Greens leader Adam Bandt says Australia should walk away from AUKUS in wake of Trump’s tariffs
ABC News, By political reporter Maani Truu, 16 Mar 25
In short:
Greens leader Adam Bandt has urged the government to walk away from the AUKUS pact with the United States, describing the imposition of steel and aluminium tariffs as a “wake-up call” to rethink Australia’s relationship with its key ally.
It comes as Trade Minister Don Farrell said the challenge going forward is figuring out what US President Donald Trump wants and to “make an offer he can’t refuse”.
What’s next?
The minor party is open to a formal agreement with Labor in the event of a hung parliament after the upcoming federal election, due on or before May 17.
Greens leader Adam Bandt says the government should get out of the AUKUS deal with the United States and explore other relationships in the wake of Donald Trump’s tariffs, warning it puts a “very big” target on Australia’s back.
The minor party has long opposed the AUKUS nuclear submarine project, which is expected to cost $368 billion, but Mr Bandt said the new tariffs imposed this week were a “wake-up call that we need to rethink our relationship with the United States”.
“We should get out of AUKUS, now is not the time to be hitching Australia’s wagon to Donald Trump — it puts Australia at risk and it is billions of dollars being spent on submarines that might never arrive,” he told ABC’s Insiders on Sunday.
Mr Bandt said the US president was a “very dangerous man” and it was “wishful thinking” to believe he would come to Australia’s aid in the event of a security threat.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has already ruled out walking away from the AUKUS deal as a response to the tariffs, describing it as a “good deal for Australia”.
The trilateral agreement with the US and UK would deliver Australia eight new nuclear submarines based on British design and with American technology, with the first five due by the middle of the 2050s.
The federal government had fought for an exemption to Mr Trump’s sweeping 25 per cent tariff on steel and aluminium imports, but on Wednesday the White House revealed that no country would be spared.
In the wake of the decision, Mr Albanese said it was “not a friendly act” and lashed the US president’s order as “entirely unjustified”.
But he said Australia would not respond with tariffs of its own, pivoting instead to a pre-election pitch at Australians to “buy local”……………………………………………………………………………………………
Greens open-minded to formal hung parliament deal
The Greens are preparing for the possibility of a minority government after the federal election, which is due on or before May 17.
Mr Bandt said the party would be “open minded” to striking a formal agreement with Labor if that eventuated, as was the case in 2010, categorically ruling out working with the Coalition leader.
He said his preference would be to work with Labor to get action on the cost of living crisis and climate change………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
he said a hung parliament would be a “once in a generation chance” to push the major parties to act…………………………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-16/greens-adam-bandt-aukus-insiders/105057580?utm_medium=social&utm_content=sf276668174&utm_campaign=tw_abc_news&utm_source=t.co
The Coalition MP who tried to stop the solar farm that will help save thousands of local jobs
What is clear is that if the LNP had its way, and was in a position to deliver on its ideological infatuation with coal and nuclear, old energy paradigms and its obsession with “baseload”, then the smelters and the refineries would not survive beyond the end of the decade.
Giles Parkinson, Mar 16, 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-coalition-mp-who-tried-to-stop-the-solar-farm-that-will-help-save-thousands-of-local-jobs/
If you ever need an example of the idiocy and the ignorance behind the Coalition and LNP campaign against renewable energy in Australia, a good place to start would be the federal MP for Flynn, Colin Boyce.
The LNP member has staged a relentless campaign against renewables, and the proposed Smoky Creek solar project in his electorate in particular. Boyce has argued that they are “reckless”, and he has amplified numerous scare campaigns about heat islands and toxic runoffs, and even homelessness that these projects allegedly cause.
Just a few weeks ago, Boyce argued that wind and solar could not possibly provide the necessary power for the biggest employer in his own electorate, and the biggest energy consumer in the state, the Boyne Island smelter.
“The Gladstone community and the Boyne smelter rely heavily on reliable, predictable and affordable power. The reality of wind and solar output, for anyone enjoying their air-conditioning in this current heat, is that it cannot provide any of this,” Boyce wrote on his web page on January 22.
“It is not a 24-hour baseload solution. It isn’t always windy and it’s certainly not that sunny after 7pm.” Nuclear, Boyce suggested, is the only solution to replace coal fired power.
How wrong, how ill-informed, and how irresponsible can a local MP be?
Last week, Rio Tinto – the owner of the Boyne Island aluminium smelter and the Yarwun and Queensland Alumina refineries that together employ more than 3,000 people in Gladstone alone – announced the future of these assets will be secured, precisely because they have been able to sign deals for wind, solar and battery storage.
Rio Tinto last week signed 20-year off take deal with the 600 MW Smoky Creek solar farm and its huge 600 MW, 2,400 MWh DC coupled battery, adding to the previously announced contracts with the 1.4 GW Bungaban wind project and the 1.2 GW Upper Calliope solar project.
“These agreements are integral to repowering our Gladstone aluminium operations with affordable, reliable and lower carbon energy for decades to come,” said the head of Rio Tinto Australia Kellie Parker.
“For the first time, we have integrated crucial battery storage in our efforts to make the Boyne aluminium smelter globally cost-competitive, as traditional energy sources become more expensive.”
Rio Tinto says the deal with the Smoky Creek solar and battery means the company now has contracts in place for 80 per cent of its bulk energy needs in Gladstone, and 30 per cent of its “firming” requirements. But it is confident, given the plunging cost of battery storage technologies, that this gap can be readily addressed.
What is clear is that if the LNP had its way, and was in a position to deliver on its ideological infatuation with coal and nuclear, old energy paradigms and its obsession with “baseload”, then the smelters and the refineries would not survive beyond the end of the decade.
Coal fired generation is now too costly and the local coal generators are getting old, the alumina and aluminium products must compete in a world that demands low emission supplies, and nuclear is too far away – and way too expensive – to help.
Boyce’s argument against Smoky Creek is a taste of the nonsense, lies and deliberate misinformation peddled by the LNP, the Murdoch media, conservative “think-tanks” and nuclear boosters and then recycled back through frightened and ill-informed constitutents.
Boyce’s arguments against the Smoky Creek project included claims about “run -off” from solar farms affecting the barrier reef, of destroyed farming land, of businesses lost, and homelessness.
He has warned of “heat islands” (a disproved nonsense) and in 2023 wrote to the regulator warning that his constituents were “lying awake at night, concerned about the radiation and heat energy will affect their herds, their families, and their health.”
Boyce has long campaigned against Smoky Creek, standing up in Queensland state parliament in May, 2021, as the then member for Callide, complaining that the project would only employ five people on a full time basis. He didn’t consider the thousands of jobs that could be saved by the project going ahead.
That speech to parliament – you can watch the video here – was delivered less than five hours after the Callide coal generator, experienced a devastating explosion that very nearly caused a state-wide blackout, and might have were it not for the intervention of big batteries that the Coalition still dismisses as useless.
But Boyce, without a hint of irony, declared that the Callide explosion “reiterates the fact that we need baseload power.”
The biggest employer in his electorate, and the biggest consumer of energy in Australia, begs to differ. Perhaps it’s time that Boyce and his LNP colleagues listen to what they have and other experts have to say.
Giles Parkinson is founder and editor of Renew Economy, and of its sister sites One Step Off The Grid and the EV-focused The Driven. He is the co-host of the weekly Energy Insiders Podcast. Giles has been a journalist for more than 40 years and is a former deputy editor of the Australian Financial Review. You can find him on LinkedIn and on Twitter.
Australia Ramps Up Missile Arsenal Over Chinese Navy Concerns
Just the bare $74 billion
Canberra plans to strengthen the nation’s maritime defenses by equipping forces with anti-ship missiles and advanced targeting radars.
The Australian military is looking to deploy new long-range missiles amid concerns about the growing presence of Chinese warships off the country’s vast coastline.
In the latest move to defend Australia’s maritime security, the government plans to arm forces with anti-ship missiles and advanced targeting radars.
Canberra will allocate up to 74 billion Australian dollars (47 billion U.S. dollars) over the next decade for targeting technology, long-range strike capabilities, missile defense, and the manufacturing of missiles and explosives, according to official speeches and defense planning documents.
Two new types of advanced anti-ship missiles, to be fired from mobile launchers, are currently under evaluation, with a decision expected by 2026.
Future versions of one of the contenders, Lockheed Martin’s Precision Strike Missile, are expected to have a range of up to 1,000 km and could be launched from High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) launchers. Australia has ordered 42 HIMARS launchers from the United States, with the launchers expected to be in service by 2026-27, according to the defense department.
Mick Ryan, a retired Australian army major general, said the new missiles for the Australian army would provide a powerful strike capability and serve as a deterrent to potential adversaries………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Australian security officials expect more frequent and stronger visits by Chinese warships to the country’s coast…………………………….. https://www.theepochtimes.com/china/australia-ramps-up-missile-arsenal-over-chinese-navy-concerns-5825315?utm_source=Aobreakingnoe&utm_medium=Aoemail&utm_campaign=Aobreaking-2025-03-17&utm_content=NL_Ao&src_src=Aobreakingnoe&src_cmp=Aobreaking-2025-03-17&cta_utm_source=Aobreakingnoecta&est=LOrwYxBGZjROUs118QpMBtE0bgLYS8gg4SGZaQDgSPefhBQmyAxNjk%2BPa9v%2FDaL7DpE6eW86a08A
The Lizard’s Revenge
topnrosdeS146ag, https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064594993745
Anti-nuclear activists target BHP headquarters and block Collins St to mark the 14th anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.
Just after 10am today around 20 anti-nuclear activists dressed in white radioactive suits used barrels marked with the radioactive symbols and a car decorated with anti-nuclear statements to block the BHP head office. Inside the car a man in his 60s
secured himself to the steering wheel using a bike lock.
The Desert Liberation Front, who organised the protest highlighted the relationship between uranium mined by BHP and the Fukushima disaster:
“BHP makes its billions from destroying the planet and it is not only complicit in Fukushima by supplying the uranium but is part of the push for nuclear power in Australia, a plan that puts all of us and our planet in danger of another Fukushima.”
“The 14th anniversary of the Fukushima nuclear disaster comes at a time in Australia when the Liberal Party is attempting to dress up nuclear power as safe and the Labor Party is continuing with its commitment to AUKUS, a plan that will not only bring nuclear subs to ports around the country but will also result in nuclear waste dumps on sacred land.”
“We call on all political parties and private companies operating in this country to commit to banning the mining of uranium and the banning of all forms of nuclear power, both for weapons of war and as a false alternative to renewable energy.”
The end of coal and the fake nuclear energy ‘red herring’
Coal has had its day as Australia’s key energy source — regardless of what politicians driving an energy debate full of distractions tell you over the next few months.
And the suggestion that nuclear energy is a viable replacement is a red herring.
John Quiggin, New Daily, 16 Mar 25
Coal-fired power is more expensive than renewable alternatives, more polluting and the power stations that use it now are old, generally obsolete and unreliable. They won’t be rebuilt. That’s not just an opinion, it’s backed by all the evidence, regardless of how many political agendas argue otherwise.
Coalition claims that nuclear energy can replace coal simply don’t stack up. It’s expensive and can’t possibly be delivered in time to replace coal-fired energy. And gas is not the stopgap solution some would like to think.
The genuine answer to deliver on Australia’s growing energy needs is to quickly manage the nation’s transition to renewables.
Yet the debate over future energy supply and power prices, which will be front and centre during the election campaign, is part of the ongoing culture wars over energy largely imported from the US.
Coal: the facts
The core of the problem is simple. The coal-fired power stations that supply about 50 per cent of electricity to Victoria, NSW and Queensland are old, unreliable and polluting.
Most are 40-50 years old, using obsolete ‘subcritical’ technology – which is constrained by the boiling point of water, and is about 34 per cent efficient. Even the newest plants at Kogan Creek and Tarong in Queensland use outdated supercritical technology, which is about 39 per cent efficient.
The state of the art in coal-fired power, still highly polluting, is ‘ultra-supercritical’ at 43 per cent efficiency but there are no Australian plants of this kind. Worse still, despite their relative youth and modernity, Kogan Creek and Tarong have been among the least reliable plants in the network.
Most of these plants are due for retirement soon: On current plans, all but a handful will be gone by 2035. Meanwhile, electricity demand is set to grow with the electrification of transport, industry and home heating and perhaps with the development of energy-hungry data centres.
There is no prospect of building new coal-fired power stations. The cost far exceeds that of solar photovoltaics and wind, even after allowing for the cost of battery storage.
Outside China and India, which had 97 per cent of new or revived coal-fired proposals in the first half of 2024, almost no one is building new coal-fired power stations.
Even in those two countries, where demand is growing rapidly, the great majority of new capacity is renewable.
There may be some role for gas in meeting peak demand, though even this is doubtful. Gas is a hugely expensive source of electricity, with the problem made worse by the way successive governments have mishandled Australia’s gas resources, selling gas cheaply to foreign buyers that might have to be bought back at a loss.
It becomes obvious the only real question — despite the imported culture wars — is how rapidly we can manage the transition to renewables and what mix of generation, storage and transmission technologies will best achieve this.
Coalition politicians like Barnaby Joyce have led campaigns against solar and wind projects and the transmission lines needed to incorporate them into the grid………………………………………………………………
Nuclear red herring
Rather than concede that its policy can only delay the transition, the Coalition has relied on the claim that nuclear power will provide a replacement for coal.
Apart from being massively expensive, nuclear power can’t possibly be delivered in time to replace existing coal-fired power stations.
Even in countries with established systems of regulation, trained workforce and ‘brownfield’ sites, construction of reactors commonly takes 15 years or more.
For Australia, starting from scratch, 20 to 25 years is more likely.
Nuclear power is, quite simply, a red herring. Senator Matt Canavan incautiously admitted as much last year, saying that while nuclear is expensive “we’re latching onto it as a silver bullet, as a panacea, because it fixes a political issue for us”.
This dishonest campaign, along with wider voter concerns about the cost of living, may be enough to get the Coalition past the next election.
But the real energy issues will remain and wishing them away with the illusory prospect of nuclear power won’t work. Australians deserve some reality in the political debate.
Professor John Quiggin is a professor of economics at The University of Queensland and a former member of the Climate Change Authority. https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/life/science/environment/2025/03/15/end-coal-nuclear
Bandt says Australia should cancel Aukus payments and leave pact.
Bandt says Australia should reconsider its relationship with the US and particularly the Aukus pact.
“It is being led by a very dangerous man, and we should get out of Aukus. Now is not the time to be hitching Australia’s wagon to Donald Trump. It puts Australia at risk, and it is billions of dollars that is being spent on submarines that might never arrive, even the United States Congress has said that they’re not building the submarines at the rate that is needed to in order to abide by the Aukus agreement.”
Bandt says that Aukus commits Australia to serving as “an attack force of the United States” and that any assumption the Trump administration is committed to standing with Australia if there was a security threat is a mistake.
“Thinking that Donald Trump will ride to our rescue if there’s any security threat, is now absolutely wishful thinking.”
Money being spent on Aukus submarines could be reallocated in defence: Bandt
Asked about whether Australia should close Pine Gap, Bandt says his “priority right now is Aukus” given that Australia has already been paying the US and UK to rebuild their shipyards.
“The prime minister and the government just gave Donald Trump the best part of $1bn in the last couple of weeks for submarines that may never arrive. And what’s happened in return? We have tariffs imposed on us and now the threat of more.
That is something that we could concretely do right now, instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on submarines that may never arrive.”
Pressed on the possibility of increased defence spending if Australia were to walk away from the US alliance, Bandt says the money currently being spent on nuclear submarines could be reprioritised, including to other parts of the defence force.
We have costed the Aukus contributions. It’s over the near-term, the next decade. We’re looking at $70bn being spent on it. Now, reallocating that would go a long way to ensuring that Australia has a fit for purpose defence force.
Australia’s Trump cards
by Rex Patrick | Mar 16, 2025, https://michaelwest.com.au/tariffs-australias-trump-cards/
Australia does have Trump cards; North West Cape, Pine Gap, US Marine Rotational forces in Darwin, AUKUS and/or critical minerals that the US needs. Perhaps it’s also time to cancel the traitorous quantum computing development contract given to a US company over Australian companies.
These are things that we can put on the table. But doing that requires a measure of boldness. Our problem is our Prime Minister doesn’t have the ticker. Neither does the opposition leader. They are with Trump internationally as they are with the gas cartel domestically; owned and weak.
Anthony Albanese has it all wrong, writes former senator and submariner Rex Patrick. He’s trying to bribe Trump with sweeteners in response to trade tariffs. Instead, he needs to tell Trump he’s prepared to take things away.
US nuclear deterrent
Deep beneath the Indian Ocean, USS Kentucky, a nuclear-powered Ohio Class Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) ploughs its way through the water. Contained within its 18,750 tonne pressure hull structure are 24 Trident ballistic missiles, each capable of carrying eight nuclear warheads to targets up to 12,000 km away.
The launch of all of USS Kentucky’s missiles would, quite literally, change the world by exacting severe destruction on whole societies.
This ability to inflict damage on an exceptionally large scale is the basis of the SSBN’s deterrent capability. Unlike silo based missiles, which are vulnerable to a first strike, or aircraft delivered nuclear weapons, which can be pre-emptively hit or shot down, SSBNs are essentially invisible. They provide certainty of response.
SSBNs serve as the ultimate nuclear deterrent. They’re extremely important to the US, whose navy possesses 14 of them. At any one time six to eight will be at sea, with four of them always on deterrent patrol. They are spread about the globe giving the US President the ability to quickly deliver return-fire with nuclear warheads at any adversary.
24/7 Operation
The primary performance metric for an SSBN is to be able to deliver its nuclear weapons with reliability, timeliness and accuracy.
The Commanding Officer of USS Kentucky must be able to loiter undetected in a place suited for the launching of weapons, be able to receive an order to launch, have an understanding of the submarine’s exact navigational position to a high degree of accuracy and have the ability to launch the weapons quickly and reliably once that order arrives.
Loitering undetected and being able to receive an order to launch is challenging. When a submarine is near the surface, their hulls can be seen by aircraft, and raised periscopes and communications masts can be seen visually and on radar. Operating a submarine at shallow depth can also result in acoustic counter-detection.
The Commanding Officer of USS Kentucky knows that deep is the place to be.
But being deep frustrates a submarine’s ability to receive communications, particularly an ‘emergency action message’.
And that’s were Very Low Frequency (VLF) communications stations come into play. In conjunction with a submarine’s buoyant wire antenna – a long wire that sits just below the sea surface – they can receive a launch command from the President.
The US has a network of these VLF communication stations around the world including in Maine, Washington state and North West Cape, Australia.
North West Cape
The VLF Communication Facility at North West Cape (NAVCOMMSTA Harold E Holt) has been in operation since 1967. Born of secrecy, it was at first exclusively US operated until 1974 when the facility became joint and started communicating with Australian submarines. In 1991 it was agreed that Australia would take full command in 1992 and US Naval personnel subsequently left in 1993.
The facility’s deterrence support role now rests on a 2008 treaty which, ratified in 2011, is formally titled the “Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America relating to the Operation of and Access to an Australian Naval Communication Station at North West Cape in Western Australia”.
The station’s antenna is 360 meters high, with a number of supporting towers in a hexagon shape connected to it by wires. Considered to be the most powerful transmitter in the southern hemisphere, it transmits on 19.8 kHz at about 1 megawatt.
The station enables emergency action messages to be relayed to submerged SSBNs, like USS Kentucky, when operating in the Indian and Western Pacific oceans.
If the facility was taken out by a first strike nuclear attack, the US Air Force can temporarily deploy Hercules ‘TACAMO’ aircraft, with a long VLF wire they deploy while airborne. It’s a back-up measure with much lower transmission power capabilities.
A bedrock of certainty
After US steel and aluminium tariffs were put into play, the Australian Financial Review ran with a headline “How Australia was blindsided on the US tariffs”. The article opened with, “Australia pulled out all stops to avoid Donald Trump’s duties on steel and aluminium, but it’s impossible to negotiate with someone who doesn’t want anything”.
But the US does want something.
A fact not so well appreciated with respect to nuclear deterrence is it must be seen to be a robust and continuous capability. Onlookers must see a 24/7 capability including deployable submarines manned by well-trained crews, proven and reliable missile systems, an organised strategic command, a continuous communication system that reliably links that strategic command to the submarines with appropriate redundant communication pathways, training facilities and maintenance support.
Potential adversaries must know that they could be struck by an SSBN that could be lurking anywhere in the world’s major oceans.
Effective nuclear deterrence must be built on a bedrock of operational certainty.
Remove the transmitter keys
North West Cape forms part of that certainty.
Australia has the keys to take some certainty away. Without our cooperation the US can’t operate a certain global deterrent capability. Turning off transmissions at North West Cape reduces the effectiveness of the US nuclear deterrence while eliminating one Australian nuclear target
The North West Cape Treaty provides leverage. While the agreement has another decade to run, Article 12 provides that “either Government may terminate this Agreement upon one year’s written notice to the other Government.”
It’s open to Australia to signal or give actual notice of termination. That would focus up policy makers in Washington.
Would we do that to a mate? No, but the US is showing they are not a mate. They are not showing us the loyalty we have shown them. Other actions; abandoning Ukraine, threatening Greenland and Panama and a not so subtle push to annex Canada have also shown they are an unreliable ally who doesn’t share our values.
Trump cards
In negotiating with President Zelensky over the war in Ukraine, President Trump told him in no uncertain terms. “We’re going to feel very good and very strong. You’re, right now, not in a very good position. You’ve allowed yourself to be in a very bad position. You don’t have the cards right now with us.”
But Australia does have Trump cards; North West Cape, Pine Gap, US Marine Rotational forces in Darwin, AUKUS and/or critical minerals that the US needs. Perhaps it’s also time to cancel the traitorous quantum computing development contract given to a US company over Australian companies.
These are things that we can put on the table. But doing that requires a measure of boldness. Our problem is our Prime Minister doesn’t have the ticker. Neither does the opposition leader. They are with Trump internationally as they are with the gas cartel domestically; owned and weak.
Things have changed
Alliances are means to ends, not an end in themselves; and, as pointed out above, things have changed. We can pretend everything is okay, but that doesn’t make it so.
But the bureaucracy is unlikely to advise the Government of alternatives.
Our uniformed leaders are locked into AUKUS, a program that gives them relevance at the big table; something they wouldn’t otherwise have with the depleted Navy they’ve built out of their procurement incompetence. They’re clinging to that relevance, despite all signs showing the program is running aground.
Our spooks are in the same place. In response to calls to put Pine Gap on the table, former Home Affairs Secretary Mike Pezzullo (sacked for failing to safeguard sensitive government information) spoke out, putting the facility ahead of trade interests and Aussie jobs.
The bulk of the intelligence from Pine Gap is very usable for the US and rather less so for Australia. Senior spooks just want to maintain their own relevance in the Five Eyes club; but it’s a mistake to conflate their interest with our national interest.
We should be prepared to play our Trump cards and we should be prepared to face the national security consequences.
If that means an Australia that‘s more independent and more self-reliant, that would be a very good thing. If there’s a shock to the system, then all well and good, because in the changing world we find ourselves in, it might be the only thing that wakes the Canberra bubble from its stupor and pushes us to actually be prepared.
In these uncertain times, there are no hands more trustworthy than our own.
Rex Patrick is a former Senator for South Australia and earlier a submariner in the armed forces. Best known as an anti-corruption and transparency crusader, Rex is running for the Senate on the Lambie Network ticket next year – www.transparencywarrior.com.au.
Nuclear law: Could Australia go nuclear?
Holding Redlich, 11 March 2025, Scott Schlink, Valentina Hanna
Key takeaways
- The Coalition continues to advocate for its plan to introduce nuclear into Australia’s energy mix, claiming that it will provide cheaper, cleaner and consistent power. Part of this plan includes the construction of 7 nuclear power plants across the country.
- Australia has legislated prohibitions at commonwealth, state and territory levels against the construction and operation of nuclear plants and installations.
- The House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy recently published an interim report, concluding that nuclear power generation is not a viable option for Australia’s energy needs due to the significant deployment time and costs.
- A future Coalition Government must therefore navigate through a series of social, political and economic barriers to bring nuclear energy into the mix.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.holdingredlich.com/nuclear-law-could-australia-go-nuclear
US report discusses possibility of nuclear submarine accident, if subs supplied to Australia
A report to the US Congress discusses the possibility of an accident with a nuclear-powered submarine if it supplies one to Australia.
This comes amid renewed questions over whether an AUKUS submarine deal would leave the US vulnerable, and an accident off the English coast where a tanker carrying jet fuel for the US military has hit a cargo ship.
The risk of a marine accident is one of three risks looked at around the submarines deal that is central to the the AUKUS Pillar One pact.
The congressional research report said an accident “might call into question for third-party observers the safety of all US Navy nuclear-powered ships”.
That could erode US public support and the ability of US nuclear-powered ships to make port calls around the world.
The 111-page report by the Congressional Research Service discussed the US not handing over the subs at all – although Canberra just made a $870m downpayment on them.
Keeping them might make up for the US sub fleet hitting “a valley or trough” around now till the 2030s, and shipbuilding being at a low point, it said.
Donald Trump’s pick for the top defence policy role at the Pentagon, Elbridge Colby, has said AUKUS could leave the US short and “it would be crazy to have fewer SSN Virginia-class [attack submarines] in the right place and time”.
The new research report to Congress said Pillar One was launched in 2021 without a study of the alternatives.
One alternative “would keep all US-made SSNs under the control of the US Navy, which has a proven record extending back to 1954 of safely operating its nuclear-powered ships”.
The original Pillar One pact is for the US to sell between three and five subs to Australia, then Australia to use US and UK nuclear propulsion technology to build another three-to-eight nuclear powered, conventionally armed submarines itself, for a total fleet of eight.
Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles said on Monday that Elbridge Colby was broadly supportive of AUKUS, if enough subs were available.
Canberra was aware of the challenge in the US around producing submarines, “and that’s why we’re contributing to the US industrial base”.
“And it’s a significant contribution and it’s going to increase the availability of Virginia class submarines for the United States.
“That’s a point which has been accepted and understood by the US Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, in the meeting that I had with him.”
Australia was last year included as a “domestic source” of US military production for the first time, and is aiming to ramp up making ammunition and missiles, as well as test hypersonic weapons with the US and UK.
“That’s going well in the sense that we are making the contributions, we are seeing an increase in production rates, and over the time frame in which we are looking to have our Virginia class submarines transferred to us, we are confident that this challenge can be met,” Marles told the ABC.
In the US, Trump appears most focused on building an ‘Iron Dome’ missile defence system, as he mentioned in his speech to Congress. This would be another huge pressure on military spending.
The report to Congress covered three big risks – accidents and whether Pillar One was the best option for deterrence and “warfighting cost-effectiveness”, and how the tech – the “crown jewels of US military technology” – could be kept secret, especially from China.
It debated a different “military division of labour”.
“Australia, instead of using funds to purchase, build, operate, and maintain its own SSNs, would instead invest those funds in other military capabilities – such as … long-range anti-ship missiles, drones, loitering munitions, B-21 long-range bombers, or other long-range strike aircraft” to conduct “missions for both Australia and the United States”.
The general rule was programmes should not go ahead without a sound business case, it noted.
“There is little indication that, prior to announcing the AUKUS Pillar 1 project in September 2021, an analysis of alternatives … or equivalent rigorous comparative analysis was conducted to examine whether Pillar 1 would be a more cost-effective way to spend defence resources for generating deterrence and warfighting capability”.
The report made no mention of how New Zealand, Japan, Korea and others might join AUKUS Pillar Two, an agreement for sharing advanced military tech.
Coalition’s nuclear plan most expensive option for Australia, former US climate official says
Dr Jonathan Pershing, a former US special envoy for climate change and climate negotiator under Democratic presidents, says few countries building nuclear power plants
Adam Morton Climate and environment editor, Tue 11 Mar 2025 , https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/mar/11/coalitions-nuclear-plan-most-expensive-option-for-australia-former-us-climate-official-says
A longtime senior US climate official has weighed in on Australia’s energy debate, saying “very, very few people” internationally are building new nuclear power plants and, in most cases, the combination of solar and batteries delivers “higher reliability than gas”.
Dr Jonathan Pershing, a former US special envoy for climate change and climate negotiator under Democratic presidents, was in Sydney on Monday to speak at the city’s climate action week. Asked whether nuclear power as proposed by the Coalition was a viable option for Australia, he said “almost all the numbers that I have seen suggest that that’s a more expensive option than other choices”.
“What’s really interesting is the global community’s progress on nuclear with, frankly, a bigger head start than Australia’s had, because the ban here has been in place for a long time,” he told Guardian Australia.
“Very, very few people are building new nuclear.”
Pershing, who is program director at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, said even if Australia was able to overcome two immediate hurdles to nuclear energy – the legislated ban and an historical lack of public support for the technology – it then faced asking taxpayers to pay “holding costs” for 10 to 20 years when it could be building the same amount of generating capacity sooner.
“The cheapest one still globally, and I think here as well, is probably a combination of solar plus batteries – and that’s firm capacity, by the way,” he said. “If we look at the way that’s been analysed, the combination of the two [solar and batteries] gets you higher reliability than you get from gas.
He cited the example of the 40-year-old Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, in California. He said it was not likely to be replaced with a new nuclear generator once it reached the end of its life because of the cost. “They’ll do some life extensions, but they don’t think it is even plausible to imagine building new capacity there,” he said. “It’s just too expensive.”
The Coalition has claimed that its proposal to slow the rollout of renewable energy, extend the life of ageing coal plants, rely more on gas-fired power and later build publicly funded nuclear plants at seven sites, mostly after 2040, would be cheaper and more reliable than Labor’s promise of sourcing 82% of Australia’s electricity from renewable energy by 2030.
Peter Dutton has said the Coalition’s claim is supported by a report by consultants at Frontier Economics. But several other independent energy experts have argued the Coalition’s plan would, in relative terms, be likely to be more expensive for consumers over the next decade, at least, and less reliable and lead to substantially higher greenhouse gas emissions.
Pershing said a another problem for Australia would be training personnel for a nuclear power industry. Technical experts would have to be brought from overseas, which isn’t the case for other types of energy generation, he said.
That expertise could come from Canada, China, France or Russia, adding that in the case of Russia, “I’m not so convinced that that’s where you’d want to go”.
Pershing said the Trump administration’s anti-climate action stance would have an effect “but, I think, less than people might imagine”. He said the change in the US was an opportunity for Australia, “depending on how it chooses to engage”.
“The thing that’s most salient is that the rest of the world has decided that the least-cost solution to provide for more energy, particularly for electricity, is through some combination of renewables technologies plus batteries,” he said, citing International Energy Agency data showing it was the cheapest and faster solution “for about 80% of the world”.
“In much of the world, demand [for energy] is rising and you’re going to have to supply that demand from something. That means transition minerals, and that means technology, and that means investment. Those are places that the Australian economy is well positioned to deliver.”
Based on Trump’s language and early actions, the US was likely to slow the construction of wind and solar power and electric vehicles while increasing its demand for critical minerals, he said. But the US was “not the primary place where things are happening”.
“The place where things are happening is across Asia, broadly, with enormous continued demand from China, demand from India, demand from Indonesia and then actually others around the world who are building on that capacity,” he said.
Regarding fossil fuel exports, Pershing said the question for Australia was how it replaced the economic value of the coal and gas it sells with other exports, and what commitments it has made that were consistent with keeping global heating to less than 2C.
Australia could, for example, build a new mutually beneficial trade relationship with Japan where Australia produced and sold zero carbon steel and other metals. Pershing said Australia would also have to deal with the future of communities, such as in the Hunter Valley and its nearby port of Newcastle, that rely heavily on coal mining and coal exports.
“I think these are difficult questions, and they’re legitimate ones for the whole society to take up,” he said. “[A change] is coming. It’s not that it won’t come, but if we don’t manage it, it’ll have enormously negative consequences for communities, and I think that’s on the collective government, civil society and thought leadership to resolve and to address”.
Climate Authority head Matt Kean says Liberals ‘socialist’ for ‘nonsense’ nuclear policy
In short:
Matt Kean, a former NSW treasurer and energy minister, has launched a broadside at his own party for backing nuclear energy.
Mr Kean now chairs the Climate Change Authority, which argues nuclear reactors will result in more emissions than renewable energy.
But Liberal senator Hollie Hughes told Q+A nuclear energy promised zero emissions and jobs for coal plant communities.
A former Liberal state treasurer has branded his own party “socialist” in an extraordinary broadside at the opposition’s plan to build nuclear power reactors.
Matt Kean, who now chairs the government’s Climate Change Authority, has also warned parts of Australia will become “uninhabitable” from worsening climate events such as the ongoing emergency from ex-Cyclone Alfred.
Mr Kean told the ABC’s Q+A on Monday the federal Liberal Party proposal for replacing coal-fired power plants with nuclear reactors was too expensive for governments and consumers.
“I’m not anti-nuclear, but I am anti-nonsense,” he said.
“There’s no private investors knocking down anyone’s door to build a nuclear reactor.
“In fact, under Peter Dutton’s nuclear plan, it won’t be the national energy market, it will be the nationalised energy market, because it will only be funded by the government.
“Now I forgot when the Liberal Party decided to be socialist in how it operates.”
Mr Kean is in a public spat with the federal branch of his party, with Liberal frontbencher Jane Hume suggesting he would be sacked from a Climate Change Authority (CCA) that had been “badly politicised”.
The CCA has modelled the potential impacts of the Coalition’s promise to build seven nuclear power plants by 2050, concluding it would result in an additional 2 billion tonnes of emissions…………………………………………………….
Mr Kean argued smaller reactors as proposed by the Coalition “aren’t even invented yet” and offered no short-term cost relief for consumers.
“People talking about building nuclear today are the same people that are sort of arguing that we should be building a Blockbuster Video complex when Netflix is already here,” he said.
“I don’t think anyone in this audience believes that a nuclear power station that’s not going to be built ’till at least 2035 — and that’s the most heroic assumption anyone has ever said, right? — is going to help anyone with their power bills today.
“It’s just not, OK?”
Senator Hughes said of the Liberal nuclear proposal, “I own it,” prompting Mr Kean to point out: “Not the NSW Liberals.”
Both NSW Liberal leader Mark Speakman and Queensland Liberal Premier David Crisafulli have rejected nuclear as a short-term fix for energy cost and reliability.
‘Poor planning’ on disaster risks
With ex-Cyclone Alfred still posing major a flood risk to parts of Queensland and New South Wales, Mr Kean warned of “whole communities being disrupted” by worsening climate conditions.
“There will be some parts of the coastline, there’ll be some parts that are flood prone, that will be uninhabitable,” he said.
“We need to make sure that we’re protecting those vulnerable people and dealing with the issue of carbon emissions, but also building in policies that help communities adapt to the new reality, which is a changing climate.”………………………………………….. more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-03-10/matt-kean-nuclear-energy-liberal-party-slammed-socialist/105033754
Higher household bills by 2030 under nuclear: report
by News Of The Area – Modern Media – , https://www.newsofthearea.com.au/higher-household-bills-by-2030-under-nuclear-report
HOUSEHOLDS could fork out an extra $450 a year for power by 2030 if policymakers pursue nuclear and a slower renewable rollout, modelling suggests.
An analysis commissioned by the Clean Energy Council found the additional pricey gas needed under a nuclear pathway would drive bills higher by 2030 than if the renewables-led grid transition continues.
The modelling mirrors the energy policies on offer from the major federal parties – the Labor government is vying for 82 per cent of renewable energy in the grid by 2030, while the coalition is promising to build nuclear power plants.
Renewable energy would make up about half the energy grid by 2050 and nuclear power 38 per cent under the opposition plan.
Opposition leader Peter Dutton has promised cheaper electricity long-term based on calculations it commissioned from consultancy Frontier Economics.
Using AEMO’s “progressive change” scenario for the nation’s energy mix, Frontier found including nuclear energy would reduce costs from $437 billion to $331 billion – or slash costs by 44 per cent compared to the “step change” scenario.
Yet numbers crunched by professional services firm Jacobs on the clean energy industry body’s behalf found households could expect a 30 percent average increase by 2030 under the nuclear pathway.
This would amount to an $449 annual increase for the typical consumer ser
viced by the main energy grid.
Small businesses could expect a $877 increase in their bills by 2030 if the clean energy rollout slows down while waiting for nuclear to be built.
Even bigger price jumps were possible were a coal generator to unexpectedly fail – something that becomes more likely as they age – as more gas would be needed to make up the shortfall.
Voters are set to go to the polls May 17, at the latest, and cost of living will be front of mind following a prolonged stint of high interest rates aimed at taming inflation.
Clean Energy Council chief executive officer Kane Thornton said halting renewable energy deployment and relying on coal and gas before nuclear comes online would be a “disaster” for power prices.
“Australia would have to increase its reliance on increasingly expensive and unreliable old coal generation, as well as significantly increase gas generation, which is a much more expensive energy source,” he said.
“Getting more renewables into our system, such as solar and wind and backed by pumped hydro, batteries and small amounts of gas, is the cheapest and most reliable way to keep energy bills as low as possible for Australians.
The analysis considered the influence of wholesale electricity prices on power bills for households and small businesses under each scenario.
Network costs and other components of electricity bills were not included in the modelling.
Tuesday’s power bill numbers follow the Climate Change Authority’s report highlighting the nuclear power plan could push Australia’s 2030 climate target out until 2042 and add two billion tonnes of carbon emissions to the environment by 2050.
What if a Fukushima-sized nuclear accident happened in Australia?
Today is the 14th anniversary of the Fukushima disaster, and this morning the good folks at Don’t Nuke the Climate released a huge research project that shows what a Fukushima-style nuclear disaster would look like if it happened at one of Dutton’s seven proposed reactor sites.
About these maps, https://nuclearplume.au/ 11 Mar 25
The seven sites on this map have been selected by the federal Coalition to house multiple nuclear power reactors.
You can select the reactor site and wind direction to see how a Fukushima-scale nuclear disaster would contaminate different areas surrounding the seven sites in Australia.
The interactive map uses a radiation plume map, originally peer reviewed and published by the European Geosciences Union. It shows the deposition of radioactive caesium-137 from the Fukushima disaster as of July 2011. The darker the shading, the higher the level of radioactive contamination and the higher the radiation exposures for people in those areas. At distances far from the Fukushima plant, radiation exposures were low but even low radiation doses can cause negative health impacts including fatal cancers and cardiovascular disease.
Caesium-137 has been one of the most significant radioactive contaminants since the March 2011 Fukushima disaster but many other types of radioactive particles contaminated wide areas (iodine-131, xenon-133, etc.).
Other radiation fallout maps from the Fukushima disaster can be seen here and here.
‘In Defence of Dissent’
Mapping the repression of protest rights in Australia and identifying strategies communities can use to protect them.
Our new report in collaboration with Grata Fund analyses key trends in the restriction of protest rights in Australia – corporate clampdown on opposition, criminalisation of peaceful protest, over-policing, government misuse of emergency powers and the use of notification systems as approval regimes for protests. Using data from legal observer organisation and independent media sources, the report provides a picture of protest repression around Australia between 2019-2024.
The report identifies litigation and legislative pathways to protecting the right to protest that can be used by protestors, advocates, community organisations and campaigners.
Email the report to your MP
1. Find your local State and Federal MP’s email using this tool: https://heymp.com.au/
2. Email your State and Federal MP and cc’ing in anastasia.radievska@australiandemocracy.org.a
3. If you don’t get a response and have capacity, please call your MP to follow up.
A report from Australian Democracy Network and Grata Fund has found that protest rights in Australia are being severely restricted through corporate clampdown on opposition, criminalisation of peaceful protest, over-policing, government misuse of emergency powers and the use of notification systems as approval regimes for protests.
Key findings include:
Imprisonment sentences for civil disobedience have increased ten-fold in the last five years, with nine activists engaged in civil disobedience have been sentenced to a combined total of 50 months imprisonment.
Police appear to be engaging in over-policing, particularly at protests by marginalised groups including protests carried out by First Nations communities and South West Asian and North African (SWANA) communities.
Communities peacefully engaging in protest have been increasingly subject to heavy-handed militarised policing, including more frequent deployment of dangerous police weapons such as OC spray (pepper spray), tear gas, batons, rubber bullets and flash-bang grenades.
The use of OC spray has increased in the last year, having been used at 11 protests in 2023-24, compared to seven in the five years prior.
People with physical disabilities and children are being seriously impacted by heavy-handed, militarised policing. For example, three incidents involved people with disabilities, with police removing a person from their wheelchair in one instance, and forcefully moving and damaging a wheelchair in another. Four involved children, including four children aged 16 and under being pepper sprayed and a child in a pram caught up in a police kettle, a controversial police tactic also known as containment or corralling.
Protest notification and pre-approval regimes are increasingly operating as de facto ‘authorisation’ systems, which runs counter to Australia’s democratic obligations under international law. The use of permit systems as de-facto authorisation regimes has had a particular influence on First Nations groups, with a First Nations group in the NT having been required to pay for their own traffic control in January 2024 as a precondition to obtaining authorisation from police to carry out protests when there are no recorded instances of other groups having to do so.
Sign the Declaration of our Right to Protest
Nuclear fallout: why Karina Lester is calling on Australia to sign the treaty banning atomic weapons
The late Yami Lester was blinded due to fallout from British nuclear testing at Emu Field. His daughter Karina addressed the UN in New York this week.
In the 1950s the British Government conducted a series of nuclear weapons tests at Maralinga and Emu Fields in South Australia.
Yankunytjatjara-Anangu woman Karina Lester, whose father the late Yami Lester went blind due to effects from the tests, wants to ensure no-one forgets.
On Thursday she spoke at the United Nations in New York as part of an International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons (ICAN) delegation at the Third Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
“Australia hasn’t signed and ratified the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons,” Ms Lester told NITV from New York.
“It’s really important to voice our concerns, and in particular as victims or affected communities of the British nuclear testing, so as a second generation survivor.”
On October 15, 1953, the British Army, with the support of the Australian Menzies Government, detonated a 9 kiloton nuclear bomb, called Totem 1, at Emu Field, 480km north-west of Woomera in South Australia, without warning any of the Anangu communities living nearby.
“Totem 1 was the first mainland test in Australia. The radiation fallout drifted over Dad’s community, Walyatjatjara community, where Anangu and Yankunytjatjara people were living and working on their traditional lands none the wiser of what was being conducted under 160km south,” Karina said.
“But they did witness the black mist rolling over their traditional lands, and there was huge impact for our people.
“For Dad, four years after those tests, his world turned into complete darkness.
“People on that day became really ill. Many of the older, weaker generation passed.”
Karina says there were ripples that are still felt today, more than 70 years later.
“Because we had the fallout fall onto our environment, our trees, animals, our sand dunes, our grasses, our food that we eat as well.
“So it’s been a long, generational story for my family, where the onus is always on the victim to be continuing to speak about these things and to speak about nuclear injustice.”
As part of the Aukus security treaty between Australia, the United Kingdom and the US, Australia has signed up to acquire nuclear-powered attack submarines and will be responsible for radioactive waste generated through operations, maintenance and decommissioning.
“Us South Australians are very concerned because we often are pressured to be the nuclear waste dump of the nation,” Karina said.
“There’s been many struggles in that area where Indigenous peoples and Aboriginal people of South Australia have needed to fight against government pressure looking for a nuclear waste dump and nuclear powered submarines will produce this waste.”
Karina also has concerns about Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s plan for nuclear power.
“These power plants are on traditional lands of Indigenous peoples across our nation and while there are seven locations that have been identified, yet the Coalition has not come to address and talk to Aboriginal people of those communities,” she said.
“There’s a strong message coming from South Australia that we certainly do not want nuclear power in our state, when we have been struggling and fighting against nuclear mining, nuclear waste dumps and nuclear testing.”
The nuclear industry has impacts on Indigenous peoples across the world, Karina pointed out.
“In our very own state of South Australia, they mine uranium, they tested in the 50s and 60s, they put pressure on the Aboriginal community to be the waste dump of the nuclear waste that is produced by industry,” she said.
“And now coming up with a bright idea of nuclear power.
“Aboriginal voices of South Australia have been strong to say ‘no nuclear power plants in our state’.
“So our strong message is, ‘no, we don’t want nuclear power’.”
Karina is disappointed that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has not yet ratified the treaty against nuclear weapons.
“For us affected communities in very remote South Australia who carry the scars and carry this burden and this trauma of this lived experience through generations, now our government has failed us,” she said.
“We are out of sight and out of mind.”
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 