Antinuclear

David Noonan confronts Australia’s politicians with critical unanswered questions on the AUKUS agreement – will they pretend not to hear this?

Submission no. 154

Submission to Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Inquiry into the AUKUS 2.0 Agreement:
‘Agreement among the Government of Australia, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the United States of America for Cooperation Related to Naval Nuclear Propulsion’.
Public Input by Mr David J. Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St.
Independent Environment Campaigner 1 September 2024 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions

RE: National Interest, Public Safety and Indigenous Consent are compromised as the Agreement imposes N-Subs risks and untenable AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste & nuclear weapons usable fissile material on all future generations of Australians

Dear Secretary

This Inquiry into ‘the Agreement’ (Washington, dated 4 August) goes to fundamental matters of public interest through the powers, imprimatur and pathway this AUKUS Agreement provides to an unfolding Federal Labor agenda to impose nuclear powered submarine (N-Subs) risks and nuclear reactor wastes (N-wastes), with serious consequences for Civil Society and Indigenous People in Australia.

Please consider this Public Submission, the Recommendations provided (see p.10-12) and Discussion (p.13).

I also request an opportunity to give Evidence as a Witness in a Hearing (see my Relevant Background, p.14).

This public input focuses on serious N-Sub reactor accident risks and N-waste impacts due to this AUKUS Agreement:

First: N-Subs inherent nuclear reactor accident risks & impacts are imposed on Australian Port communities without their informed consent, while the US is granted Indemnity.

Port communities face Evacuation and persons may require ‘decontamination’ and medical treatment, while children require Stable Iodine Tablets to lessen the risk of Thyroid cancer.

Second: untenable AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste & nuclear weapons usable fissile materials are recklessly imposed as an uncosted liability on all future generations.

These risks particularly confront SA and NT as primary targets for intended N-waste Storage sites. AUKUS Nuclear Waste Storage Zones are to be imposed via decree through Regulations.

Please feel free for JSCT staff and Members of the Committee to contact on any aspect of this public input.

Contents: Introduction

2 The Agreement imposes AUKUS N-Subs while failing to inform affected communities of the
Health risks and socio-economic impacts they face in a potential reactor accident

3 Emergency workers may face “catastrophic conditions” at a N-Sub accident

4 Civil Society faces imposition of an AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste dump

5 Q: Is Federal Labor already targeting the Woomera Area in SA as a potential site to impose an
AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste dump?

6 Indigenous People have a UN recognised Human Right to Say No to AUKUS N-wastes

7 The Agreement is to take US origin military High-Level nuclear waste in Virginia N-Subs

8 To Indemnify the US over “nuclear risks” while ignoring multi-billion $ N-waste Costs

Recommendations 10
Discussion 13
As to my Relevant Background 14

*******************************************

Dear Secretary
This Inquiry into ‘the Agreement’ (Washington, dated 4 August) goes to fundamental matters of
public interest through the powers, imprimatur and pathway this AUKUS Agreement provides to
an unfolding Federal Labor agenda to impose nuclear powered submarine (N-Subs) risks and
reactor wastes, with serious consequences for Civil Society and Indigenous People in Australia.

Please consider this input and the Recommendations provided (see p.10-12). I also request an
opportunity to give Evidence as a Witness in a Hearing (see my Relevant Background, p.14).

This Inquiry is an important, rare and far too brief opportunity for the public to formally engage
and scrutinise the AUKUS Agreement and federal agenda to impose N-Subs & nuclear waste.

Integrity, transparency, and accountability are key to public confidence in governance in
Australia. However, this AUKUS Agreement along with an unfolding dangerous and
undemocratic federal agenda to impose N-Subs and untenable nuclear wastes (N-wastes)
undermines public confidence and is harming trust in governance in Australia.

The Inquiry must take account of the nuclear risks & impacts caused by this Agreement.
An array of important public interests are at stake as a consequence of the Agreement. The
Safety, Health and Welfare, and Rights & Interests of targeted Australian communities and
Indigenous Peoples are at stake, along with protection of the Environment in which they live.

This input focuses on serious N-Sub reactor risks and N-waste impacts due to this Agreement.

First: N-Subs inherent nuclear reactor accident risks & impacts are imposed on Australian
Port communities without their informed consent, while the US is granted Indemnity.

Read more: David Noonan confronts Australia’s politicians with critical unanswered questions on the AUKUS agreement – will they pretend not to hear this?

Port communities face Evacuation and persons may require ‘decontamination’ and medical
treatment, while children require Stable Iodine Tablets to lessen the risk of Thyroid cancer.

Designated Nuclear Zones to impose N-Subs are to be declared over Osborne at Port Adelaide
and over Stirling on Garden Island off Fremantle through new powers in a current AUKUS Bill.

Second: untenable AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste & nuclear weapons usable
fissile materials are recklessly imposed as an uncosted liability on all future generations.

These risks particularly confront SA and NT as primary targets for intended N-waste Storage
sites. AUKUS Nuclear Waste Storage Zones are to be imposed via decree through Regulations.

The Agreement imposes AUKUS N-Subs while failing to inform affected communities of the
Health risks and socio-economic impacts they face in a potential reactor accident:

Federal Labor has failed to inform the SA community of the Health risks they face in imposed N-
Subs at Port Adelaide and failed to carry out required nuclear accident Health Impact Studies.

AUKUS legislation to declare Osborne a “Designated Nuclear Zone” is to return to Parliament
after a Senate Inquiry Report. The time to inform community on accident risks is now.

South Australian community have so far been denied their ‘Right to Know’ the extent of Health
and socio-economic impacts they face in a N-Sub reactor accident at Port Adelaide.

The public have a right to full disclosure of Health impacts in advance of this Agreement and
decisions, legislation and process to impose N-Sub nuclear accident risks onto our community.

Federal Minister for Health the Hon Mark Butler MP has a ‘duty of care’ to order required Health
Impact Studies and to inform SA community of the extent of radiological Health risks they face.
Minister Butler has over-sight of the federal agency ARPANSA, a civilian nuclear regulator, that is
responsible for preparing Health Impact Studies on potential nuclear submarine accidents.

SA Emergency Services workers, first responders, the police, fire, ambulance and hospital
personnel, have a ‘Right to Know’ what risks they are being signed up to by federal decisions.

Federal Emergency provisions apply in event of a military N-Sub reactor accident at Port
Adelaide. The ARPANSA “Guide for Radiation Protection in Emergency Exposure Situations (Part
1 & 2, 2019) and “Nuclear powered vessel visit planning” (2023) set out the pre-requisite
studies, ‘standards’, Emergency Zones, procedures and measures that are to be put in place.

The ARPANSA Guide Part 2 (p.18-19 & Table 3.1) authorises very high ionising radiation dose
exposures to Emergency workers, and to exposed Osborne N-Sub Shipyard workers, in tasking
them to undertake “urgent protective actions” on site, at a dose of up to 50 mSv (milli-Sievert).

That is 50 times far in excess of the recommended civilian max allowed dose of 1 mSv per year

Federal and SA Labor have failed to inform community that affected members of the public
within a cited “Urgent Protective Action Zone” of 2.8 km radius from the site of a N-Sub accident
also face authorised high ionising radiation dose exposure of up to 50 mSv. In a “Reference
Accident” the local population may face Evacuation and may require ‘decontamination’.

Further, in an even more severe military N-Sub nuclear accident federal provisions provide for
civilian SA Emergency workers to face “the development of catastrophic conditions”.

Male SA Emergency workers and designated Shipyard workers are then to be called upon to
‘volunteer’ to risk dangerously high ionising radiation dose exposures of up to 500 mSv.
Female Emergency workers are to be excluded given the potential Health risks they may face.

The State of SA is to be left with the responsibility to prepare and resource an “Emergency
Response Plan’ for N-Sub nuclear accidents, and belatedly inform community of risks they face.

Federal and SA Labor can-not claim to have a ‘social license’ for N-Subs while failing to inform
affected workers and affected community of the ionising radiation Health risks they may face.

The Agreement’s imposed AUKUS N-Sub reactor accident risks are clearly undemocratic.

Emergency workers may face “catastrophic conditions” at a N-Sub accident:

In event of a military N-Sub nuclear reactor accident the ARPANSA “Guide for Radiation
Protection in Emergency Exposure Situations (The Guide Part 2, p.18-19 & Table 3.1) authorises
“actions to prevent the development of catastrophic conditions” by civilian workers.

‘Category 1 Emergency workers’ may “receive a dose of up to 500 mSv”, a dangerously high
ionising radiation dose exposure that is up to 500 times the max allowed civilian annual dose:

“Emergency workers may include workers employed, both directly and indirectly, by an
operating organisation, as well as personnel of response organisations, such as police
officers, firefighters, medical personnel, and drivers and crews of vehicles used for
evacuation. …

Category 1: Emergency workers undertaking mitigatory actions and urgent protective
actions on-site, including lifesaving actions, actions to prevent serious injury, actions
to prevent the development of catastrophic conditions that could significantly affect
people and the environment, and actions to prevent severe tissue reactions. … They
may also receive a dose of up to 500 mSv for life saving actions, to prevent the
development of catastrophic conditions and to prevent severe tissue reactions.”

The ARPANSA Guide Part 1 (Annex A, p.64 Table A.1, 2019) states in stark terms that civilian
Emergency workers can be called upon to ‘volunteer’ for actions “to prevent the development
of catastrophic conditions” in event of a severe military N-Sub accident:

“… under circumstances in which the expected benefits to others clearly outweigh
the emergency worker’s own health risks”.
As evidence of the extent of military nuclear risks to the Health of civilian workers, the ARPANSA
Guide Part 1 (Annex A, p.63) states female Emergency & Shipyard workers are to be excluded:

“…female workers who might be pregnant need to be excluded from taking actions
that might result in an equivalent dose exceeding 50 mSv”.

Given the level of uncritical promotion of AUKUS N-Subs by Federal and State Labor it is farcical
one has to find & search obscure complex documentation, Appendices and Tables to find clear
statements of fact on the extent of Health impacts workers may face in N-Sub accidents.

The ‘safety’ of N-Subs in UK Ports has been critiqued, see a key Report by Large and Associates
Consulting Engineers: “A BRIEF REVIEW Of The OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING MEASURES”.

A Defence Operations Manual “OPSMAN 1” (2023) sets Zones of Emergency measures for N-
Sub accidents. A “Precautionary Action Zone” of 600 m radius & an “Urgent Protective Action

Zone” of up to 2.8 km radius require an Evacuation Plan and stable iodine tablets for workers &
the local population – who may require ‘decontamination’ and medical treatment. A third Zone
“Extended Planning Distance”, where “the surrounding population may be subject to hazards”,
is described as of several kms radius. In UK Emergency N-Sub measures this extends to 5 km.

ARPANSA also requires studies of a local Port population out to 15 km from a N-Sub mooring

One can’t know how far a radioactive pollution plume may spread on prevailing winds…

Civil Society faces imposition of an AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste dump:

The Federal ALP belatedly disclosed a secret pre-condition in AUKUS plans to buy second-hand US
nuclear subs: for Australia to have to keep US origin military High-Level nuclear waste forever…

In a breach of trust the ALP is seeking to ‘normalise’ High-Level nuclear waste in Australia. Claims of
‘nuclear stewardship’ in taking on US N-Subs and in retaining untenable US N-Sub wastes are a farce.
Disposal of High-Level nuclear waste is globally unprecedented, with our AUKUS partners the US &
UK having proven unable to do so in over 65 years since first putting nuclear powered subs to sea.

Minister for Defence Richard Marles MP has still not made a promised ‘announcement’, said to be by
early 2024, on a process to manage High-Level nuclear waste and to site a waste disposal facility, he
saying “obviously that facility will be remote from populations” (ABC News 15 March 2023).

Defence is already working to identify potential nuclear waste storage and disposal sites, is assessing
existing Defence lands, and appraising potential regions with areas to compulsorily acquire a site’

The public has a right to know who is already being targeted for imposed AUKUS N- waste Storage.

Political leaders in WA, Qld and Vic have already rejected a High-Level nuclear waste disposal site.

The SA Labor Premier has so far only said it should go to a ‘remote’ location in the national interest

AUKUS compromises public confidence in Gov and sets up a serious clash with civil society:

This JSCT Inquiry must require the Federal Government to become transparent and to be made

accountable over rights and interests that are at stake in the Agreement’s required military High-
Level nuclear waste storage and Federal Labor’s intended N-waste siting process. For instance:

• Federal Labor must commit to comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
  Indigenous Peoples Article 29 provision of Indigenous People’s Rights to “Free, Prior and
  Informed Consent” over storage or disposal of hazardous materials on their lands.
• Defence must declare their intension to over-ride the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act
  2000 to impose an AUKUS nuclear dump on outback lands and unwilling community in SA.
• Federal Labor must fully set out the array of AUKUS nuclear wastes to be stored in Australia.
  The ALP National Platform (2021, Uranium p.96-98) makes a commitment to oppose overseas waste:
• Labor will: 8. d. Remain strongly opposed to the importation and storage of nuclear waste
  that is sourced from overseas in Australia.

In contrast, AUKUS aims Australia buy existing US military nuclear reactors in second-hand N-Subs
that are to be up to 10-12 years old, loaded with intractable US origin High-Level nuclear wastes that
are also weapons usage fissile materials – and remain as Bomb Fuel long after decommissioning.

Further, in an affront to public trust Labor’s AUKUS Bill has been written to provide a federal legal
power to take existing US and UK N-Sub nuclear reactor wastes for storage and disposal in Australia.

Federal Labor claims that it is not their ‘policy’ to do so – but it is their proposed Federal Law!

Q: Is Federal Labor already targeting the Woomera Area in SA as a potential site to impose
an AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste dump?

The Labor AUKUS Bill assumes a power and a right to over-ride State laws by naming State laws in
Regulations that are to be made in 2025. Section 135 “Operation of State and Territory laws”, states:

If a law of a State or Territory, or one or more provisions of such a law, is prescribed by the
regulations, that law or provision does not apply in relation to a regulated activity.

The Bill provides for regulated activities in ‘nuclear waste management, storage and disposal’ at
AUKUS facilities in future Nuclear Zones, which are to be authorised in part under Sec.135.

The national press has reported the Woomera rocket range is understood to be the ‘favoured
location’ for storage and disposal of submarine nuclear waste (“Woomera looms as national nuclear
waste dump site including for AUKUS submarine high-level waste afr.com 11 August 2023).

A ‘Review’ of the Woomera Prohibited Area has been announced by Minister for Defence Richard
Marles MP: “to ensure it remains fit for purpose and meets Australia’s national security
requirements” – read AUKUS requirements. The Review will Report after the federal election.

AUKUS will aim to compulsorily acquire and declare a High-Level nuclear waste dump site, with override of State laws through this Bill, long before the 2032 first purchase of a second-hand US N-Sub.
It was left up to a US Vice Adm. Bill Houston to reveal proposed sales of in-service Virginia-class subs
will be in 2032 and in 2035, with a claimed first new N-Sub in 2038 (US Breaking Defence 8/11/23).

If Federal Labor decide to locate an AUKUS nuclear waste dump in SA, it will have to over-ride State
Law to impose the dump. This AUKUS Agreement is a threat to the Safety of the People of SA.

Storage and disposal of nuclear wastes compromises the Safety and Welfare of the people of South
Australia, that is why it is prohibited by the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000.

Labor Premier Mike Rann strengthened these laws in 2002. Now Federal Labor may over-ride them.

The Objects of the Act cover public interest issues at stake, to protect our Health, Safety and Welfare:

“The Objects of this Act are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of South
Australia and to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the establishment
of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this State.”

The import, transport storage and disposal of High-Level nuclear reactor waste is prohibited in SA.

However, Federal Labor are taking up legal powers to impose a dangerous AUKUS nuclear dump on
SA or on the NT, through an undemocratic override of State laws and compulsory land acquisition.

Question: Will Federal Labor also disregard Indigenous Peoples UN recognised Right to Say No?

In the lead up to a federal election Labor must now declare if they will respect or ignore Indigenous
Peoples UNDRIP recognised Right to Say No to an AUKUS nuclear waste dump on their country.

South Australians have a Democratic Right to decide their own Future and to Say no to an AUKUS nuclear waste dump.

Indigenous People have a UN recognised Human Right to Say No to AUKUS N-wastes:

This AUKUS Agreement triggers the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
(UNDRIP, adopted by United Nations, Sept 2007) in Indigenous People’s Article 29 Rights to “Free,
Prior and Informed Consent” over storage or disposal of hazardous materials on their lands.

AUKUS military High-Level nuclear wastes and fissile materials are absolutely ‘hazardous materials’.

This JSCT Inquiry must act in accordance with the Recommendations of the Federal Inquiry Report
(Nov 2023) into the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and respect Indigenous
Labor Senator and Chair of the Inquiry Patrick Dodson’s clear views on the matter, stating:

“the Commonwealth Government ensure its approach to developing legislation and policy on
matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be consistent with the
Articles outlined in the UNDRIP”.

The Federal Labor Gov has so far failed to act on key Rec. No.6 of the UNDRIP Inquiry, which states:

“The Committee recommends that the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth)
be amended to include the UNDRIP in the definition of ‘human rights’, so that it be formally
considered when scrutinising legislation.”
In scrutinising the Agreement, this JSCT Inquiry must call on the Federal Labor Government to
become transparent on whether or not they support the Rights of Indigenous Australians under the
UNDRIP Article 29 to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” – as a Human Right to Say No – over Storage
of AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste on their lands. Transparency is a minimum standard.

This AUKUS Agreement builds on unacceptable steps to date. For instance, the “Statement of
Compatibility with Human Rights” (Explanatory Memorandum to the current AUKUS Bill, p.97-102)
misleadingly claims the Bills are compatible with Human Rights while excluding the UNDRIP.

I raised these issues of Indigenous Rights in my public input Recommendations to the 2023 Defence
Review and to a Senate Inquiry into the current AUKUS Bill before Parliament – without response.

My input and Recommendations to the Defence Review called for transparency on these issues:

Defence should become transparent over proposed Navy High-Level nuclear waste disposal,
policy, siting process, rights and legal issues. Defence should commit to respect and to comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Article 29 provision of Indigenous People’s rights to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” over storage or disposal of hazardous materials on their lands.

Traditional owners Human Right to Say No to the imposition of nuclear wastes must be respected.

See “AUKUS nuclear waste dump must be subject to Indigenous veto” (By Michelle Fahy May 2023):

“Bipartisan secrecy and Defence’s poor record with Indigenous groups at Woomera are red
flags for consultations over an AUKUS nuclear waste dump. Human rights experts say
government must establish an Indigenous veto right.

The Agreement is to take US origin military High-Level nuclear waste in Virginia N-Subs:

The Federal ALP belatedly disclosed a AUKUS pre-condition to Australia’s purchase of second-hand
US nuclear submarines: for Australia to keep the US origin N-Subs military High-Level nuclear waste.

This was kept secret in the federal election and only revealed to the Australian public in March 2023.

The ALP is seeking to ‘normalise’ High-Level nuclear waste in Australia with simplistic claims of
‘nuclear stewardship’ in taking on untenable liabilities to retain US origin N-Subs N-wastes forever.

Disposal of High-Level nuclear waste is unprecedented at a global scale, with the US and UK having
proven unable to do so in over 65 years since first putting nuclear powered submarines to sea.

In Defence seeking to demonstrate ‘nuclear stewardship’ over nuclear waste it can be anticipated
that a final site for an AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste storage or disposal facility will be
declared before a first purchase of a second hand US nuclear powered submarine, due in 2032.

This current AUKUS Bill Section 10 provides powers to declare a Designated Zone to impose a nuclear
waste Storage site and Section 135 provides powers to over-ride State laws that protect public safety.

AUKUS aims Australia buy existing US military nuclear reactors in second-hand N-Subs that can be up
to 10-12 years old, loaded with intractable US origin weapons grade High-Level nuclear wastes.

This is ‘flag swapping’ an Australian flag onto existing US N-Sub High-Level nuclear reactor wastes.

It has been reported the existing US nuclear subs for purchase by Australia could be up to 10-12 yrs
old to allow approx. 20 yrs of nuclear reactor operations to be left out of a cited 33-yr reactor period.

US Vice Adm. Bill Houston revealed sales of in-service Virginia-class N-Subs will be in 2032 and 2035,
with a first new Virginia N-Sub said to be sold to Australia in 2038 (US Breaking Defence 08 Nov).

This JSCT Inquiry must seek a full explanation of how Australia claims to manage and perpetually
store intractable US origin High-Level nuclear wastes from two second-hand US Virginia N-Subs.

AUKUS claims of ‘nuclear stewardship’ in taking over US N-Subs and in retaining the US origin HighLevel nuclear wastes are a farce. The US has been unable to dispose of any High-Level N-wastes.

AUKUS touted production of a future British N-Sub design in the 2040’s, claimed to be built at the
Osborne Dedicated Nuclear Zone, may never be realised – but this US origin N-waste threat is real.

This JSCT inquiry must consider that it is undemocratic for Civil Society and Indigenous People in
SA to have to face the serious risks and impacts in this Agreement’s required perpetual storage of
intractable US origin military High-Level nuclear wastes and weapons usable fissile materials.

These US origin military High-Level nuclear wastes present an unprecedented, untenable threat to
the Health, Safety and Welfare of the People of SA and to the Environment in which they live.

The import, transport storage and disposal of these AUKUS US origin nuclear wastes is against the
Law in SA and must remain prohibited in our State to protect the Safety of the People of SA.

To Indemnify the US over “nuclear risks” while ignoring multi-billion $ N-waste Costs:

The National Interest Analysis [2024] ATNIA 14 to this AUKUS Agreement is written by the
proponent of N-Subs the Australian Submarine Agency (ASA) and is clearly not fit for purpose.

In our National Interest this JSCT Inquiry must require a full public exposition on the array of
“nuclear risks” this Agreement exposes Australia to, and grants Indemnify to the US over.

The NIA is without regard to Australia’s interests in the Agreement bringing “nuclear risks” here.

The NIA gives uncritical support to the Agreement granting a wide-ranging Indemnity to the US
for “nuclear risks” in second-hand Virginia N-Subs and associated US origin nuclear materials:
Indemnity 22.

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) … transferred pursuant to the
Agreement (Article IV(E)). …

The NIA 23 further supports “the management of nuclear risks to be indemnified by Australia” to
be subject to an unstated role for the US to determine arrangements and “visibility of activities”.

This reads as a ‘secrecy clause’ to preference US interests over Australian interests. To limit the
‘visibility’ (and public reporting?) of “nuclear risks” and of required response arrangements.

To even attempt to address the serious array of “nuclear risks” imposed by this Agreement would
require unfettered‘management and arrangements’ and must be in our National Interests alone.

These matters require a full exposition re the “nuclear risks” we face and proposed US Indemnity.

Further, the NIA entirely ignores the $ Cost to Australia of storing and disposing of US origin
High-Level nuclear wastes and weapons usable fissile materials from the first two second-hand
10- to 12-year-old US Virginia Class N-Subs to be ‘Australian flagged’ in 2032 and in 2035.

For any effective Parliamentary scrutiny of this AUKUS Agreement there is an absolute onus on
this Committee of Inquiry to require public $ Costings and evidence from the Federal Gov, on:

• the liability $ Cost consequent to this AUKUS Agreement in required capability and
  facilities for in perpetuity High-Level nuclear waste storage and geological disposal;
• if any such any such Cost estimates exist, the evidentiary basis of the claimed Costings;
• whether the $ Cost of High-Level nuclear waste storage and claimed geological disposal
  is included in – OR is additional to – the public Cost of AUKUS at approx. A$368 billion.

These Costs must be in the order of at least 10’s of billions of dollars, yet this is entirely ignored
in Agreement documentation, with only flippancy from the proponent ASA’s claim at Costs 46:

“No regulatory costs associated with this treaty action are anticipated and each Party
will bear its own incidental costs…”

Recommendations:

These Recommendations comprise pre-requisite public interest disclosures required before
any credible informed consideration of the Agreement and go to its core consequences:

1. The Agreement imposes AUKUS N-Subs while failing to inform affected communities of
the Health risks and socio-economic impacts they face in a potential reactor accident

This Inquiry should respect and answer the ‘Right to Know’ of affected Australian Port
Communities facing AUKUS Agreement imposed nuclear risks in the real potential for a N-Sub
caused ‘Reference Nuclear Reactor Accident’ event, including required Evacuation

1.1 JSCT must require a comprehensive answer to be put on the public record as to why federal
required port specific nuclear accident assessments and Health Impact Studies still have not
been carried out by ARPANSA for Osborne at Port Adelaide, near three full years after Federal
Labor agreed to PM Morrison’s scheme to require N-Sub nuclear reactors at Osborne.

1.2 Federal authorities must provide a full public explanation of how the Indemnity to the US for
“nuclear risks” in this Agreement applies to the intended two second-hand US Virginia Class NSubs to have Australian flags put on them in the 2030’s: with particular regard to potential for
these N-Subs to cause a nuclear reactor accident in an Australian Port over their service period.

1.3 Further, given this AUKUS Agreement’s Indemnity to the US what is the scope of $ Costs to
be taken up by Australia to cover the full potential socio-economic Costs and Health and
wellbeing impacts of a potential ‘Reference Nuclear Reactor Accident’ event by one of these exUS Virginia N-Sub in an Australia Port or in Australian waters over their 20 odd yr service period.

2 Civil Society faces imposition of an AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste dump

This Inquiry should respect and investigate the ‘Right to Know’ of affected Communities and
Indigenous People facing federal imposed nuclear risks in an AUKUS Agreement requiring HighLevel nuclear waste & nuclear weapons usable fissile material storage and disposal facilities:

2.1 Federal authorities have already assessed existing Defence lands and must now make
public which Australian regions and Indigenous Peoples are under current consideration for
imposed siting of & compulsory land acquisition for an AUKUS High-Level nuclear waste dump.

In particular, Defence must become accountable over the fate of the Woomera Area in SA,
understood in national media to be a ‘favoured location’ for storage and disposal of submarine
nuclear waste (“Woomera looms as national nuclear waste dump site including for AUKUS
submarine high-level waste afr.com AFR 11 August 2023). Noting the Woomera Area is currently
subject to a Defence ‘Review’: “to ensure it remains fit for purpose and meets Australia’s
national security requirements” – read AUKUS requirements.

2.2 Defence must become publicly accountable and declare its intension to over-ride the SA
Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 through powers in an AUKUS Bill now before
Parliament (Sec.135 “Operation of State and Territory laws”): to impose an AUKUS nuclear
waste dump on outback lands and unwilling community in SA, by decree in federal Regulations.

This Defence agenda to impose nuclear waste storage in SA also involves Defence over-ride of
the SA Environment Protection Act 1993 and over-ride of the SA Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988.

3 Indigenous People have a UN recognised Human Right to Say No to AUKUS N-wastes

This JSCT Inquiry should respect the clear views of Indigenous Labor Senator Patrick Dodson
and act in accordance with the Recommendations of a Federal Inquiry Report (Nov 2023) into
the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, stating:

“the Commonwealth Government ensure its approach to developing legislation and
policy on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be consistent
with the Articles outlined in the UNDRIP”

3.1 This Inquiry must seek an explanation from the Federal Labor Gov as to whether they will
commit to respect and comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples Article 29 provision of Indigenous Peoples Rights to “Free, Prior and Informed
Consent”, as a Right to Say No, over storage or disposal of hazardous materials on their lands;

OR if Federal Labor intends to claim a sanction to over-ride UNDRIP and to impose a hazardous
AUKUS nuclear waste dump against the potential express wishes of Traditional Owners.

4. The Agreement is to take US origin military High-Level nuclear waste in Virginia N-Subs

The JSCT Inquiry must investigate this AUKUS Agreement’s proposed importation of US origin
military High-Level nuclear wastes sourced in 10–12-year-old US Navy nuclear reactors in
second hand US Virginia Class N-Subs that will require perpetual storage in Australia:

4.1 This JSCT Inquiry must seek a full explanation of how Defence Minister Marles claims to be
able to manage a globally unprecedented task in required perpetual storage and disposal of
intractable US origin High-Level nuclear wastes from two second-hand US Virginia N-Subs.

4.2 Call on Minister Marles to explain the incompatibility between the Agreement’s transfer of
US origin Virginia Class N-Sub nuclear wastes to Australia, effectively importation of nuclear
wastes sourced from the US, and the pre AUKUS Federal Labor Policy commitment in the ALP
National Platform (2021, Uranium p.96-98) to oppose overseas waste:

• Labor will: 8. d. Remain strongly opposed to the importation and storage of nuclear
  waste that is sourced from overseas in Australia.

5. To Indemnify the US over “nuclear risks” while ignoring multi-billion $ N-waste Costs

This Inquiry must investigate the array of “nuclear risks” this Agreement imposes on Australia:
“Indemnity 22.

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) … transferred pursuant to the
Agreement (Article IV(E)).”

5.1 In our National Interest this Inquiry must require a full public exposition on the array of
“nuclear risks” this Agreement exposes Australia to, and grants Indemnify to the US over.

5.2 For any effective Parliamentary scrutiny of this AUKUS Agreement there is an absolute onus
on this Committee of Inquiry to require public $ Costings & evidence from the Federal Gov, on:

• the liability $ Cost consequent to this AUKUS Agreement in required capability and
  facilities for in perpetuity High-Level nuclear waste storage and geological disposal;
• if any such any such Cost estimates exist, the evidentiary basis of the claimed Costings;
• whether the $ Cost of High-Level nuclear waste storage and claimed geological disposal
  is included in – OR is additional to – the public Cost of AUKUS at approx. A$368 billion.

These unstated, kept secret, liability $ Costs must be in the order of at least A$10’s of billions.

6. The Inquiry should provide a further round of public input on this AUKUS Agreement.

The JSCT should recognise the initial two week ‘public consultation’ period provided on such a
fundamental Agreement is entirely inadequate AND the National Interest Analysis provided by
the proponent of N-Subs the ASA is clearly not fit for purpose to properly inform the public.

The JSCT has an obligation to properly facilitate informed public input on the array of serious
public interest consequences arising from such a fundamentally important AUKUS Agreement.

The JSCT should provide a further round of public input, once the above range of pre-requisite
public interest disclosures across Recommendations 1-5 have been publicly answered.

7. Termination of the AUKUS Agreement by giving ‘at least one year’s written notice’

This flawed AUKUS Agreement should not be Signed and should not be Ratified by Australia.

If mistakenly Signed, Australia should then act in our National Interest and exercise Article
XIII(B) to Terminate the Agreement by giving the cited one year’s written notice (see NIA 48).

The AUKUS Agreement and N-Subs bring Australia closer to a devastating war between the US
and China, including likely strikes on Australia with a real risk of nuclear weapons strikes here.

8. The onus is on JSCT to hear experienced views on National Interests at stake in AUKUS.

To credibly appraise the National Interest issues at stake in this AUKUS Agreement the JSCT
should invite Witness testimony from ex-PM Paul Keating, ex-Foreign Affairs Ministers Bob Carr
and Gareth Evans, and ex-Ambassadors Ross Garnaut, John Menadue and Richard Broinowski.

It is not credible for the JSCT to over rely on an AUKUS proponent in Defence Minister Marles.

Discussion:
This AUKUS Agreement fails our National Interest on many grounds. Imposing AUKUS military
High-Level nuclear waste & nuclear weapons usable fissile material on all future generations of
Australians is untenable and is a sufficient public interest grounds to reject the Agreement.

Australian regional communities and Indigenous groups have a ‘Right to Know’ if they are being
targeted for siting of an AUKUS nuclear waste storage / dump. The JSCT should answer that.

Federal Labor has yet to answer over whether the UNDRIP championed by Senator Patrick
Dodson will be complied with OR likely over-ridden in imposition of the AUKUS Agreement.

Three years into AUKUS the failure to respect affected Port Communities ‘Right to Know’ the
Health risks and socio-economic impacts they face in a N-Sub reactor accident is further
evidence the Agreement is on a seriously wrong track and undermines trust in governance.

This Committee of Inquiry should at least be able to facilitate informed public consideration of
the Agreement and prioritise answers to the pre-requisite public interest disclosures set out in
Recommendations 1-5. JSCT should then provide a further round of ‘public consultation’.

The onus is on JSCT to investigate the array of serious “nuclear risks” imposed on Australia
through this Agreement and made subject to an Indemnity to favour US interests. I request an
opportunity to give evidence as a Witness in a Hearing on “nuclear risks” inherent in the
Agreement, on impacts of N-Sub reactor accidents and untenable N-waste imposition.

However, it is a rare exception for JSCT to reject an Agreement or a Treaty and that is unlikely to
happen here given the degree of Government control over the AUKUS Pact agenda. The last and
near only case was JSCT rejection of uranium sales to Russia, forced through by the Gillard Gov
and then rightly abandoned by PM Abbott. Who would speak for Russian now?

This Agreement is a comparable mistake, it should not be Signed and should not be Ratified. If
mistakenly Signed, Australia should then act in our National Interest and exercise Article XIII(B)
to Terminate the Agreement by giving the cited one year’s written notice (see NIA 48).

The JSCT should absolutely invite Witness testimony from ex-PM Paul Keating, ex-Foreign
Affairs Ministers Bob Carr and Gareth Evans, and ex-Ambassadors Ross Garnaut, John
Menadue and Richard Broinowski, to credibly appraise the National Interest issues at stake.

This AUKUS Agreement and N-Subs bring Australia closer to a devastating war between the US
and China, including likely strikes on Australia with a real risk of nuclear weapons strikes here.

Australia’s survival is at stake. Ross Garnaut (“When an experienced ambassador to China
speaks on AUKUS, we should listen” 20 August 2024) is reported as stating:

“America would be damaged by war with China over the status of Taiwan, but, short of a
major nuclear exchange debilitating both great powers, its sovereignty would not be at
risk. Australia’s would be. Indeed, I doubt that Australia could survive as a sovereign
entity the isolation from most of Asia that would be likely to follow anything other than a
decisive and quick US victory in a war in which our military was engaged.”

It is not credible for the JSCT to over rely on an AUKUS proponent in Defence Minister Marles.

As to my Relevant Background: In 30 years’ experience scrutinising environment and nuclear public
interest issues. I have provided public input and Recommendations relevant to matters now before
this JSCT Inquiry to AUKUS Federal Parliamentary and Defence processes held over the last 3 years

• The Inquiry into the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023, by the Senate Foreign
  Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Submission No.8 Jan 2024, Rec’s at p.11;
• The Reforming Defence Legislation Review, Submission No.34, Recommendations 6-7 at p.3 and
  discussion at p.7, 20 April 2023;
• An earlier AUKUS Inquiry by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee
  held on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Bill 2023 [Provisions],
  see Submission No.46, Recommendations 1-5 at p.2, 26 May 2023;
• The Defence Strategic Review, my public input is recorded but was not released by that process;
• The “Exchange of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information Agreement” (ENNPIA) Inquiry by the
  Treaties Committee, Submission No.40 (27 p), Recommendations at p.12, 25 Nov 2021.

I served for sixteen years as an Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) environment campaigner
1996-2011 with primary roles on public interest nuclear issues.

Including as lead author of ACF nuclear issues public input to Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
Inquiries and as an ACF witness in JSCT Hearings on uranium sales issues with China & with Russia.

As an individual, I later gave evidence as a witness before the JSCT Inquiry on UAE uranium sales,
provided input to the JSCT Inquiry on Ukraine uranium sales, and am quoted in both JSCT Reports.

Roles as an ACF campaigner included over 5 years on a prior federal attempt to impose a nuclear
waste dump in SA – 1998 through 2004 – another flawed process that had to be abandoned.

I have been an invited Witness as an individual involved on nuclear waste issues at a 2016 Hearing of
the SA Parliament Joint Committee Inquiry on the Findings of the SA Nuclear Royal Commission.

As an Independent Environment Campaigner, I have provided public interest Briefing and Public
Submissions throughout the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility process 2015-23.

For instance see a Brief “Nuclear Waste Store siting at Napandee also targets the Port of Whyalla”
(Feb 2020, 2 p), and a formal Public Comment: “Input to the CEO of ARPANSA on Alternative Storage
of ANSTO ILW at Lucas Heights” (Nov 2021, 26 p)

As illustrative of some of the public interest issues in nuclear waste siting processes I refer you to my
public input to the Federal Environment Department on Guidelines for an Environmental Impact
Statement process on the then proposed nuclear waste facility at Kimba (March 2023, 11 p).

I have a role in media comment on public interest nuclear issues, for instance see an article: “Alarm
on nuclear waste transport” (By Clare Peddie, SA Sunday Mail Rural Edition, 31 July 2022).

Yours sincerely
Mr David J Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St.
Independent Environment Campaigner and ABN Sole Trader Consultant  https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions

September 16, 2024 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics