,
  Material, or Equipment” that they have provided. This applies to both Classified and non-Classified
  information. Such a sweeping commitment will ensure that Australia does not benefit from any
  innovations developed here for fifty years (to 2075). It is clearly not in the National Interest

The cursory nature of the National Interest Analysis does not inspire confidence that the national interest
is foremost in the minds of the government.

More importantly, however, is the fact that the National Interest Statement takes the commitment to
embark on a nuclear-powered submarine program and the so-called “Optimal Pathway” to implement this commitment, as given. Neither of these have been subjected to National Interest assessment. The
legitimacy of all these agreements and arrangements hinges on the legitimacy of that original decision. In
the following section we set out some of the National Interest arguments that WILPF suggests should be
considered.

National Interest arguments that should have been considered

Firstly, for years, WILPF has debunked the myth that militarisation creates a safer world, showing that
more weapons and arms invariably lead to more violence, instability, and gender inequality. The
masculinist, militarist nuclear deal proposed by the US and UK is not in the National Interest because it will not make Australia safer. On the contrary, changing Australia’s defence policy to be more assertive
towards our major trading partner in the region threatens our economic well-being, our regional alliances
and exposes us to additional threats.

Secondly, the National Interest arguments concerning the nuclear waste that will result from
implementing the draft Agreement have not been considered. Disposal of high-level nuclear waste is
globally unprecedented. Our AUKUS ‘partners’, the US and UK, have proven unable to dispose of the waste\ in the 60+ years since first putting nuclear submarines to sea. It seems that the ALP’s National Platform commitment to “remain strongly opposed to the importation and storage of nuclear waste that is sourced from overseas in Australia” is yet to be considered.

Further, storage and disposal of nuclear wastes already compromises the safety and welfare of the people
in South and Western Australia. The fact that nuclear waste storage is prohibited in South Australia by the
SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 can potentially be overridden by Federal law. This is
shameful, and could be an abuse of power that undermines Australians’ basic human rights

Thirdly nuclear weaponry and wastes have gendered impacts …………………………….

Fourthly Australia has a long land ongoing legacy of colonialism………………………….

WILPF Australia recommends that the agreement be rejected……………………………..

September 8, 2024 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics