Submission- Tom Warwick -re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion- not in the public interest, designed to provoke China
The other partners in the deal take no risk and Australia agrees to accept all the risks and nuclear waste. The government who agreed to this deal is not acting in the interest of the people and is either naive or traitorous
China does not want war with Australia, China has not fired a shot in 40 years, China is trying to prove that their model of prosperity without war is superior and they are successful in doing so.
Submission no 11 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions
Dear senate committee, I am a member of the Australian public, and a voter in the electorate of
Durack. I represent myself and the ordinary people of Australia.
The AUKUS deal is not in the interest of the Australian people.
The opportunities forgone by spending an exorbitant $368B on nuclear submarines is enormous, we
have great need in this country for public spending on social programmes, social and commercial
infrastructure.
Not only does the AUKUS spending not produce social good it is harmful and causes risks to
Australian society.
The other partners in the deal take no risk and Australia agrees to accept all the risks and nuclear
waste. The government who agreed to this deal is not acting in the interest of the people and is
either naive or traitorous. If naïve the government should be removed, if traitorous the government
must be prosecuted and severely punished.
The submarines are not defensive in nature, the reason why nuclear has been chosen is that they
can operate far off shore and not in Australian territorial waters to provoke and possibly attack an
adversary far away, and though it has not been explicitly stated China is the object of this
antagonism, our largest trading partner and the nation upon who most of our prosperity depends.
China does not want war with Australia, China has not fired a shot in 40 years, China is trying to
prove that their model of prosperity without war is superior and they are successful in doing so.
AUKUS is not in the public interest
AUKUS has never been demanded by the Australian people
AUKUS places an excessive financial burden in the public purse, funds that could be much
better spent on public infrastructure.
There are no guarantees that Australia will receive anything from AUKUS except public debt,
nuclear waste from Britain and USA and risk.
AUKUS is provocative to our most valuable trading partner
Please cancel AUKUS now.
Submission- Dr Marty Branagan -re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion- it’s the worst foreign policy mistake
It will contribute to a regional arms race which could have disastrous consequences.
China and Australia have a mutually-beneficial trade relationship which this deal will harm.
a growing national movement which wants an end to AUKUS
Submission no. 10 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions
The acquisition of a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines (some of them second-hand) costing up to
A$368 billion is the largest defence project since World War Two and the worst foreign policy
mistake since a failed bid to introduce conscription during World War One, according to former
prime minister Paul Keating. Occurring with little public consultation, it was supported by a ‘Red
Alert’ series of fearmongering front-page articles in Australia’s ‘Nine’ newspapers in consultation
with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which has close ties to arms dealers, and which argued
for greater defence capabilities to resist a supposedly imminent war with China. Yet China and
Australia have a mutually-beneficial trade relationship which this deal will harm. It will contribute to
a regional arms race which could have disastrous consequences. It is already shifting valuable
resources away from the more pressing threat of global warming facing both countries. The cost is
massive at a time of desperate need for social housing and cost-of-living relief; for that money, far
more people could be employed in education, health, housing, agricultural, environmental and social
service
The project can be cancelled with a year’s notice according to a revamped AUKUS agreement tabled
in federal parliament, and there’s no guarantee whether an almost $5 billion payment to the USA
will be refunded if no nuclear-powered boats are delivered. Australia has also agreed to indemnify
the US and UK against any loss or injury connected to nuclear materials transferred here. Resistance
has been fierce, with a series of protests against plans for a new submarine base in Port Kembla,
some drawing 5,000 protesters. The South Coast Labor Council, consisting of unions representing
50,000 workers, fear the base could choke a nascent clean energy sector by taking up scarce land
and ushering in security curbs, while the permanent presence of U.S. warships would be a nuclear
target. Environmentalists are concerned about the fact that ‘Australia shall 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’. The ‘Marrickville Declaration’ by 30
community groups such as the Anti-AUKUS Coalition is part of a growing national movement which
wants an end to AUKUS, claiming that its cost and the open-ended commitment to foreign military
priorities are to the detriment of priorities for a resilient, safe and peaceful Australian society. It also
violates Australian sovereignty and our commitment to a nuclear-free Pacific under the Treaty of
Rarotonga (the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty).
Australia’s primary threat is global warming and extreme weather events such as the catastrophic
Lismore floods and 2019-20 bushfires. We would be better served by new fire-fighting planes and
conversion from military operations to disaster response and emergency relief services. Increased
spending on foreign aid, cultural ties, diplomacy, refugee resettlement and nonviolent defence
would strengthen regional peace more cheaply and with a lower environmental footprint.
Dr Marty Branagan
Senior Lecturer in Peace Studies
University of New England
15 August 2024
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……………………………..
Submission- Bevan Ramsden -re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion- leads to war against China
a significant threat to the health of the Australian People who live or work within the nuclear zone
ties Australia and indeed commits Australia, to use them in a war with the US, for example against China.
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
No public consultation has been undertaken,
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)
Ted O’Brien’s not so excellent nuclear adventure
September 5, 2024 , https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/ted-o-brien-s-not-so-excellent-nuclear-adventure-20240905-p5k88l.html
NUCLEAR ENERGY
Can we please stop referring to the Coalition’s nuclear fantasy as a policy or even a plan? (“Coalition has cash plan for nuclear towns”, 5/9)? Nuclear power is prohibited in this country. This, combined with other hurdles such as considerable expense, decade-long build times, high water use and waste disposal risks, highlights just how ridiculously improbable it is that nuclear power will ever eventuate in Australia. We must call out opposition spokesman Ted O’Brien’s preposterous, piecemeal energy suggestions for what they are: a divisive, distraction that will prolong the use of coal and gas, worsening the climate crisis.
Amy Hiller, Kew
Coalition appears all at sea with nuclear idea
At first, the Coalition said it would consult with communities before any decisions were made about nuclear reactors. Then in June, David Littleproud said the Coalition was prepared to make “tough decisions” about building nuclear reactors where local communities opposed them.
Now, those communities will be “showered with gifts” (“Cash splash for nuclear towns under Coalition plan”, 5/9), in the form of dividends from nuclear power.
The Coalition appears all at sea with their nuclear idea, while continuing their denigration of our transition to renewables. They falsely promise dividends on the basis of a taxpayer-funded, hugely costly and theoretically unavailable-until-2040s technology. And for it to be viable, renewables would have to be switched off.
Fiona Colin, Malvern East
Coalition still not producing evidence for its case
Once again the Coalition is claiming that nuclear power plants – the first operating by 2037 – would supply the “cheapest electricity in the nation”. And again they are doing so without providing the supporting financial modelling.
Perhaps the experience with the UK’s first nuclear plant project in well over 20 years provides the explanation as to why they are being so coy. First, when initially proposed, the two unit 3200 MW Hinkley Point C in Somerset was expected to supply power by 2017 but is now not expected to do so until around 2030. Second, its owner EDF has indicated recently that the cost could increase to £46 billion ($92 billion), approximately double the initial estimate made in 2015. And this with a plant designed by an experienced French company which currently operates 46 nuclear units, being built in a country with a well-established nuclear power industry.
Kevin Bailey, Croydon
There is a ″mature″ debate about nuclear in regions
It was interesting to see Ted O’Brien, the man who would be energy minister if the Coalition wins the next election, claiming Australia is having an ″immature″ energy debate which excludes nuclear advocates (″Coalition has cash plan for nuclear towns″, 5/9).
I was at the Gippsland New Energy Conference this week acting as a facilitator in a session titled ″Beyond Coal: Navigating the Future of Energy″. Across the conference, we heard speakers from all kinds of new energy: solar, offshore wind, battery storage and indeed, nuclear.
Serious questions were asked about nuclear, including who will handle an emergency if there is one, who will have to give up water to power the thirsty nuclear reactor, who would be responsible for the multi-billion dollar rehabilitation of the open cut mine if the coal-fired power station is compulsorily acquired by the federal government against the wishes of the owner, where the toxic waste would be stored for 100,000 years, which roads would we use to transport it there, and how a government-owned nuclear reactor could make any profit given the energy is so expensive.
There were some 800 people at the new energy conference this year: Rarely, have I seen a community approach a tough issue with such goodwill.
Tony Wolfe, Warragul
The massive new projects propelling South Australia towards 100 per cent net renewables
The season of renewable records has begun early in Australia, sending
average coal power down below 50 per cent for the first time, establishing
new records for wind output, and sending grid demand to new lows across the
main grid.
The state at the forefront of the country’s energy transition
is, without a shadow of a doubt, South Australia. It kicked out coal in
2016, and is steadily reducing its dependence on gas. When a new
transmission link to NSW is completed in the next two years, the state
expects to run at 100 per cent net renewables – reducing gas to a support
role and becoming the first multi-gigawatt scale grid in the world to reach
such a milestone through wind and solar, rather than more conventional
renewable sources.
Big industry is lining up to build new factories and
production facilities to take advantage of cleaner power and lower
wholesale prices, and BHP is talking of doubling its mining production at
the giant Olympic Dam – and its smelting and refining capacity. The
latest data shows that wind and solar provided enough power to meet more
than 70 per cent of the state’s electricity demand in the last 12 months
– although the government says it is 75 per cent.
Over the past 30 days
it has been 86.4 per cent, and over the past week it has been more than 105
per cent. Rooftop solar now supplies the equivalent of all state demand on
occasions, presenting a complication for the market operator which prefers
to run the grid with assets it can control. It’s working on that solution
with new inverter standards and grid protocols, including solar
switch-offs. South Australia also led the country, and the world, in the
installation of the first big battery, the original “Tesla Big Battery”
now properly known as the Hornsdale Power Reserve.
Renew Economy 6th Sept 2024
TODAY: Is Ukraine REALLY winning the war?
The mainstream media would have us believe that Ukraine IS going to win this war against Russia. The latest news coverage of the Ukrainian incursion into Russia at Kursk is the most blatant lying propaganda.
Stories about how happy are the Russian residents of Kursk, to have the Ukrainians there, treating them so kindly! Stories about how overwhelmed are Putin, and the Russian administration to see themselves losing the war at Kursk! Stories about how delighted is the Ukrainian population with this glorious victory now enthusing them about the inevitability and certainty of Ukraine’s coming victory!
And of course – the whole Russian intention in starting what was at first a “special military operation” was always to destroy democracy, invade NATO countries, and take over the world, wasn’t it? Nothing at all to do with ending Ukraine’s 8 year war against the Donbass area having autonomy, was it?
Anyway, leaving that purpose aside, we might remember that The U.S. Has Staged Operations With Extremists From Ukraine To Undermine Russia For Nearly 8 Decades. So, it’s no surprise that today’s media coverage of this war continues to toe the USA line.
But – coming back to today – this latest coverage of the Ukrainian incursion to Kursk is a remarkably egregious example of deceptive coverage of the news.
Admittedly – there is some truth in it. Some Ukrainians have undoubtedly been kind to the Russian inhabitants (the few not evacuated) of Kursk. Ukrainian soldiers have undoubtedly been brave and forceful. For some Ukrainians, the whole thing is probably a morale boost.
Now we come to the Russian propaganda about the Kursk invasion ? – 9700 Ukrainian Soldiers Killed Invading Russia, -the latest report from Russian military expert, Dr. Vladimir Kozin. So the losses are “around 80% of the entire invading force“ “Other losses include: 81 tanks, 39 infantry fighting vehicles, 70 armored personnel carriers, 576 armored combat vehicles …………………………..”
Even assuming that this article is propaganda from the other side – it is pretty shaking! What if there’s some truth in it?
And what was the purpose of the incursion to Kursk? It was not a military target. Was it to endanger or sabotage Kursk’s nuclear power station? The Ukrainians made a point of stating that it was not their plan for Ukraine to permanently occupy this area. It did take many troops away from the aim of repelling Russian troops from the crucial battle lines. Ukraine’s president has been accused of sacrificing towns on the eastern front for the headline-grabbing Kursk offensive into Russia.
The Western media has really been making a welter of this purported military success at Kursk. But that is looking more and more like a cover-up for the reality that Ukraine is not going to win this war, despite the frightening new developments towards USA and NATO supplying long range weapons and agreeing to their use. What? Ukraine Is Not Winning the War? The Narrative Turns – Now What?
Submission- Amelia King -re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion- a shoddy deal for submarines that might not even exist.
a projected$368 billion will be used to build submarines while teachers, students, nurses and doctors will be left in the dust.
If any damages relating to ‘nuclear risk’ occur, we’re paying the bill! How much debt are you willing to put us in?
Submission no.9 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions
As a member of the Australian public, I cannot agree that AUKUS is a good idea for the
wellbeing of Australia as a whole.
Firstly, AUKUS is a horrifying idea in the sense that it is taking money away from the
Australia institutions that well and truly need it. The already underfunded sectors of
education1
, public health2
and climate action3
are put in further risk by AUKUS;
a projected$368 billion will be used to build submarines while teachers, students, nurses and doctors
will be left in the dust. These people are our citizens; why aren’t you listening to their
voices? Our public education systems have been left in shambles for a while now, and for
what? The idea of submarines? A fraction of 368 billion can be so much better used not only
to fund the education of students but also provide support for both the students and their
teachers, who are leaving the education industry at an alarming rate. Similarly, the public
health sector has little to no funding in areas such as preventative health4
, which is arguably the most important field we should be focusing on. Don’t even mention nurses, ambulance drivers, doctors and other technicians who are notoriously overworked and underpaid. How
long until the next pandemic? How long until we destroy public health completely and only
private fields remain? Who will pay for your submarines then? And finally, climate action.
You propose that paying for these submarines will bolster our future, and yet we burn in the
present. We are home to one of the great natural wonders of the world, and yet your inaction
and dependence upon foss fossil fuels will cause it to die. How does it feel to have the blood of
our land on your hands?
You claim that by building these submarines, we will grow our domestic workforce. The
truth of it is that we’re getting a shoddy deal for submarines that might not even exist. The
US and the UK can walk away from AUKUS with just a year’s notice; what then? Why are
you gambling with our money? If any damages relating to ‘nuclear risk’ occur, we’re paying
the bill! How much debt are you willing to put us in? Even if the US or the UK doesn’t back
out and somehow no damage occurs, who’s to say that the US will even deliver the promised
product? This is new technology being dealt with; we don’t know if it’ll even work! And
we’ll still be $368 billion in debt! But let’s be honest, if you cared so much about bolstering
our defence, you would’ve bought from France when you had the chance.
So, it really comes down to this: for how long will you choose capital over your people? No
matter how many jobs this AUKUS deal proposes for the Australian public, how can you go
forward with it in good conscious that this was the most utilitarian choice to make for our
country? Where do you suppose you’ll suddenly be able to produce the money we so
desperately need to be funnelled to the public when we’re 368 billion dollars in debt? Truly, I
have to wonder what the benefit of AUKUS might be. You’re a public servant, so fucking act
like it. Listen to what we’re all saying. Listen to our voices. Get rid of AUKUS.
1 https://www.aeufederal.org.au/news-media/news/2023/how-school-funding-fails-public-schools-report
2 https://www.phaa.net.au/Web/Web/News/Media-releases-2024/New-analysis-uncovers-reality-aboutGovernment-public-health-and-prevention-research-funding-
.aspx#:~:text=%E2%80%9CAcross%20the%20board%20health%20prevention,no%20funding%20attached%20
to%20it.
3 https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/australia/
4 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1326020024000463?via%3Dihub
Submission- Andrew Gaines -re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion- could take us to war against China.
up to now neither the Australian public nor the Parliament has been given an opportunity to veto the AUKUS agreement.
by militarily aligning with the United States against China we could probably turn China into an enemy.
Proceeding down the path of AUKUS will not make us safer
Submission no. 8 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions
This Agreement should not go forward
The question at hand is whether the Agreement on Cooperation Related to Naval
Nuclear Propulsion should be ratified. The agreement paves the way for Virginia
class submarines to be acquired by Australia, along with nuclear fuel and relevant IP.
The previous Liberal government and the present Labor government have both
committed Australia to AUKUS submarines. To my knowledge this was done without
a Parliamentary inquiry, and without considered public debate.
Which is to say, up t o now neither the Australian public nor the Parliament has been
given an opportunity to veto the AUKUS agreement. De facto, this Agreement
provide such an opportunity.
Should Australia ratify the agreement? The short answer is no.
War became obsolete with the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. The obvious intention of the AUKUS program is to increase the United
States offensive capacity against China (after all these are attack submarines).
As a Chinese diplomat quipped, “Of course, your submarines are for sightseeing?”
Although the Labor government and the media portray China as a growing military
threat against Australia, two former Australian Prime Ministers, one of whom speaks
fluent Mandarin, assert that China is no threat to us
However, by militarily aligning with the United States against China we could
probably turn China into an enemy. And if the insanity of nuclear war erupts, well,
there goes Pine Gap, US bases in the Northern Territory, Port Kembla if that’s the
homeport for nuclear powered submarines… and who knows what else
In the greater scheme of things Australia, America, Russia, China and other countries
should be doing our best to tone down geopolitical military jockeying. The alternative
– highly likely in my view – is that at some point, whether through technological
accident or demented leadership on one side or another, things get out of hand, a
nuclear exchange occurs, and our globalized civilization is destroyed within a matter
of hours.
Proceeding down the path of AUKUS will not make us safer. This Agreement should not go forward.
Submission- Susan Benham-re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion- financial and security concerns
Submission no. 3. I express strong concerns about the broad parameters of this document.
The serious nature of the contents of this treaty deserves adequate financial and security
protections for Australia which are lacking as it stands now.
Within the present document that outlines the procurement by Australia of nuclear powered
submarines from the US and the UK, the following clauses need to contain detailed
information that foreseeably protect Australia from future unreasonable claims by the US and
the UK
Article IV C I propose that any prices of Special Nuclear Material that do not have a
market price should be decided by Australia, US and UK – not only by US and UK as
currently exists in the agreement.
Any of the three countries is at liberty to end the deal with 12 months notice.
I propose that the consequences and subsequent liabilities following an exit should be
explicitly stated:
such that a clause be added to the agreement that provides for reasonable and adequate financial
compensation to Australia for irredeemable costs incurred until this point.
- Furthermore, Australia should not be liable to indemnify the US for ‘’liability, loss, costs,
damage or injury’’ relating to any of the nuclear submarines.
The clause should state ‘’may be liable for loss, costs, damage or injury to any of the US
nuclear submarines only if it can be unequivocably proven negligence by Australia was
involved’’. To not state this is egregious. - The extreme length of time for this Agreement is unacceptable: it is realistic that unforeseen
events / actions could occur within the next 51 years and unforeseeable financial demands on
Australia could be made.
I propose that the time limit for this Treaty be reduced to 35 years
Another Hunter Valley earthquake sounds alarms on Coalition’s nuclear scheme
Solutions for Climate Australia,
Elly Baxter, Senior Campaigner for Solutions for Climate Australia, 7 Sept 24 https://newshub.medianet.com.au/2024/09/another-hunter-valley-earthquake-sounds-alarms-on-coalitions-nuclear-scheme/65734/
The third earthquake in two weeks in NSW’s Hunter Valley today highlights the serious questions about the Liberal National Coalition’s plans for nuclear reactors they are still refusing to answer, says Solutions for Climate Australia.
The earthquake’s epicentre was again very close to the existing Liddell power station, where the Coalition aims to build at least one nuclear reactor. Solutions for Climate Australia Senior Campaigner Elly Baxter said the Coalition has not answered the many questions already raised about safety, emergency response, radioactive waste and water availability at the site.
“Five of the seven sites proposed by the Coalition as suitable for nuclear reactors experience earthquake activity,” Baxter said. “Their energy spokesman Ted O’Brien told ABC Radio Newcastle that a nuclear reactor at Liddell would not proceed if it was deemed unsafe, but what about the four other sites? If these sites are ruled out, where will the Coalition build their nuclear reactors? And will those communities be informed ahead of the federal election?
“Meanwhile, the safety issues we raised two weeks ago remain unanswered. Would local firefighting volunteers handle the nuclear material? What training would local firefighting volunteers receive in handling nuclear radiation? Who would train them? Would the army come in to help?
“How would iodine tablets be distributed to locals to try to reduce cancer risk? What would be the fallout zone and where would the local emergency staging area be? Where would nuclear refugees be accommodated?
“Would the Federal Government be responsible for the emergency management given under the Liberal National policy, the Federal Government would own the nuclear reactor?
“What would happen to the radioactive waste and who would be responsible for that? Where would the enormous volume of water come from to deal with the toxic, radioactive emergency?
“The safety issues highlighted by these earthquakes only compound our concerns that nuclear reactors will take far too long to build to protect Australians from the worst impacts of climate change.”
ENDS
Give Me Missiles: Gina Rinehart and the Pathologies of Mining
Australian Independent Media, September 6, 2024, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark
Power should only ever be vested carefully, and certainly not in the hands of mining magnate Gina Rinehart, a creature so comically absurd as to warrant immediate dismissal in any respectable commentary. But Australia’s richest human being demands to be noticed, given the insensible influence she continues to exert in press and policy circles. Rants of smelly suggestion become pearls of perfumed wisdom, often occasioned by large amounts of largesse she disgorges on her sycophantic following.
Of late, she has been busy in her narcissistic daftness. At the National Bush Summit held last month, she proved particularly unstoppable. While advertised as a News Corp project backed by a number of Australian corporate heavies (NBN, CommBank, Woolworths and Qantas), Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting left its unmistakable mark. The events offered a Rinehart Hall of Mirrors, self-reflecting her purchased eminence. She funded much of it; she structured it; she brought the necessary tyrannical boredom in tow.
Before remarking on some of the observations, brief mention should be made about the source of Rinehart’s animal spirit. One should never condemn, outright, the children for the sins of their parents. But she is the exception that proves the rule. Her father, Lang Hancock, was an elemental Australian version of a 20th century conquistador, an enterprising plunderer of the land and equally immune to cultural refinements and such novel notions as human rights. With barbaric clarity and genocidal suggestion, he proposed in 1984 that unassimilated members of the Indigenous populace be given the following treatment: “dope up the water up, so that they were sterile and would breed themselves out in the future and that would solve the problem.”
At the Port Hedland leg of the Bush Summit, Rinehart fantasised about having the military styled comforts offered by the US firm Rafael Advanced Defense Systems in 2011 to Israel. The Iron Dome system, used to shield Israel from rocket attacks, could just as well be deployed in Australia. But instead of focusing on protecting civilians, the batteries would be invaluable in protecting Rinehart’s own mining assets in the Pilbara.
A gorged ego, the country’s perceived welfare and mining interests are all fused in an unsteady mix of justified plunder under the cover of military protection for Hancock Prospecting. “It is no good having the resources of the Pilbara unless we can ship it out. Hence, we should have defence to keep our railways and ports open, and defend our sea lanes.” To the defensive dome could also be added “war drones, and smart sea mines.”
The next target in this spray of barking madness was government regulation – at least the sortthat impairs her extractive practices. With brattish petulance, she even claimed that Canada had treated the mining industry with greater aplomb and respect, despite having, in her words, a “socialist” Prime Minister in the form of Justin Trudeau. Various taxes, such as the Fringe Benefits Tax, should be ditched, given the damage it was doing to Northern Australia………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………. All liberal democracies face similar challenges: how to make sure the thick of mind remain distracted and resistant to riot, and keeping the malevolently wealthy contained within the realm of accountability. Rinehart’s commentaries suggest a desire to escape that orbit of accountability, operating as an unelected politician’s wish list. And being unelected is exactly how she likes it. The compromise and messiness of parliamentary debate and the making of policy would prove too excruciating and intolerable. Far better to intimidateelected representatives from afar, using platoons of paid-up lobbyists, consultants and cheering propagandists. When feeling generous, give them a confessional platform to ask forgiveness for their sins.
Were the fossil fuel lobby to be equipped with actual weapons, a coup would not be off the cards. A few Australian prime ministers have already had their heads, politically speaking,served on a platter to the mining industry, with Rinehart’s blessings. A depressing conclusion can thereby be drawn. Australia is a country where rule is exercised by those outside parliament. It’s Rinehart on minerals and metals and the Pentagon and the US military complex on weapons and military bases. What a stupendous state of affairs Australians find themselves in. https://theaimn.com/give-me-missiles-gina-rinehart-and-the-pathologies-of-mining/
Racist statements by mining magnate Lang Hancock, and claims that he had Aboriginal children
Lest we forget – the great mining magnates have not been so great on human rights.
This becomes an issue now, when their names can be attached to Australian sports teams. Surely an embarrassing whitewash of despicable public persons.
THE families of people claiming to be children born out of wedlock to Lang Hancock work in his mines, it was claimed yesterday. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/daughter-claims-lang-hancocks-descendants-work-in-mines/story-fn7x8me2-1226271180226 Gemma Jones From:Herald Sun February 15, 2012
Aboriginal elder Hilda Kickett, 68, who has been accepted as Mr Hancock’s love child by his widow, Rose Porteous, said some of the relatives of seven other suspected part-Aboriginal children of the late mining magnate were even paid royalties from mines opened on their traditional land.
Many of Mr Hancock’s suspected grandchildren have taken jobs in family mines and others in the vast northwest of Western Australia, which was opened up by the businessman……
Mr Hancock, who discovered iron ore in the Pilbara, once called for part-Aboriginals to be sterilised.
He also dismissed indigenous land claims, saying: “The question of Aboriginal land rights and things of this nature shouldn’t exist.”
He referred to part-Aboriginal people as “no-good half-castes” and said to deal with those who were unemployed he would “dope the water up so that they were sterile and would breed themselves out in the future”. ….. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/daughter-claims-lang-hancocks-descendants-work-in-mines/story-fn7x8me2-1226271180226
Climate review backs solar, wind, hydrogen, not nuclear
Marion Rae, Sep 05, 2024, https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2024/09/05/climate-review-backs-solar-not-nuclear
An independent review of Australia’s climate response has found no need, or time, for nuclear to be added to the energy mix to reduce emissions.
The Climate Change Authority on Thursday released its review of the ways big-emitting industries must change for the country to reach net zero emissions by 2050.
“We need to seize this once in a generation opportunity to ensure Australia’s rapid and orderly transition as the world transforms to avert the worst impacts of climate change,” chair of the authority Matt Kean said.
But developers of renewable energy projects need to engage with regional communities about the energy transition, and better explain the benefits that can be shared, he said.
As well as solar and wind for electricity generation and batteries for energy storage, the rapid development of emerging technologies such as hydrogen will play a part, the review finds.
The authority steers clear of nuclear power, citing federal and state bans, other available technologies, the long lead time and the premium it would cost for a first-of-a-kind reactor deployed in Australia.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen said the independent advice confirms nuclear could not replace aging coal capacity fast enough to support Australia’s 2050 target.
“Any delay risks not just our energy reliability and security but our ability to act on emissions reduction and secure the future for the next generation,” he said.
But Kean warned the nation must overhaul supply chains, production systems, public and private finance, and workforces.
The advice comes as the federal government faces a deadline on declaring an emissions reduction target for 2035, with Australia within striking range of its legislated target of 43 per cent of emissions cut by 2030.
The Australian Conservation Council welcomed the analysis showing the country can meet and beat its 2030 ambitions and accelerate towards a 75 per cent by 2035 target.
The modelled scenarios make it clear the extraction of fossil fuels will need to be reduced and ultimately phased out, spokesman Paul Sinclair said.
“A high ambition 2035 target is critical to set a clear goal for the government’s Future Made in Australia strategy,” Sinclair said.
The Pathways Review was commissioned by parliament to provide independent and technical advice on decarbonising the economy.
Sectors covered include energy and electricity, transport, industry and waste, agriculture and land, resources, and the built environment.
The Greens said Australia could hit net-zero by 2035 but Labor was “crab-walking away from strong climate targets” while approving coal and gas projects that will run through to 2080.
“Labor are climate frauds. Small targets won’t stop the climate crisis,” leader Adam Bandt said.
How much water does nuclear really need?
The Coalition’s plan for atomic energy has raised concerns about the amount of water that reactors will use in a hotter and drier Australia.
AFR, Christopher Niesch, 5 Sept 24 .
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s proposal to build seven nuclear reactors in five states has put nuclear energy in the spotlight. While Dutton claims nuclear power is a zero emissions solution to the energy transition, Anthony Albanese’s Labor government says it will take too long to build, be too costly, and will use too much water.
Under the Coalition plan, there would be five large-scale power plants and two small modular reactors, with the first to be operational by either 2035 or 2037.
Based on the scant detail so far available, the CSIRO has estimated a total build cost of about $60 billion in today’s dollars for these facilities. Other estimates, based on actual build costs abroad, are much higher.
But Labor has raised concerns about the amount of water that the reactors would consume, especially in a hotter and drier climate more prone to drought in the 2030s and 2040s…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
In an interview with Sky News in July, then agriculture minister Murray Watt said nuclear power uses “substantially more” water than coal does.
“There’s a real question about where that water is going to come from, whether some of that water is going to need to be taken off farmers, and what farmers are going to have to pay for their water if there’s a competing use for that water,” he said.
Watt also said that based on international practice, farmers would need to take expensive steps during a nuclear leak and would need to inform their customers that they operate within the fallout zone.
Queensland Premier Steven Miles has also said nuclear power could risk the state’s water security, with water consumption at the proposed stations depleting water reserves during droughts.
As coal stations were decommissioned they would have given up their water rights, but nuclear power stations would have to use that water for their 80-year lifetime, Miles says.
…………………………………………………………………………Where will water for the reactors come from?
The water would be from the same sources that existing coal-fired plants use.
Dutton says that if elected to government the Coalition would build nuclear reactors at locations where there are closed or scheduled-to-close coal-fired power stations.
“Each of these locations offer important technical attributes needed for a zero-emissions nuclear plant, including cooling water capacity and transmission infrastructure,” he says. “That is, we can use the existing poles and wires, along with a local community which has a skilled workforce.”
None are now owned by the commonwealth, which Dutton suggests could be overcome by compulsorily acquiring the sites.
Five full-scale reactors would be built in NSW, Victoria and Queensland, with small modular reactors in Western Australia and South Australia.
How much water does green power use?
Johanna Bowyer, an analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, notes that solar and wind energy don’t rely on water and so the water currently used by coal-fired power stations could be used for agriculture instead.
And wind and solar energy could keep running at full capacity during times of drought, unlike coal or nuclear power.
Bowyer notes that there have been instances where coal-fired power stations have had to reduce their output during drought.
In 2007, the Tarong Power Station in Queensland cut its generation by 25 per cent in January and followed up with another 45 per cent cut in March to save water during the drought.
That water was also being used for drinking, so they prioritised that usage over the power station usage,” she says.
“Who knows what the future holds, but there’s some historical basis there for potential challenges, particularly during droughts. But it all depends on … the water cooling design for the nuclear power plant and it depends on how exactly they satisfy their water cooling requirements.
“That’s all really yet to be detailed in the Coalition’s plan.”
Where does all this leave the Coalition’s plan?
Dutton hasn’t released much more detail about his plans, so we can’t know exactly how much water they will use.
Nor is it clear how much water the small modular reactors (SMR) the Coalition is planning will use. more https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/how-much-water-does-nuclear-really-need-20240826-p5k5b6
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 