Submissions to Parliamentary Inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia – (Part one).
The Committee will inquire into matters referred to in the resolution of appointment and is required to present its final report by no later than 30 April 2025. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Select_Committee_on_Nuclear_Energy/Nuclearpower
Submissions to this Inquiry have now closed, and are being published at https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Select_Committee_on_Nuclear_Energy/Nuclearpower
So far, 202 submissions have been published. My plan is to go through them all. So far, I have read through just the first 20 submissions 19 by male writers, one female. 12 were opposed to nuclear power, 7 were in favour of nuclear power, and one was unable to be read.
Arguments were around topics of energy needs, indigenous concerns, environmental impacts, and radioactive waste. I plan to outline these as I read through more submissions.
Consultation, full disclosure, and an environmental audit: Nuclear Free Local Authorities’ triple demand of Australian government over nuke sub waste dump down under
the NFLAs have raised our fundamental objections to any siting of nuclear powered, and possibly nuclear armed, submarines at Garden Island as a violation of Australia’s legal commitments as a signatory to the Treaty of Rarotonga, which established a South Pacific nuclear free zone. The proposal will increase military tensions with China and make Rockingham a target for a counterstrike should war break out.
a White House paper states that Australia ‘has committed to managing all radioactive waste generated through its nuclear-powered submarine program, including spent nuclear fuel, in Australia’.
NFLA 22nd Nov 2024
With an international outlook and solidarity in mind, in response to a consultation by the Australian Federal Government, the UK / Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities have posted their objections to plans to station nuclear-powered subs and establish a waste dump in Western Australia.
As part of the AUKUS military pact established between Australia, the United Kingdom and United States, Australia intends to acquire a fleet of nuclear powered submarines, powered by reactors built by Rolls-Royce in Derby, as well as permitting Royal Navy and United States Navy nuclear submarines to operate from Australian naval bases.
In March 2023,the AUKUS Nuclear-Powered Submarine Pathway was announced by the three partners centred on the HMAS Stirling Naval Base on Garden Island in Western Australia’s Cockburn Sound. The Australian Government has allocated AUS $8 billion for base improvements.
Under the AUKUS ‘Force Posture Agreement’, from 2027, US Virginia Class submarines are to be stationed here, with British Astute submarines joining them on rotation in the 2030’s. Around this time, the base will also become the home port of Australia’s first nuclear powered submarines, with three and up to five Virginia Class submarines being purchased from the US (subject to Congressional approval).
The Federal Government has passed new legislation to allow for the domestic storage of nuclear waste from all these submarines, and in July after a limited consultation the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) issued a licence to the Australian Submarine Agency to prepare a nuclear waste storage site at the base. Without it, visiting United States and British nuclear-powered submarines could not undertake maintenance in Australia, so the nuclear dump is seen as essential to the pact.
The extent and nature of the waste to be stored, and for how long it would be stored, remains unclear. The Conservation Council of Western Australia (CCWA) complained to the regulatory authorities that: ‘The consultation documents provided no details about the volume of waste or how long it would be stored at the island. They also made confused and misleading claims about the types of low-level waste that would be accepted’.
Whilst regulators insist that it would be low-level waste, this claim has been refuted by critic Australian Green Senator David Shoebridge who said the Federal legislators were told in a Senate Estimates Hearing by the Australian Submarine Agency that it would include intermediate waste. It is also contradicted by a White House paper which states that Australia ‘has committed to managing all radioactive waste generated through its nuclear-powered submarine program, including spent nuclear fuel, in Australia’.
This waste would include US Virginia-class submarine reactors, which each weigh over 100 tonnes and contain over 200 kilograms of highly enriched uranium. Ian Lowe, an expert on radiation health and safety, told The Conversation in March 2023 that when the first three AUKUS submarines are at the end of their lives — 30 years from when they are commissioned — Australia will have 600 kilograms of ‘spent fuel’ and ‘potentially tonnes of irradiated material from the reactors and their protective walls’. The fuel being weapons-grade will require ‘military-scale security’.
Australian campaigners have also complained bitterly that the submarine base and the storage site are located in the wrong place.
Mia Pepper, Campaign Director at the CCWA, said that ‘Garden Island in one of the most pristine and diverse environments in the Perth region’ and that ‘This plan for both nuclear submarines and nuclear waste storage will inevitably impact access to parts of Cockburn Sound and Garden Island’.
And when responding to ARPANSA, the CCWA stated that the facility is ‘within an area of dense population’ and in the vicinity of ‘important and diverse heavy industrial facilities, including a major shipping port’. The CCWA also raised the ‘unaddressed community concerns regarding an accident’ on the site and complained about the ‘lack of transparency and rigour’ throughout the regulatory process.
Nor is there any long-term solution to storage. Garden Island would be seen as a temporary store, but it is unclear for how long. A Federal Government proposal to establish a nuclear waste dump at Kimba was resisted by local Indigenous people who launched a successful legal challenge to defeat the plan.
In its response to the consultation being conducted by the Australian Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, the NFLAs have raised our fundamental objections to any siting of nuclear powered, and possibly nuclear armed, submarines at Garden Island as a violation of Australia’s legal commitments as a signatory to the Treaty of Rarotonga, which established a South Pacific nuclear free zone. The proposal will increase military tensions with China and make Rockingham a target for a counterstrike should war break out.
We also called on the Federal Government to conduct a proper consultation and make a full disclosure of the facts, and requested that officials conduct a full environmental audit of the likely impact of the waste storage site…………………………………………. https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/consultation-full-disclosure-and-an-environmental-audit-nflas-triple-demand-of-australian-government-over-nuke-sub-waste-dump-down-under/
Trump, AUKUS and Australia’s Dim Servitors
November 22, 2024, Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/trump-aukus-and-australias-dim-servitors/
There is something enormously satisfying about seeing those in the war racket worry that their assumptions on conflict have been upended. There they were, happily funding, planning and preparing to battle against threats imagined or otherwise, and there comes Donald Trump, malice and petulance combined, to pull the rug from under them again.
What is fascinating about the return of Trump to the White House is that critics think his next round of potentially rowdy occupancy is going to encourage, rather than discourage war. Conflict may be the inadvertent consequence of any number of unilateral policies Trump might pursue, but they do not tally with his anti-war platform. Whatever can be said about his adolescent demagogic tendencies, a love of war is curiously absent from the complement. A tendency to predictable unpredictability, however, is.
The whole assessment also utterly misunderstands the premise that the foolishly menacing trilateral alliance of AUKUS is, by its nature, a pact for the making of war. This agreement between Australia, the UK and the US can hardly be dignified as some peaceful, unprovocative enterprise fashioned to preserve security. To that end, President Joe Biden should shoulder a considerable amount of the blame for destabilising the region. But instead, we are getting some rather streaky commentary from the security wonks in Australia. Trump spells, in the pessimistic words of Nick Bisley from La Trobe University, “uncertainty about just what direction the US will go.” His policies might, for instance, “badly destabilise Asia” and imperil the AUKUS, specifically on the provision of nuclear–powered submarines to the Royal Australian Navy. On the last point, we can only hope.
The Australians, being willing and unquestioning satellites of US power, have tried to pretend that a change of the guard in the White House will not doom the pact. Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong expressed a “great deal of confidence” that things would not change under the new administration, seeing as AUKUS enjoyed bipartisan support.
Australia’s ambassador to the US, Kevin Rudd, is also of the view that AUKUS will survive into the Trump administration as it “strengthens all three countries’ ability to deter threats, and it grows the defence industrial base and creates jobs in all three countries.”
Another former ambassador to Washington, Arthur Sinodinos, who also occupies the role of AUKUS forum co-chair, has pitched the viability of the trilateral pact in such a way as to make it more appealing to Trump. Without any trace of humour, he suggests that tech oligarch Elon Musk oversee matters if needed. “If Musk can deliver AUKUS, we should put Musk in charge of AUKUS, and I’m not joking, if new thinking is needed to get this done,” advises the deluded Sinodinos.
The reasoning offered on this is, to put it mildly, peculiar. As co-head of the proposed Department of Government Efficiency, Musk, it is hoped, will apply “business principles” and “new thinking”. If the Pentagon can “reform supply chains, logistics, procurement rules, in a way that means there’s speed to market, we get minimum viable capability sooner, rather than later.”
These doltish assessments from Sinodinos are blatantly ignorant of the fact the defence industry is never efficient. Nor do they detract from the key premise of the arrangements. Certainly, if an anti-China focus is what you are focusing on – and AUKUS, centrally and evidently, is an anti-China agreement pure and simple – there would be little reason for Trump to tinker with its central tenets. For one, he is hankering for an even deeper trade war with Beijing. Why not also harry the Chinese with a provocative instrument, daft as it is, that entails militarising Australia and garrisoning it for any future conflict that might arise?
Whatever the case, AUKUS has always been contingent on the interests of one power. Congress has long signalled that US defence interests come first, including whether Australia should receive any Virginian class submarines to begin with.Trump would hardly disagree here. “Trump’s decisions at each phase of AUKUS cooperation will be shaped by zero-sum balance sheets of US interest,” suggests Alice Nason of the University of Sydney’s US Studies Centre rather tritely.
If Trump be so transactional, he has an excellent example of a country utterly willing to give everything to US security, thereby improving the deal from the side of Washington’s military-industrial complex. If there was one lingering, pathological complaint he had about Washington’s NATO allies, it was always that they were not doing enough to ease the burdens of US defence. They stalled on defence budgets; they quibbled on various targets on recruitment.
This can hardly be said of Canberra. Australia’s government has abandoned all pretence of resistance, measure or judgment, outrageously willing to underwrite the US imperium in any of its needs in countering China, raiding the treasury of taxpayer funds to the tune of a figure that will, eventually, exceed A$368 billion. Rudd openly acknowledges that Australian money is directly “investing into the US submarine industrial base to expand the capacity of their shipyards.” It would be silly to prevent this continuing windfall. It may well be that aspect that ends up convincing Trump that AUKUS is worth keeping. Why get rid of willing servitors of such dim tendency when they are so willing to please you with cash and compliments?
Signing US/UK nuclear deal would shred Australia’s credibility: Turnbull
Australia would kill its credibility internationally if it were to embrace domestic nuclear power to please key foreign allies, Malcolm Turnbull has warned, accusing the Coalition of gaslighting voters over power prices.
Amid a heated fight in parliament over a nuclear agreement signed by the United States and the United Kingdom at the COP29 talks in Azerbaijan this week, the former prime minister said Australia had distinct advantages on renewable energy and must make decisions in its national interest.
“The job of the Australian prime minister is to stand up for Australia and recognise Australia has distinct interests and distinct characteristics,” Mr Turnbull told The Australian Financial Review.
“Simply falling into line and being some sort of sycophantic copier of everybody else’s agendas doesn’t bring you in any respect.”
The former Liberal leader’s comments followed Britain and the US signing a deal for civil nuclear collaboration at the summit in Baku, part of plans to combine billions of dollars for research and development of new technologies.
An early version of the British government’s statement announcing the deal said Australia would be among a number of other countries signing on. But the UK government conceded on Tuesday that Australia had been included in the statement erroneously.
The original statement, viewed by the Financial Review, said countries signing on would include Canada, France, Japan, South Korea, South Africa, China, Switzerland and Australia.
But the updated agreement, published online by UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, has the names of participating countries removed and says only that Russia will remain excluded because of its invasion of Ukraine.
A spokeswoman for Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who is representing Australia at the talks, ruled out any participation, noting Australia had no nuclear energy industry and a federal ban on nuclear power is in place.
The government said Australia would remain as an observer to the deal, and support scientists in other nuclear research fields.
In question time on Wednesday, Acting Prime Minister Richard Marles accused the Coalition of exaggerating the significance of the statement.
“Every expert out there makes it completely clear that what we are awaiting is a 20-year duration before we could reasonably expect to have nuclear energy in this country, were we to go down that path,” he said.
“Even then, all we are talking about is a contribution of 4 per cent to the electricity grid.
“What we are pursuing is policies in the here and now, which are being pursued around the world: firmed renewable energy, which is the cheapest form of energy, which is being brought online around the world.”
Mr Dutton accused the government of a stubborn refusal to consider nuclear, as countries including South Korea, Turkey and Nigeria had joined another pledge to triple global nuclear power by 2050. He said nuclear could “reduce emissions and deliver energy at a reasonable cost”.
Long a critic of Mr Dutton’s leadership, Mr Turnbull said nuclear would not complement renewable energy.
“That is nonsense. That’s gaslighting, quite frankly,” he said. “What complements renewables is something that is flexible. We have 4 million households in Australia. Over a third of all Australian homes have got solar panels on. It’s the highest percentage of solar household solar penetration in the world.”
Tom McIlroy is the Financial Review’s Canberra Bureau Chief based in the press gallery at Parliament House. He was previously the AFR’s political correspondent. Connect with Tom on Twitter. Email Tom at thomas.mcilroy@afr.com
Paul Smith edits the technology coverage and has been a leading writer on the sector for 20 years. He covers big tech, business use of tech, the fast-growing Australian tech industry and start-ups, telecommunications and national innovation policy. Connect with Paul on Twitter. Email Paul at psmith@afr.com
Albanese government gives firm ‘no’ to joining UK-US agreement to advance nuclear technology
The Conversation, November 19, 2024, Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra
The Albanese government has been put on the spot by a new agreement – which it has declined to join – signed by the United Kingdom and the United States to speed up the deployment of “cutting edge” nuclear technology.
The original version of the British government’s press release announcing the agreement said Australia, among a number of other countries, was expected to sign it.
But the reference was removed from the statement.
The UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband and the US deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk signed the agreement in Baku during COP29…….
A spokesperson for Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who is at the COP meeting, said: “Australia is not signing this agreement as we do not have a nuclear energy industry.
“We recognise that some countries may choose to use nuclear energy, depending on national circumstances.
“Our international partners understand that Australia’s abundance of renewable energy resources makes nuclear power, including nuclear power through small modular reactors, an unviable option for inclusion in our energy mix for decarbonisation efforts.”
Australia would remain as observers to the agreement to continue to support its scientists in other nuclear research fields, the spokesperson said………
In parliament, acting Prime Minister Richard Marles said for Australia to pursue a path of nuclear energy would add $1200 to the bills of each household in this country.
………………………Update: UK government seeks to clear things up
Later The Guardian reportred: “The UK government has conceded it made a mistake in including Australia in a list of countries that has signed up to a US-UK civil nuclear deal”. https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-gives-firm-no-to-joining-uk-us-agreement-to-advance-nuclear-technology-244041
AUKUS will ‘cannibalize’ other programs with no budget boost: Former top Aussie general
At the same conference, US Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell urged the incoming Trump administration to work closely with Australia and New Zealand to counter a “relentless” China and not to turn inward.
BREAKING DEFENSE, By Colin Clark November 20, 2024
SYDNEY — Sounding the alarm that the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal will eat into non-naval priorities, the former head of the Australian Defense Force today called for a significant boost in defense spending, up to 3 percent of GDP.
Sir Angus Houston was Australia’s top military officer from 2005-2011 and was tapped to co-lead the recent Defense Strategic Review, making him a key, respected voice on matters of defense. While the DSR TKTKT, his comments today reflect what he sees as changed situation. The review and its Integrated Investment Plan projected a $55.5 billion AUD budget for 2024-25, rising to $67.9 billion in 2027-28 — roughly 2.2 percent of GDP.
………………………in comments at the US Studies Centre here, Houston made clear he wasn’t just talking about spending more because of the threats. He made an important structural point, that Australia must increase its defense spending so that buying and building nuclear powered attack submarines — the AUKUS program with the US and UK — does not consume too much of the defense budget.
Houston said the AUKUS boats “must be a net addition to Australia’s military capability. The only way they can be a net addition to Australian military capability is to increase our defense spending by 3 percent plus of GDP as we move into and through the 2030s.”
If that does not happen, it will mean the military can only buy the subs “through the cannibalization of other military capability. So that is the challenge for us. And I don’t think either side of the body politic in Australia has really come to terms with that.”
The question of whether AUKUS will eat up other programs for the Australian defense community has been an open one ever since the project, the most expensive endeavor in the country’s history, was launched. Officials have largely towed the line that the Lucky Country can do everything.
………………………………..there may be signs of budget pressure emerging already. Earlier this month, Australia killed a $5.3 billion AUD satellite contract with Lockheed Martin, with one analyst saying more cuts will likely have to happen as the true cost of AUKUS emerges.
The current government in Canberra has pledged to increase defense spending by $50.3 billion over the next decade, with the plan being to hit $100 billion by 2033. That would put the country at 2.4 percent — well below what Houston believes is needed……………………………………………………………………………………………
Unlike some NATO countries, which Trump has criticized for spending too little, Australia has committed more than $6 billion USD to expanding the tripartite sub industrial base and plans to spend a total of $368 billion on Virginia- and SSN AUKUS-class subs. https://breakingdefense.com/2024/11/former-top-aussie-general-warns-aukus-will-cannibalize-other-programs-with-no-defense-boost/
Big batteries and EVs to the rescue again as faults with new nuclear plant cause chaos on Nordic grids
The Australian Energy Market Operator has already made clear that its biggest headache is managing the unexpected outages of big generators, such as the ageing and increasingly unreliable coal fired power stations that the federal Coalition wants to keep open while it waits for nuclear to be rolled out and commercial SMRs to be invented.
Giles Parkinson, Nov 19, 2024 https://reneweconomy.com.au/big-batteries-and-evs-to-the-rescue-again-as-faults-with-new-nuclear-plant-cause-chaos-on-nordic-grids/?fbclid=IwY2xjawGqC8xleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHadLKvCjeIJudeDt86k27LkV53Q1FcfYmtcRSA_HGcWU1b1TmW7voTgIOA_aem_wwFpyxMordh4V_FbOJ3lfw
The newest and most powerful nuclear reactor in Europe that was delivered more than a decade late and nearly four times over budget is also proving to be a headache for grid operators now that it is finally up and running.
On Sunday, the 1,600 megawatt Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor tripped again, the latest in a series of faults and outages that have plagued the new facility and caused the market to reach out for back-up power to fill the gap.
Olkiluoto owner TVO says the reactor tripped on Sunday due to a turbine malfunction in the generator’s seal oil system. “The repair is taking longer than expected, and based on the current information, the plant is estimated to return to electricity production in approximately two days,” it said in a statement.
It’s not the first time the unit has failed. In October, it was forced to reduce power suddenly when one of the reactor’s control rods unexpectedly dropped into the reactor.
Its sister reactor, Olkiluoto 2, was off line for three weeks due to a faulty water-cooled rotor that had to be replaced and will run for months at reduced output because of the fear of failure.
But on Sunday, when the entire 1,600 MW capacity of Olkiluoto 3 was taken out of the system with no notice, it had a big impact on the grid, sending frequency plunging to 49.55 Hz, well outside the normal band.
“Olkiluoto is starting to compete with the Swedish nuclear power plant, Forsmark, for being the leading cause of major (loss of generation) disturbances in the Nordic power system,” writes Andreas Barnekov Thingvad, a Denmark-based trading systems director at battery company Hybrid Greentech.
He says his company contributed to the market response to stabilise frequency (see graph on original ) and the grid with its portfolio of batteries and virtual power plants, including electric vehicles.
Olkiluoto was finally connected to the grid last year, at an estimated cost of €11 billion ($18 billion) compared to the original budget of €3 billion. That cost blowout forced its developer, the French company Areva, to be bailed out by the French government.
When it did come online, nuclear boosters in Australia hailed it as being responsible for a steep fall in electricity prices. They failed to mention the fact that the reactor was more than a decade late, and Finland was forced to turn to highly expensive Russian gas in the interim to make up the shortfall.
Indeed, TVO, the reactor owner, says now that the new reactor has been commissioned, there is often too much production on the Finnish grid, and the reactor has to be dialled down, or curtailed, in much the same way that renewables often are. It is still not allowed to run at full capacity.
“The electricity system in Finland faces on an increasingly frequent basis a situation where more down-regulating production capacity is needed because there is too much production,” TVO notes.
The new reactor has also spent large periods off line (see the graph above from TVO’s most recent interim report). Its annual outage was supposed to last 37 days, but stretched to double that, to 74 days. TVO blamed “defect repairs and technical problems with inspection equipment took more time than had been planned.”
The point of this story is to highlight another bit of nonsense from the nuclear lobby, who like to claim that renewable sources such as wind and solar require back up, while nuclear does not.
That is simply not true, and the world’s big investment in pumped hydro in the 1970s and 1980s was principally designed to provide back up to nuclear reactors then in vogue. Ontario has ordered some of the world’s biggest batteries to support its nuclear fleet, most of which will be offline for several years for upgrades and maintenance.
Thingvad noted the multiple recent outages that had occurred in both the Finnish and Swedish nuclear reactors over the last few months:
- – On November 17th, at 15:25:51, Olkiluoto 3 had another turbine failure, tripping all 1600 MW of generation and causing the Nordic system frequency to drop to 49.59 Hz. The failure is expected to last several days.
- – On September 3rd, Olkiluoto 3 experienced a fault that caused it to drop 640 MW, leading the Nordic frequency to fall to 49.77 Hz.
- – On June 10th, Forsmark Block 3 experienced a reactor trip of 1172 MW, causing the Nordic system frequency to drop to 49.61 Hz.
- – On June 3rd, 2024, Olkiluoto 3, with 1600 MW, suddenly tripped due to a turbine malfunction. The Nordic system frequency dropped to 49.58 Hz.
- – On May 13, 2024, the Forsmark Block 1 nuclear power plant in Sweden, which has a capacity of 1 GW, tripped due to a grid failure. Forsmark experienced multiple outages – each of at least a gigawatt – in 2023.
- The scale of such outages would be significant in a grid like Australia, where the biggest single unit – at the Kogan Creek coal fired generator in Queensland – is 750 MW.
If, as the federal Coalition proposes, it wants to put in units sized at a gigawatt or more, then the market operator will have to invest in more standby capacity in case of the inevitable trips and outages.
The bigger the unit, the more back up power that is required. Wind and solar may be variable, but those variations are easily and reliably predicted. The sudden loss of a 1,600 MW facility is not.
The Australian Energy Market Operator has already made clear that its biggest headache is managing the unexpected outages of big generators, such as the ageing and increasingly unreliable coal fired power stations that the federal Coalition wants to keep open while it waits for nuclear to be rolled out and commercial SMRs to be invented.
“The repeated outages at Olkiluoto and Forsmark nuclear plants are a stark reminder of the critical need for grid resilience and diversification in our energy systems,” noted Eric Scheithauer-Hartmann, a German-based energy executive.
“It’s encouraging to see companies like Hybrid Greentech stepping up to support the Nordic power grid with advanced battery storage and intelligent energy solutions.
“As we continue to face challenges with traditional power generation, investing in smart grid technologies and renewable integration isn’t just beneficial—it’s essential for maintaining stability and meeting future energy demands.”
David Crisafulli stares down LNP division on abortion and nuclear power
Consternation remains in the ranks about way Queensland party handled two divisive issues, sources say
Guardian, Ben Smee 17 Nov 24,
The Queensland premier, David Crisafulli, has told Liberal National party members the party “does not exist for culture wars” in an address seeking to stare down potential division about his positions on abortion rights and nuclear power.
Crisafulli’s speech to the LNP state council meeting in Rockhampton on Sunday was his first opportunity to speak directly to the organisational wing, and party members, since last month’s state election victory.
Despite the election success, LNP sources say there remains consternation in the ranks about the way the party handled divisive issues including abortion and nuclear power, where the views of the grassroots membership – and the private views of many MPs – are at odds with Crisafulli’s promises not to change existing laws.
The premier did not directly mention either issue. But his speech to members hinted at “scare campaigns” by Labor during the election and said these would not work in four years if the party kept its word.
“One thing I can guarantee you about me … that is my word counts for something and I value a culture when you say you’re going to do something you do it, and when you say you won’t do something, you won’t do it,” Crisafulli said……………………………………. more https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/nov/17/david-crisafulli-stares-down-lnp-division-on-abortion-and-nuclear-power
Plan to dispose of nuclear waste from Aukus submarines unanimously rejected by Adelaide council
City of Port Adelaide Enfield’s mayor says she hadn’t received correspondence about storage or disposal before or after bill passed federal parliament
Guardian Petra Stock, 18 Nov 24
Plans to dispose of low-level nuclear waste from Aukus submarines at an Adelaide naval facility have been unanimously opposed by the local council for the area, who say they weren’t consulted.
The Osborne naval shipyard, 25km north of Adelaide CBD, and HMAS Stirling at Garden Island 50km south of Perth in Western Australia, have both been designated as “radioactive waste management facilities” for nuclear waste from Aukus submarines under the Australian naval nuclear power safety bill, which passed parliament in October.
Last week, the City of Port Adelaide Enfield – responsible for the area surrounding the Osborne shipyard – voted to unanimously oppose the storage and disposal of radioactive waste at the site.
Its mayor, Claire Boan, said council had been briefed on aspects of the Aukus project but it had not received any correspondence or communication about management and disposal of nuclear waste at the site.
“While the decision-making regarding this is out of the control of the council, we will continue to advocate for our community and lobby for community consultation throughout the process,” she said.
Rex Patrick, a former independent senator for South Australia, said the situation highlighted the lack of consultation and transparency regarding Aukus nuclear waste.
“Albanese called for Dutton to disclose where he was going to put his nuclear power reactors, and yet there’s been complete secrecy around the entire process associated with where they’ll put the high-level waste from naval reactors,” he said.
No public announcements have been made about the site selection or consultation process for dealing with the high-level nuclear waste associated with the Aukus submarines, which the government agreed Australia would dispose of in March last year……………………….. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/18/plan-to-dispose-of-nuclear-waste-from-aukus-submarines-unanimously-rejected-by-adelaide-council
Adelaide residents blindsided by decision to store AUKUS nuclear waste at submarine shipyards
The act allows radioactive waste to be stored at both sites but does not define what level
the legislation was also ambiguous about the disposal of nuclear material from UK and US nuclear submarines.
By Angelique Donnellan 7.30 ABC
In short:
Federal parliament has passed legislation that allows for nuclear waste to be stored and disposed of at a shipping yard in Adelaide.
Residents said they were not consulted or told of the plan.
What’s next?
Construction of nuclear submarines is expected to start in Adelaide by the end of the decade.
The $368 billion AUKUS pact is promising thousands of jobs and the return of submarine construction to South Australia.
But residents have just learned the deal also means nuclear waste will be stored on their doorstep.
“It’s madness. It’s not only close to a residential area, but it’s right on a waterway,” Adelaide resident Eileen Darley told 7.30.
Last month legislation quietly passed the federal parliament that will allow for the storage and disposal of nuclear waste at the Adelaide shipyard in Osborne, which is 25 kilometres north-west of the city’s CBD and near the popular seaside suburb of Semaphore and historic Port Adelaide.
Residents said it was the first time they heard about plans for the waste facility.
Nuclear submarine construction at Osborne is expected to start by the end of the decade.
“There’s 30,000 people that live in this area,” Ms Darley, who runs the local action group Port Adelaide Community Opposing AUKUS, said.
“All the childcare centres, all the schools and the families that live in this area, but also waterways that feed the mangroves, that is a dolphin sanctuary, and so forth.
“None of us in this area have been consulted about it at all.”
The Osborne shipyard is in federal Health Minister Mark Butler’s safe Labor electorate of Hindmarsh.
In an interview with 7.30, he said residents would be consulted closer to when the facility would be established but stated the waste facility would go ahead even if residents did not want it.
“This is going to happen,” he said.
“The government and parliament have decided that the future defence strategy of the country will involve nuclear-propelled submarines.”
Indigenous elder criticises government’s ‘sly and conniving’ moves
The state Labor government is in lock-step with the Commonwealth on AUKUS but community concerns are growing.
The Port Adelaide Enfield Council has resolved to oppose any nuclear waste storage or disposal at Osborne and is calling for widespread community engagement.
Local resident and Indigenous elder Margaret Brodie said she was disappointed the government legislated the facility without people having a say. The shipyard is on the traditional lands of the Kaurna people.
“It’s sly and conniving. That’s how I feel about it,” she told 7.30.
“As an Indigenous woman I think I get used to it, government being underhanded, not telling us anything, or not asking.
“If you talk about closing the gap, they’re not going to close the gap by doing things like this.”
The legislation declares the Osborne Shipyard as well as the HMAS Stirling naval base near Perth as designated naval nuclear propulsion facilities.
The act allows radioactive waste to be stored at both sites but does not define what level……………………………………………………………………………
Ms Darley was sceptical.
“It does not allay our concerns to hear that the government is saying that it’s temporary and it’s low level,” she said.
“We’re the people who are most affected if something goes wrong.”
The Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator, which reports to the defence minister, would grant the licence for the operation of the waste facilities.
Waste from UK and US subs
Greens senator David Shoebridge told 7.30 the legislation was also ambiguous about the disposal of nuclear material from UK and US nuclear submarines.
“One of the key amendments we wanted was to prohibit the storage of high-level nuclear waste from any foreign country, the United Kingdom or the United States, and that was aggressively resisted by both the government and the opposition,” he said.
“Neither the UK or the US have any permanent solution for their nuclear waste, and the UK is the one that’s in the most trouble … and they have seen with AUKUS a potential sucker down here in Australia who’s literally put their hand up and said, ‘Yeah, we’ll take some of that. We’ll help out.'”
There is also opposition to the waste facility at Perth’s naval base, which needs to be up and running as early as 2027 when one UK nuclear submarine and up to four US boats start regular rotations.
But Mr Butler stated it would also only hold low-level nuclear waste taken from UK or US submarines which came to Australia.
“Intermediate and high-level waste [from overseas] will not be stored in Australia,” he said.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. In South Australia, the Port Adelaide Community Opposing AUKUS said it was prepared for a fight ahead of next year’s federal election.
“How far are we prepared to go? Well, I think we’re in it for the long haul. That’s for sure,” Ms Darley said.
“We don’t want our children, our grandchildren, to have to deal with this in the long run.
“We’ll definitely be making this an election issue.” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-18/aukus-nuclear-waste-to-be-stored-adelaide-suburbs/104605640
The 101 ways Google serves up Australians to known scammers
Using the world’s biggest search platform to find information on scams can deliver victims straight into the arms of criminals.
The Age, ByAisha Dow and Charlotte Grieve, November 18, 2024
oogle searches are delivering Australians into the arms of fraudsters, as websites and advertisements belonging to scammers are prominently served up to users on the world’s most popular search engine.
In some instances, Google searches provide some scam victims false reassurance that they are investing in legitimate companies.
Once they’ve lost their money, scam victims searching for help on Google are then being shown ads that direct them to a new set of criminals, known as recovery scammers, who claim they can retrieve people’s lost money for a fee, but instead disappear with the cash.
The findings are part of a months-long investigation into how investment scammers use some of the world’s biggest tech companies to find victims.
This masthead found that Google presents scam sites to users, even after those scams were the subject of explicit government warnings.
One example is the scam platform Bitcoin Evolution, which was blacklisted by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority in 2020. In March, Australian authorities placed it on an investor alert list, declaring it “not to be trusted”.
But this month, when this masthead used Google to search for Bitcoin Evolution, the first result that came up was not an official notification, but two Bitcoin Evolution scam websites.
Registering a phone number with one of the websites resulted in a near-immediate call from a scammer. Invest just $300 and make daily profits of 10 to 15 per cent, the fraudster promised.
Fleeced of $700,000
Based on a Google search alone, it can be difficult for Australians to tell if potential investment companies are real or a scam. Results are sometimes muddied by the presence of scam platforms, fake reviews and fake news articles or blogs promoting scams.
Fleeced of $700,000
Based on a Google search alone, it can be difficult for Australians to tell if potential investment companies are real or a scam. Results are sometimes muddied by the presence of scam platforms, fake reviews and fake news articles or blogs promoting scams.
Swav, a Melbourne man who didn’t want to use his last name for privacy reasons, was connected to overseas criminals through an advertisement that appeared on his Facebook feed in spring 2020.
Although he didn’t realise it at the time, the celebrities who appeared in the ad providing endorsements were fakes, computer-modified replicas of the famous person.
This masthead revealed on Saturday that Meta, owner of Facebook, takes money for these “celeb-bait” scam ads, despite the ads promoting notorious fraudulent investment platforms and coming from accounts that were clearly not legitimate investment companies.
Swav was just one day into the con, and had only handed over $1500, when he noticed a contradiction in the scammer’s sales pitch. It piqued his suspicion, and when he hung up, he began doing a bit more research.
“I started to search intensively about this company to verify if they are legit,” he recalled. “I searched on Google … but most of the reviews were positive.”
Over the following nine months, the fraudster from a platform called StocksCM stole close to $700,000 from him.
This masthead tested Google results based on searches for 100 entities recently added to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) investor alert list.
The list includes the names of known scam platforms and businesses targeting Australian consumers without holding the appropriate licences.
It showed that Google was failing to block websites for even these publicised rorts.
In the first page of results, Google returned 101 links to websites for platforms using the same names as the blacklisted entities.
The search results also featured 10 Google ads directly promoting scam brands named in ASIC’s warning list.
Google was accepting money to run ads for the Immediate Connect, Immediate Edge and Immediate Vortex scam platforms, all on ASIC’s alert list.
Ten out of the top 14 Google results that appeared in a search for “Immediate Connect” were likely scam platforms, including the top four results, which were all sponsored links for the scam…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Simon Smith, a cybersecurity expert with Scam Assist, said many of his clients who had lost their savings were originally connected to scammers by Google ads, including through fraudulent AI auto-trading platforms.
He said the public had high levels of trust in Google, and many assumed that the results served up first would be most relevant to them.
“The fact that you can pay your money to have a scam ad is just, in itself, unbelievable,” he said…………………. more https://www.theage.com.au/business/consumer-affairs/the-101-ways-google-serves-up-australians-to-known-scammers-20241113-p5kqew.html
B-2 Bomber Strikes in Yemen and their significance for Australia
Australia is the only foreign country publicly known to have provided direct military support for the B-2 strikes in Yemen.
The obvious question that comes to mind therefore is why the Australian government acquiesced to involving Australia in the B-2 strikes?
what, if any, are the limits to Australia’s support for US strategic bomber operations should the region become engulfed in all-out war?
s. Washington now views Australia as ‘the central base’ of its Indo-Pacific operations squarely targeted at China
By Vince Scappatura Nov 12, 2024
Australian territory has been used in supporting US B-2 bombers en route and in return from strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen on October 17, and highlights the profound strategic significance of this event for the future role Australia may play in US strategic bomber operations against China, in the Asia Pacific and beyond.
NAPSNet Special Report:
Vince Scappatura, “B-2 BOMBER STRIKES IN YEMEN AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE FOR AUSTRALIA”, NAPSNet Special Reports, November 11, 2024, https://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/b-2-bomber-strikes-in-yemen-and-their-significance-for-australia/
I. Introduction
Washington now views Australia as ‘the central base’ of its Indo-Pacific operations squarely targeted at China; and the strikes in Yemen make clear that the United States is willing and able to utilise its new base capabilities in Australia to devastating effect.[1]
Vince Scappatura documents the novel use of Australian territory in supporting US B-2 bombers en route and in return from strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen on October 17, and highlights the profound strategic significance of this event for the future role Australia may play in US strategic bomber operations in the Asia Pacific and beyond.
Vince Scappatura is Sessional Academic in the Macquarie School of Social Sciences at Macquarie University, and author of The US Lobby and Australian Defence Policy,………………………………………….
The global significance of B-2 strikes in Yemen
In a statement published late on the evening of Wednesday 16 October 2024 (EDT), Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin revealed US forces had conducted strikes against five hardened underground weapons storage locations in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen.[1] Although the US Navy also played a role in the operations, US Central Command announced the use of US Air Force B-2 Spirit long-range stealth bombers.[2]
The decision to launch strikes using the distinctive bat-wing bomber, which has been employed relatively infrequently in combat operations, contains a significance beyond the immediate conflict with the Houthis and carries implications that have assumed greater importance in light of the results of the recent US presidential election.
In the first instance the strikes signal the possibility of a larger conflagration in the Middle East, with the B-2’s unique combination of stealth and ‘bunker buster’ capabilities sending a clear message to Iran about America’s commitment to the defence of Israel; a commitment Washington has made even as Israel has taken a series of escalatory steps against Iran that have placed the region on the brink of all-out war.
However, they also carry a broader significance in demonstrating the ability of the US Air Force to deliver devastating strikes worldwide, including nuclear strikes due to the dual-capable role of the B-2, which is particularly salient for any future operations against both China and Russia.
Moreover, the B-2 strikes have momentous strategic implications for Australia, although this fact was left unexamined in media coverage of the event.
The Australian Department of Defence (hereafter Defence) confirmed to the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) that Australian airspace and airbases were accessed in support of the strikes.[3] This participation marks the first time since World War II that Australian territory has been directly used to support US strategic bomber operations.
This novel use of Australian territory follows significant infrastructure developments at airbases across the north of the country, still ongoing, that are ultimately being developed to enable full-spectrum support for US ‘deterrence’ operations against China.[4]
The B-2 strikes in Yemen are the first active demonstration of these developing capabilities and a harbinger of more comprehensive Australian support for any future US strategic air operations, including potential nuclear missions, perhaps in the Middle East, but also ultimately against China and even Russia.
The Australian government is yet to acknowledge the profound strategic implications foregrounded by the strikes in Yemen, while Defence has been unnecessarily opaque about the details of the operation. A full account and wide understanding of Australia’s role in the strikes and what it portends are crucially important for democratic transparency and accountability, while the spectre of the forthcoming Trump administration contributes to the urgency.
Trump’s erratic and unpredictable decision-making, combined with the president’s sole authority over the use of nuclear weapons, highlights the risks of the United States, and by implication, Australia, becoming engulfed in a fateful conflict that is neither anticipated nor desired by their respective peoples. If there was a time for Australian political leaders to be forthright about the dangers of positioning Australia in the frontline of US strategic bomber operations it is now more than ever.
A rare bomber strike; and a message to Iran
…………………………………………….The Pentagon refused to divulge the specific type of ordinance that was employed in the strikes, although an anonymous source revealed to a specialist military journal that the B-2s dropped 2,000-pound BLU-109 JDAM ‘bunker buster’ bombs.[8]
Of particular significance for Iran is the fact that the B-2 is uniquely capable of employing the 30,000-pound GBU-57 Massive Ordinance Penetrator (MOP) in combat operations, reportedly reaching targets of up to 200 feet underground.[9] Iran’s nuclear facilities are known to be deeply embedded underground at Fordow and Natanz and could only plausibly be destroyed by the employment of the MOP.[10]
Although Iran wasn’t mentioned by name, the Pentagon made it clear that the employment of the B-2 was not only a message to the Houthis but any ‘potential adversaries that hide things deep underground. It’s a message to them as well.’[11]
An historic first for Australia
Although aspects of the Australian role in supporting the B-2 strike mission remain unclear, the fact that it prefigures future support for a range of US missions involving conventional and nuclear forces in contingencies anywhere in the world demands a full account and understanding.
Australia is the only foreign country publicly known to have provided direct military support for the B-2 strikes in Yemen. Moreover, achieving this level of logistical cooperation represents a significant milestone in Australia-US military cooperation.
In its statement to the ABC, Defence declared that support for US strikes in Yemen was provided ‘through access and overflight for US aircraft in northern Australia’. The ABC also reported that air-to-air refuelling aircraft were part of the mission, although Defence declined to confirm this claim.[12]
The precise extent and nature of Australia’s support is still unknown, including whether any Australian Defence Force (ADF) capabilities were employed in support of the B-2 bombers. Defence has so far declined to comment further about Australia’s involvement, citing operational security. However, a Defence department spokesperson did issue a clarification to the ABC that American B-2s were not operating out of RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory at the time of the strikes.
RAAF Base Tindal is currently undergoing a major infrastructure expansion project to support the future forward-deployment of up to six B-52 (and eventually, possibly B-2 and B-1) strategic bombers, along with refuelling and transport aircraft. The upgrades include a squadron operation facility for mission planning, crew briefings and intelligence, along with maintenance facilities, strategic fuel reserves, and earth covered magazines for stockpiling munitions. The massive fuel storage facilities at Tindal have already been completed.[13]
B-2 bombers are known to have been operating out of RAAF Base Amberly in Queensland across the months of August and September in a Bomber Task Force mission that saw the aircraft covering vast distances throughout Australia and the Indo-Pacific, including ‘hot pit’ refuelling at the US base in Diego Garcia. However, the BTF mission had concluded by September 18.[14]
The clarification about Tindal issued by Defence, along with the nondescript use of the term ‘US aircraft’, leaves open the possibility that B-2 bombers operated from other RAAF bases in northern Australia, either en route or in return from Yemen, although there is no operational reason for the B-2s to have landed in Australia as against overflying and refuelling from aircraft operating from Australian airfields.
……………………………..photos taken by local Australian aviation enthusiasts provide evidence for a plausible scenario whereby US tankers operating out of Australia were used to refuel US B-2 bombers both enroute and in return from strikes in Yemen.
Western route to the Middle East
To fly over Australian airspace enroute to Yemen, US B-2 bombers are likely to have flown west over the United States and out across the Pacific Ocean before continuing over northern Australia and across the Indian Ocean to their eventual target.
A similar route, although traversing further to the north of Australia into Southeast Asia, was used when B-2 bombers launched strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. To reach their targets without landing, the bombers were required to carry out aerial refuelling five times off the coasts of California, Hawaii, Guam, the Strait of Malacca and finally Diego Garcia (see figure 1).[16]
Although there is a shorter and more direct route to Yemen flying east from the United States, this path has the advantage of avoiding the need to inform and seek permission from several countries in Europe and the Middle East whose airspace would otherwise be traversed. Flying a carefully plotted western path over northern Australia would avoid the airspace of several Southeast Asian states with large Islamic populations and potential political sensitivities to the strikes. Whether intended or not, it also signals to China and Russia that US strategic airpower can attack them via their ‘soft’ southern underbelly as was planned and exercised during the Cold War.
Overflying northern Australia
The presence of B-2s over Australian airspace at the time of the strikes in Yemen can be confirmed by aircraft communications with civilian air traffic control towers responsible for managing Australia’s airspace.[17] This type of communications is publicly available via online sources such as LiveATC.net.[18]
………………………………………………….Having left their location in the Coral Sea after checking in with the Brisbane Centre on October 16 at 3pm AEST, the B-2 bombers arrived at their target destinations in Yemen approximately 19 hours later at around 3am in local time on October 17.[24]
As reported by ABC News, air-to-air refuelling aircraft were a part of the B-2 mission that logistically required ‘access and overflight’ in northern Australia. This claim was neither confirmed nor denied by Defence…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Unanswered questions
There was no immediate post-strike assessment provided by the Pentagon when the strikes in Yemen were first announced on October 16………………………………………..
Although the Pentagon provided only scant details of the strikes, there has not to date even been an official statement about Australia’s participation in the operation made by the Minister for Defence or released on the website of the Australian Department of Defence. Nor has there been a post-operation account about the success or otherwise of the strikes.
This lack of transparency by Defence is typical but especially unwelcome given the operation marks an escalation in Australia’s participation in the conflict in the Middle East and especially its contested role in providing direct and indirect support to Israel in its wars in Gaza and Lebanon where there are reasonable grounds for believing war crimes and even genocide have been committed.[33]
Defence frequently promotes capability demonstrations of increased interoperability between the ADF and US military forces in official media releases, and Australia’s participation in the US strikes in Yemen represents the first combat demonstration of how Enhanced Air Cooperation under the framework of the US Force Posture Initiatives can be successively used for strategic bomber operations.[34] But if the joint operation was intended to contribute to ‘deterrence’ then the logical approach would have been to draw attention to it.
The obvious question that comes to mind therefore is why the Australian government acquiesced to involving Australia in the B-2 strikes? Australia’s long history of reflexive support for US military operations probably goes a long way in explaining the decision. But incremental decisions announced in a series of recent AUSMIN consultations has led to an unprecedented degree of Australia-US defence integration with implications for Australian participation in US global military operations that political leaders in Australia may not have fully appreciated.[35]
Whatever the rationale, Australians have a right to know about the nature and extent of Australia’s support for the strikes in Yemen, including what US aircraft were involved and what Australian bases they may have operated from. Specifically, Defence should be transparent with the Australian people about the following questions:
- Although it seems unlikely, did the B-2s in fact land at any Australian bases?
- US aerial refuelling aircraft were undoubtedly part of the mission. But did they draw from Australian or US dedicated fuel reserves?
- Were any ADF capabilities employed to support the B-2 strikes during their overflight of Australia or in the region more broadly?
- What assessment was made to ensure Australia’s participation in the strikes was compliant with International Humanitarian Law?
Finally, participation in the B-2 strikes in Yemen have taken Australia a step closer to becoming further entangled in the conflict in the Middle East. This leads to the obvious question of what, if any, are the limits to Australia’s support for US strategic bomber operations should the region become engulfed in all-out war?
Merely citing ‘operational security’ in refusing to answer such questions is wholly inadequate. Democratic transparency and accountability require any potential operational security concerns to be fully explained and justified.
The future of US strategic bomber operations in Australia
Although the strikes in Yemen point to the risks Australia faces in reflexively supporting its ally in yet another conflict in the Middle East, ultimately this unique demonstration of Australia’s growing capabilities to contribute to US strategic air operations is a harbinger of more comprehensive support for any future US conflict with China and/or Russia.
The Australian government has displayed no willingness to publicly acknowledge, let alone debate, the implications of America’s steady military buildup in the north of the country and the deepening integration of the ADF with US armed forces. Washington now views Australia as ‘the central base’ of its Indo-Pacific operations squarely targeted at China; and the strikes in Yemen make clear that the United States is willing and able to utilise its new base capabilities in Australia to devastating effect.[36]
It is critical therefore that the Australian public and its political leaders at all levels comprehend the profound implications of participating in the B-2 strikes in Yemen. It prefigures similar and more prominent roles for Australia in American conventional and nuclear operations not only in the Middle East, but in East Asia and the Pacific, and especially around China and even Russia.
Although tactical surprise may require opacity before and during such a joint operation, there is no excuse for the failure to share with the Australian people what Australia has done, not least so that they are prepared to make informed judgements that will restrain or enable future expanded joint operations now envisioned by the two governments under the 2014 Force Posture Agreement and more recent AUKUS rubric, but not shared with their respective peoples.[37]
Until a full official account is provided, observers could be forgiven for assuming that supine acquiescence on the part of the Australian government in supporting American strikes combined with Defence’s utter lack of accountability explains how Australian airbases and airspace were utilised to support the B-2 strikes in Yemen.
III. ENDNOTES – 1 – 37…………………………………more https://johnmenadue.com/b-2-bomber-strikes-in-yemen-and-their-significance-for-australia/
Trumped: $9B to US and UK shipyards … but why not make Australia make again?
The Government is shy on spending money on a steel works which they would have complete control over, in terms of success, but are happy to recklessly throw money at US shipyards.
Senator David Shoebridge: “The AUKUS submarine deal is a non-refundable $368 billion gamble on the goodwill of some future US President, and the US just elected Donald Trump. You only need to put these two facts side by side to realize what a disaster the whole thing is.”
by Rex Patrick | Nov 16, 2024, https://michaelwest.com.au/aukus-9b-to-us-and-uk-shipyards-but-wait-theres-more/
Make Australia Make Again?
The future of Whyalla’s steelworks is of vital national importance and should matter to all of us. It is critical to Australia’s manufacturing, construction and national security and resilience.
Being frank, the steelworks are in dire straits. They are 60 years old and have been on a rocky road for well over a decade. Its blast furnace has been out of action for over six months now, and whilst there is some optimism that they will get it back up and running it will not change the fact that the steelworks have been in operation for some six decades.
In 2016 when the previous owner, Arrium, went into administration with $4 billion in debts, UK billionaire Sanjeev Gupta’s GFG Alliance bought the steelworks making lots of big promises for a bright future, but it was not to be. At the turn of the decade Greensill Capital, GFG’s financier, collapsed and there’s been trouble ever since.
As it stands, the future of the steelworks, and Whyalla, is in the hands of a court entangled foreign billionaire with a gaping chasm between his promises and delivery. Those promises of a 21st century industrial transformation look very much like ever receding mirages.
The Federal Government needs to have the SA Government bring matters to a head by putting GFG’s South Australian operations into administration (by calling for unpaid and overdue mining royalties), taking an equity stake in the steelworks alongside someone like BlueScope Steel, and investing the necessary billions to build a new green steel industry for Australia.
It would be a part of Make Australia Make Again.
Make America Great Again!
Prime Minister Albanese’s focus is on investment in US industry, not Australian industry.
In September 2023 the Federal Government announced it was pouring $4.7 billion ($US3B) into the US submarine industrial base to assist the largest economy in the world get their submarine production rate up to 2.3 subs per annum (from the current rate of 1.4 subs).
Some $1.5 billion will be paid to the US this financial year, and $1.8 billion next financial year. The remaining $1.4B will follow thereafter.
The Government is shy on spending money on a steel works which they would have complete control over, in terms of success, but are happy to recklessly throw money at US shipyards.
Go figure!
Make Great Britain Great Again Too!
That’s not the end of the story though.
The British are in on this deal of a lifetime too. They’ve managed to pull $4.4B (£2.4 billion) over the next decade from Australian consolidated revenue.
There is no clawback on payment to the United Kingdom either.
Everyone must be feeling pretty chuffed in Groton, Connecticut, and Barrow-in-Furness, England.
But Wait, There’s More!
Whilst the Federal Government has been open about the totals, albeit with a little ‘encouragement’ from Green’s Senator David Shoebridge at Senate Estimates, there’s a dark secret being withheld from the Parliament and the public.
There’s more ‘shared’ cost to come.
FOI returns from the US Department of the Navy reveal that behind the scenes the three AUKUS government participants have been negotiating trilateral cost sharing principles to guide future cost sharing negotiations.
Whilst the Federal Government has been open about the totals, albeit with a little ‘encouragement’ from Green’s Senator David Shoebridge at Senate Estimates, there’s a dark secret being withheld from the Parliament and the public.
There’s more ‘shared’ cost to come.
FOI returns from the US Department of the Navy reveal that behind the scenes the three AUKUS government participants have been negotiating trilateral cost sharing principles to guide future cost sharing negotiations.
Senator David Shoebridge backed this in telling MWM, “Why on earth do cost-sharing principles need to be secret? Of course they should be made public.”
He went on to comment, “Once again, we get more transparency on AUKUS out of the US than Australia.“
“The one-sided secrecy is because the US has a whole lot less to be embarrassed about than Australia. They are the ones getting all our money after all.”
Transactional Trump
Transactional Trump
The approved appropriations in the US for enhancing their submarine industrial base through upgrades as well as recruitment and training of thousands of additional workers amount to $US14.7B. Australia adds another $US3B to that. But the total the US administration is seeking for this work is in the order of $US28.4B.
Of course, there is some quid quo pro in all of this with the Australia Government having committed to spending $8 billion upgrading HMAS Stirling near Rockingham to support the operations of UK and US nuclear powered submarines from 2027, and possibly Australian nuclear submarines from 2035.
There is a danger under the incoming Trump administration that the President will seek a greater contribution from Australia – just as he has demanded that members of NATO pull their weight. And it will be a case of having no choice but to pay, no matter the cost sharing principles negotiated, because our Defence Department simply has no Plan B.
Senator Shoebridge commented, “The AUKUS submarine deal is a non-refundable $368 billion gamble on the goodwill of some future US President, and the US just elected Donald Trump. You only need to put these two facts side by side to realize what a disaster the whole thing is.”
Ships and Steel
Meanwhile, as Australian money is being tossed around the US and UK like it’s free, Albanese is sitting on his hand on the issue of green steel manufacturing in Whyalla.
Anthony Albanese says he wants to revitalise manufacturing and Make Australia Make Again. But in this topsy-turvey world, he’s instead working to deliver on Donald Trump’s slogan to Make America Great Again.
Nuked: The Submarine Fiasco that Sank Australia’s Sovereignty, book by Murray Horton
Global Peace and Justice Aotearoa, 12 Nov 24, Reprinted from Covert Action Magazine
Andrew Fowler’s book Nuked: The Submarine Fiasco That Sank Australia’s Sovereignty (Melbourne University Press, 2024) was not written by a member of the peace movement. That is both a strength and a weakness. A strength, because Andrew Fowler is an award-winning investigative journalist, who has worked in mainstream Australian current affairs TV. So, it can’t be dismissed as “anti-American, anti-military” propaganda.
But it is a weakness because the author never questions the basic tenet of the book’s subject—why does Australia need any submarines at all, regardless of whether they are conventionally powered or nuclear powered. The book’s focus is a forensic analysis of who won the highly lucrative battle to supply Australia’s new subs—it was all set up to be France but then, after hidden, sub-surface maneuvering worthy of one of the book’s subjects, Australia and the U.S. torpedoed the French and did a deal among themselves.
This book is about AUKUS (Australia, UK, U.S.), the new kid on the “Indo-Pacific” block—although it should be pointed out that the UK is an awfully long way away from either the Indo or the Pacific. It is an attempt to build a new Western military alliance, initially between those three countries but with the prospect of other countries (including New Zealand) joining the ill-defined AUKUS Pillar Two at some unspecified time in the future. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The book is about the birth of AUKUS, which is all about submarines.
AUKUS
I’ve written about AUKUS previously in Covert ActionMagazine, so I refer you to that for the back story. In 2016 Australia signed a $A50 billion contract for France to build it 12 state of the art conventionally powered submarines for the Australian Navy. It was the largest defence contact in the history of both France and Australia. The right-wing Liberal Party was in Government in Australia, headed by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The book names names—the man who fronted the deception and betrayal of France was Scott Morrison, who replaced Turnbull as the Liberal Prime Minister in 2018, in an internal Party coup (a common occurrence in Australian politics). Behind the scenes, the key man was Andrew Shearer, “a vehemently pro-American China hawk” who went on to become Director-General of National Intelligence. Right up until just before AUKUS was announced in 2021, Morrison’s government continued to assure France that it was proceeding with the contract to buy French submarines.
Dumping France For the U.S.
Instead of 12 diesel-powered French subs, Australia signed up to have the U.S. and UK build eight nuclear-powered (but not nuclear-armed) subs for its Navy. The cost is astronomical—up to $A368 billion by 2055. Yes, that’s right—those eight subs will not be ready for more than 30 years. The first of them is unlikely to be ready until the 2040s so, to fill that gap, Australia will buy three existing U.S. subs from the early 2030s, at a cost of up to $A58b, with an option to buy two more. This is a staggering amount to spend on one military project from a country with a population of just under 27 million people.
“(AUKUS) was a clear victory for Washington, which had been concerned for some time that France had a different view on how to deal with the rise of China… There was barely a murmur of opposition from the media. Morrison had pulled off a major achievement of what U.S. public intellectual Noam Chomsky describes as the political art of ‘manufacturing consent’…”.
“How did it happen that the bulk of analysis and criticism of the submarine deal came from two former Prime Ministers, Paul Keating (Labor) and Malcolm Turnbull (Liberal) who, though on opposing sides of politics, were united in warning that the submarine deal stripped away Australia’s sovereignty……………………………..
Australia Expected To Fight Alongside U.S. In War With China
There is only the feeblest pretense that these nuclear submarines (still decades away from reality) will be used to defend Australia. Their role will be to patrol close to the Chinese coast, to hem in the Chinese Navy and, in the event of war, to attack China with cruise missiles. That’s the theory, anyway. The advantage of their being nuclear-powered is that they don’t have to return to port to refuel. U.S. hawks expect Australia to fight on its side in any war with China over Taiwan………………………………………………………………………………………..
Integration With U.S. Military
There is a lot more to the U.S.-Australia military relationship than some exorbitantly expensive nuclear submarines that may or may not ever materialise. There is the top-secret Central Intelligence Agency/National Security Agency Pine Gap spy base near Alice Springs, in central Australia, which is crucial to the global warfighting abilities of the U.S. There is the North West Cape facility on the westernmost point of mainland Australia, which the US Navy uses to communicate with its nuclear attack subs. There is Australia’s increasing involvement with the U.S. military and intelligence satellite programme, in preparation for war in space.
“Australia’s integration with the U.S. military was, of course, well underway before the AUKUS agreement. As already noted, Pine Gap and North West Cape are part of this. But there is also the basing of thousands of U.S. Marines in Darwin (northern coast), the stationing of nuclear-capable B-52s at Tindal (Australian Air Force base, northern Australia), and the stationing of U.S. military throughout the Australian Defence Force, including from the National Reconnaissance Office at the military headquarters in Canberra… Though Defence Minister Richard Marles has ruled out automatic support of the United States in any war over Taiwan, it is difficult to see how Australia won’t be involved. Pine Gap, Tindal, North West Cape and Perth (Western Australia’s biggest city) will all be integral to the battle.”
Change Of Government; No Change Of Foreign Policy
Scott Morrison’s Liberal government was voted out at the 2022 Australian election and was replaced by Anthony Albanese’s Labor Party. But Australia’s commitment to AUKUS remained unchanged………………………………………………………………………………
“Nuked” specifically attributes Labor’s fervent desire not to be seen as “anti-American” to the events of 1975, when the Central Intelligence Agency and its local collaborators, succeeded in getting Gough Whitlam’s Labor government overthrown in a bloodless coup. The U.S. covert state was particularly concerned about Whitlam’s revelations about its Pine Gap spy base and possible threats to close it. Jeremy Kuzmarov has recently written about this in CovertAction Magazine (15/11/23), so I refer you to that.
For half a century the Australian Labor Party has lived in fear of the same thing happening again, and has bent over backwards to prove its loyalty to the U.S.
………The consequences of the fear that drove the ALP leadership to embrace AUKUS with barely a second thought will haunt them for years to come. Just as Morrison was only too willing to trade Australian’s independence for the chance to win an election, so too was Labor. Now it is left to make work a deeply flawed scheme that, more than ever before, ties Australia’s future to whoever is in the White House.”
Jobs For The Boys
And what has happened to Scott Morrison, who retired from politics in 2024? “Along with Trump’s former CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, Morrison became a strategic adviser to U.S. asset management firm DYNE Maritime, which launched a $157 U.S. million fund to invest in technologies related to AUKUS. ………
“Morrison also became Vice-Chair of American Global Strategies (AGS), headed by former Trump National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien. AGS, stacked with former Pentagon, White House and State Department officials, boasts that it ‘assists clients as they navigate U.S. government processes,’ a useful addition to any company wanting to boost profits in the burgeoning area of military spending.”
New Zealand & AUKUS
…………………………………………………………………………… There are plenty of similarities between Australia and New Zealand but also significant differences. Whereas Australian governments of either party fall over themselves to loyally serve the U.S. empire, New Zealand has been nuclear free by law since the 1980s (and it was an Australian Labor government, on behalf of the U.S., which tried to pressure New Zealand to drop the policy. That pressure backfired).
……………………………………………………………….But there is a constant push to get New Zealand further entangled in the U.S. war machine, including Pillar Two of AUKUS (which has been, thus far, only identified as involving “advanced military technology”). New Zealand currently has a very pro-American Government, which is already a non-member “partner” of NATO and which is eager to serve the U.S……………………………………..
Not All New Zealand Politicians Lining Up To Grovel To Uncle Sam.
For a refreshing contrast, here’s an extract from a recent (2/10/24) press statement from Te Pāti Māori, the indigenous party, which has six Members of Parliament (out of 123). “Meanwhile the New Zealand Government is in talks with the United States about joining AUKUS to further support their war efforts. This represents the next phase of global colonisation, and it is being negotiated behind closed doors,” Co-Leader Rawiri Waititi said.
“The U.S. wants to use Aotearoa as a Pacific spy base. This could mean the end of our longstanding nuclear free policy to allow their war ships into our waters. AUKUS threatens our sovereignty as an independent nation, and the Mana Motuhake of every nation in the Pacific. It threatens to drag Aotearoa into World War 3,” said Waititi.
“The New Zealand government is putting everyone in Aotearoa at risk through their complicity. They must end all talks about joining AUKUS immediately. They must sanction Israel and cut ties with all countries who are committing and aiding war crimes,” said Co-Leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer………………………………. more https://gpja.org.nz/2024/11/12/nuked-the-submarine-fiasco-that-sank-australias-sovereignty-by-murray-horton/
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 