The lucrative charity, yes CHARITY, running the Land Forces weapons expo
by Michael West | Sep 14, 2024, https://michaelwest.com.au/the-lucrative-charity-yes-charity-running-the-land-forces-weapons-fair/
The promoters behind the Land Forces weapons expo are registered as a charity. This charity, AMDA, pays no tax but does pay high salaries and just tripled its income to $35m. Michael West
It was rubber bullets and tear gas for peace protestors but special police mollycoddling and a Victorian Government sponsorship for the merchants of death.
What do we know about the promoters of the Land Forces weapons fair which the Victorian government so avidly protected from anti-war protestors this week with a $15m police presence, stun grenades, pepper spray and batons?
We know from regulatory filings the promoter behind Land Forces is a charity called AMDA Foundation. We know from AMDA’s financial disclosures that this charity is highly profitable. Its income shot up from $13m in 2022 to $34.6m last year
That was for the year to June; at which point it was sitting on a financial investment portfolio of $43m in cash, stocks and bonds. AMDA even gets government grants – grant revenue is booked at $6.6m over the past 2 years. The principal sponsor for Land Forces expo this year was none other than the Victorian Government, which went to extraordinary lengths to protect and promote its investment.
The mainstream media was bizarrely strident in its anti-protest coverage, running the story (not disavowed by the government and Victoria Police) that protestors sprayed police with acid. That was later downgraded to ‘irritants’ and ‘low-level acid’ bringing speculation it might have been orange juice (citric acid) or maybe the chemicals in the bubble liquid from the bubble machine with which the outnumbered protestors entertained the police blockade at one point.
It’s all a rort on the public, on the very taxpayers and citizens the Victorian government had its police assaulting this week, because weapons companies – the likes of AMDA’s exhibitors BAE, Lockheed Martin, Thales and Boeing – are funded by governments globally.
In Australia, the Defence budget is soaring amid rising weapons sales; so it is a fair bet that the income of AMDA will be higher in 2024.
AMDA’s $30m in expenses last year included $8m in pay for its 31 employees (FTE equivalent), which averages out at almost $260k per employee. The 5 KMP – the crew at the top of the charity – shared $1.5m or almost $300k apiece in ‘charity pay’.
The fake charity AMDA Foundation is exposed by Michael West Media’s Michelle Fahy.
Landforces’ brothers in arms: how a weapons peddler qualified for charitable status . https://www.michaelwest.com.au/landforces-brothers-in-arms-how-a-weapons-peddler-qualified-for-charitable-status/
by Michelle Fahy | Jun 4, 2021 The Coalition is cracking down on charitable organisations. However, the Australian charity promoting arms deals on behalf of weapons makers that profit from humanitarian catastrophes is unlikely to be in the government’s sights. With the weapons expo LandForces wrapping up in Brisbane this week, Michelle Fahy delves into the charity behind LandForces.
The Morrison government has charitable organisations in its sights. It proposes to amend the legislation covering charities so that minor legal misdemeanours by staff or supporters of a charity could be used as a prompt by the regulator for a review of a charity’s privileged status.
St Vincent de Paul told The Saturday Paper that if an activist wearing a Vinnies T-shirt refused to move along when asked by police, Vinnies could risk having its charitable status removed.
Hands Off Our Charities, an alliance of Australian charities, said in a submission to government: “The proposal is a major overreach and the need for further regulation has not been (and in our view cannot be) properly explained.”
Yet consider the activities of a not-for-profit organisation that many Australians will be astounded to discover has gained privileged charitable status – AMDA Foundation Limited (AMDA).
AMDA is the organiser of Land Forces, a biennial military and weapons exhibition running in Brisbane this week showcasing organisations “operating across the full spectrum of land warfare”.
The 600 exhibitors at Land Forces include local and multinational weapons manufacturers and other suppliers to military forces. Event sponsors include global arms corporations such as Boeing, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, Rheinmetall, General Dynamics, Saab and Hanwha, along with local companies Electro Optic Systems (EOS), CEA, and NIOA. Representatives from foreign governments and militaries are among the attendees.
Several of AMDA’s arms-maker sponsors have supplied their weaponry to the two countries leading the coalition fighting the war in Yemen – Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The UN has been pleading for years for countries to cease supplying weaponry to these countries.
In late 2018, the New York Times published distressing photographs of emaciated children in Yemen dying as a result of aid blockades during the war. The mass starvation continues. UNICEF has said more than 400,000 Yemeni children under five could die preventable deaths this year.
Promoting arms deals on behalf of corporations that have profited from this unspeakable humanitarian catastrophe is the antithesis of what an Australian registered charity should be doing.
But the political posturing evident in the government’s proposed changes is unlikely to result in any repercussions for the AMDA Foundation. Instead, it is ‘activist’ environmental charities that are being targeted by the changes. Which is precisely the problem with such sweeping broad powers. They can be implemented selectively to silence voices the government does not want heard.
“It is the principle that underpins the change that is wrong, regardless of who it is used to target,” said Matt Rose, Economy & Democracy Program Manager at the Australian Conservation Foundation.
Arms trade promotion a “charitable activity”?
AMDA runs numerous major military and weapons-related trade exhibitions around Australia. Its roster of events includes Avalon, a biennial aerospace military and weapons expo in Victoria, next slated for early December 2021. The Indo Pacific Expo, a maritime warfare exhibition, is scheduled for May 2022 in Sydney.
These and other industry trade shows bring together sellers and buyers of weaponry and other military and security-related equipment. “Doing business is easy at Land Forces,” says its website, noting that Land Forces serves as a “powerful promotional and industry engagement forum”.
AMDA says it exists to help the “general community in Australia”. But the general community is not permitted to attend Land Forces nor AMDA’s other arms exhibitions. (The public can attend the Avalon Air Show, a separate public event run at the same time as the Avalon arms expo.)
AMDA is part of a group of companies registered with ACNC which operates around the country. It had 24 full-time-equivalent employees and a gross income in 2020 of $11.7 million – 32% of which came from government grants and 61% from operating revenue. Its income in 2019 was $26.2 million, mostly from operating revenue.
Revolving doors and conflicted interests
The AMDA board is an all-male affair. Its chair is former chief of the Royal Australian Navy, Christopher Ritchie, who joined the board in May 2017 while concurrently sitting on the boards of Lockheed Martin Australia (until 2020) and German naval shipbuilder Luerssen Australia, both multibillion dollar contractors to the Defence Department.
Former chief of army Kenneth Gillespie sits on the AMDA board while also sitting on the board of Naval Group, the French multinational building Australia’s controversial new submarines. Gillespie is also chair of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) Council, the highly influential and supposedly “independent” think tank tasked with providing strategic advice to the government.
ASPI is sponsored by Naval Group as well as other global arms manufacturers including Lockheed Martin, Thales, Saab and Northrop Grumman. ASPI has been vocal in its anti-China ‘war drums’ rhetoric, stoking regional tensions, along with the Asia Pacific arms race.
Why Aged Care Funding Scrutinised, but Military Spending Not
Double Standards in Public Discourse
The double standard in how we view social versus military spending is stark. While aged care is framed as a financial burden that requires higher contributions from individuals, military spending is accepted without the same level of scrutiny. Why is it that investments in the well-being of citizens are questioned while investments in military equipment go ahead without question?
Australia’s government has the financial ability to distribute more resources toward aged care without compromising national defence. By reallocating just, a fraction of the $368 billion earmarked for submarines, the aged care system could receive the necessary funding to address worker shortages, improve infrastructure, and ensure that no senior is left without quality care.
September 13, 2024 by By Denis Hay, The AIM Network
Introduction
Australia is grappling with rising demands for aged care services as its population grows older, leading to a $5.6 billion reform package to improve the sector. Yet, every dollar given to aged care is met with scrutiny, with questions about sustainability and affordability. In stark contrast, military spending – including the $368 billion given for the AUKUS submarine deal – goes ahead with far less financial scrutiny.
Why do we ask, “At what cost?” for aged care, yet overlook the same question for military projects? This article explores these double standards and how Australia’s currency sovereignty means the government has the financial capacity to fund both without compromising one for the other.
Disparities in Spending Scrutiny
I. Aged Care Reforms: Why “At What Cost” is Constantly Asked
A. Key Changes in Aged Care
The Australian government’s $5.6 billion aged care reform package aims to improve services for more than 1.4 million older Australians, helping them stay at home longer before entering institutional care. However, the reforms include higher means-tested contributions from seniors, raising concerns about affordability for lower-income individuals.
B. Challenges in Aged Care Funding
Australia’s aged care sector is facing significant challenges, even with the new reforms:
1. Workforce shortages – More than 300,000 workers are needed to meet the demand for aged care services, but underfunding is making recruitment and retention difficult.
2. Underfunding – The sector is still underfunded despite the reforms, with many care facilities still struggling to provide adequate services.
3. Increased demand – With Australia’s aging population expected to double by 2050, more funds will be needed to provide quality care.
Despite these growing challenges, aged care funding is constantly questioned. The $5.6 billion reform package was seen as necessary, but it came with a public narrative focused on budget concerns and intergenerational equity, suggesting the government is walking a financial tightrope when funding such social services.
C. Public and Political Scrutiny
Aged care spending is consistently subjected to public and political debate, with media coverage often emphasising the “cost to the taxpayer“ and generational fairness. Yet this intense scrutiny stands in stark contrast to how military spending is viewed, where multibillion-dollar defence projects move forward with little financial questioning.
II. Military Spending: An Unquestioned Cost
A. Overview of Military Expenditures
In 2023, Australia committed $368 billion over the next 30 years to the AUKUS submarine program, making it one of the largest military spending commitments in the country’s history. The overall defence budget for 2023-2024 alone reached $50 billion, marking a significant increase compared to previous years.
B. Justifications for Military Spending
Proponents of military spending often argue that defence investments are critical for national security, particularly with the growing military presence of China in the Indo-Pacific region. The AUKUS deal, which promises to deliver nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, has been framed as necessary for safeguarding Australia’s interests in the future.
However, this narrative ignores the question of cost. While $368 billion has been committed for submarines over the next three decades, far less attention is given to the financial opportunity costs – what else could be funded with such vast sums?
C. Limited Scrutiny on Defence Budgets
In contrast to aged care, military expenditures are rarely subject to serious financial scrutiny. Public debate around defence spending typically focuses on national security threats rather than the financial burden of these projects. Even when media coverage addresses military budgets, it rarely compares them to the costs of social services, leaving aged care and defence spending to occupy entirely different public conversations.
Australia’s Currency Sovereignty and the Real Limits…………………………………………………………………………..
Double Standards in Public Discourse
The double standard in how we view social versus military spending is stark. While aged care is framed as a financial burden that requires higher contributions from individuals, military spending is accepted without the same level of scrutiny. Why is it that investments in the well-being of citizens are questioned while investments in military equipment go ahead without question?
…………………………………………………………… Rebalancing Australia’s Budget Priorities
…………………..Australia’s government has the financial ability to distribute more resources toward aged care without compromising national defence. By reallocating just, a fraction of the $368 billion earmarked for submarines, the aged care system could receive the necessary funding to address worker shortages, improve infrastructure, and ensure that no senior is left without quality care. ……………..more https://theaimn.com/why-aged-care-funding-scrutinised-but-military-spending-not/
The tangled nuclear web of lies and half-truths – can we believe that Australia will refuse to take USA toxic wastes?
How is the Australian government going to twist their way around THIS ONE!
I’d really like to believe Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who once was a noble opponent of the military-industrial-nuclear complex.
But – now – I fear that he is as gutless as most Australian politicians when it comes to sucking up to the USA.
https://theaimn.com/can-we-believe-that-the-australian-government-will-really-refuse-to-take-usa-uk-nuclear-submarine-waste/ 12 Sept 24, Today comes one of those amazing bits of news that a national government, in this case, it seems, Australia, has actually listened and responded to the many voices of peace and environment activists who are shocked at the proposed Naval Nuclear Propulsion Treaty which benefits the USA, but not Australia, and which makes Australia responsible for high level nuclear wastes from U.S/UK nuclear submarines.
If we can believe the Labor government – they are going to stand up to the USA and the UK, and refuse to accept high level toxic radioactive trash from USA – ‘Relief’ Australia won’t take high-level nuclear waste under AUKUS.
The latest information on Australia getting nuclear submarines is that as early as 2027, the United States will begin rotational presence in the Western Australia facility. Ultimately, there will be up to four U.S. Virginia-class submarines and one United Kingdom Astute-class submarine at HMAS Stirling. https://www.defenseone.com/business/2024/01/race-prepare-australia-nuclear-subs/393601/
So these nuclear submarines will be stationed in Australia , but owned by the USA and UK, not by Australia.
Well- here are a couple of clauses from this jargon-filled proposed Treaty:
ARTICLE IV – D
Australia shall be responsible for the management, disposition, storage, and disposal of any
spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste resulting from the operation of Naval Nuclear
Propulsion Plants transferred pursuant to this Article, including radioactive waste generated
through submarine operations, maintenance, decommissioning, and disposal.
ANNEX B: SECTION I – SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL
Such Power Units shall contain highly enriched uranium and, only with respect to irradiated fuel, may contain plutonium.
Friends of the Earth are among the many who have sounded the warning:
Minister for Defence Richard Marles has stated that Australia would not accept radioactive waste from overseas, but this has not been explicitly ruled out in the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 currently before Parliament. The words of an under-pressure defence minister in 2024 are unlikely to count for much decades hence if Australian legislation and the Agreement between Australia, the UK and
the US do not prohibit the acceptance of foreign spent nuclear fuel.
It is important to acknowledge Australia’s poor history regarding radioactive waste disposal
facilities.
How is the Australian government going to twist their way around THIS ONE!
I’d really like to believe Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who once was a noble opponent of the military-industrial-nuclear complex.
PM Albanese has been adroit at making himself a “small target” for both the Opposition nuclear enthusiasts, and for his own Labor Party members who deplore the AUKUS nuclear deal. No doubt he will rely on the mealy-mouthed USA-sycophant defence Minister Richard Marles to spin the story on this.
Submission -Terry Barridge – re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion – it’s dangerous, the public should vote on it.
Given the significant implications of such a security pact, it is only democratic that the Australian population has a direct say in this matter. I strongly advocate for this issue to be put to a vote, allowing the voices of Australian citizens to be heard and respected in a decision that will impact our nation’s future.
I am writing to express my concerns and opposition to the recent enhancement of the AUKUS agreement,
commonly referred to as AUKUS 2.0, between Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. As an
Australian citizen deeply invested in the long-term security and prosperity of our nation, I feel compelled to voice my apprehensions regarding the implications of this agreement
Firstly, I am troubled by the increased proximity of Australian military and security policies to those of the
United States. The United States, in its current geopolitical stance, appears to many as a waning power, facing significant domestic challenges and shifting international allegiances. By binding our security interests so closely with those of the United States through agreements like AUKUS 2.0, Australia risks inheriting the animosities and conflicts that are directed towards America. This alignment not only draws us into the sphere of influence of a nation facing considerable global scrutiny and criticism but also potentially makes Australia a target for those who view the United States unfavorably.
Secondly, the financial burden of AUKUS 2.0 on Australian taxpayers is a major concern. The investment
required to uphold the commitments within this agreement is substantial, and the returns – both in terms of security enhancements and economic benefits – are uncertain. In an era where economic stability is precarious, it is crucial that government expenditures are made with a clear and guaranteed return on investment. The lack of transparency regarding the financial implications and benefits of AUKUS 2.0 is worrying. Australian taxpayers deserve clarity on how their funds are being used and assurances that these expenditures will not only safeguard but also enhance our national interests.
Furthermore, in light of the current “cost of living” crisis, the financial commitment required for this deal
appears especially irresponsible. Many Australians are already struggling to manage everyday expenses, from utility bills to housing costs. Allocating substantial public funds to an uncertain and contentious military agreement further burdens the average citizen without offering immediate or transparent benefits.
Moreover, the United States has a long and contentious history of treating warfare as a business opportunity, enriching a select few at the expense of many. This perspective on military engagement should not be what we aspire to promote in our region. America’s track record in wars across the globe has often led to long-standing conflicts without clear successes, posing significant concerns about the wisdom of aligning our defense policies so closely with their strategies.
Given the significant implications of such a security pact, it is only democratic that the Australian population has a direct say in this matter. I strongly advocate for this issue to be put to a vote, allowing the voices of Australian citizens to be heard and respected in a decision that will impact our nation’s future.
I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your response, outlining how you and your office will address these concerns. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions
Submission – Stephen Clendinnen – re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion – oppose this costly, dangerous, AUKUS mistake
I am writing to you to oppose the proposed AUKUS deal. Here are my reasons.
1 The AUKUS deal will provoke an arms race with China which will destabilise the entire Indo-Pacific region and lead to increased conflict in our region. China is our number one trading partner. Entering an arms race with China will seriously jeopardise our economic interests with potential massive financial costs. Entering an arms race with China will also make us more of a target for attack.
2 The proposal is extremely expensive and we know from past experience that these type of high tech defence projects usually run massively over budget. So it is safe to say that the cost will be well over $386 billion.
3 The AUKUS deal will make us completely subservient to the USA. These submarines will not really be owned by Australia; the US and the UK will retain complete control over crucial technologies that operate the subs. Without active support from the US and the UK the subs will not be able to operate.
4 There are very real risks that the USA will cease to be a functioning democracy in the near future. There are no contingency plans for this eventuality. The USA is complicit in war crimes that Israel is committing through the supply of weapons. Both the Republicans and the Democrats support this policy. By entering the AUKUS agreement Australia will bear legal and moral responsibility for participating in war crimes.
5 These subs will not be built in Australia. There are massive technical and labour force impediments to this ever happening. The promises made about building submarines here are always deliberately vague about the time line.
6 The US cannot make enough of the subs for their own needs and are running way behind schedule. Delivery of submarines to Australia will be massively delayed, however Australia has already started making payments.
7 This is a very expensive proposal that gives all the benefits to the USA and the UK with many of the up front costs being paid by Australia.
8 Australia will be receiving large amounts of nuclear waste from the USA and from the UK as part of this arrangement.
Submission -James Lechte – re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion it’s not too late to walk back this AUKUS commitment
China has never in its long history shown a track record of external aggressiveness.
its highly likely that
rather than China, the US in fact may become more unstable and less trustworthy in the coming
decades, even sooner perhaps.
Submission no 19
This is formal feedback on the proposed AUKUS legislation/policy and related $ 370 billion budget
spend forecast by the current administration for the nuclear submarine acquisition from the US.
As a concerned Aussie citizen, and having had the privilege of living in Switzerland for a number of
years whilst working overseas, it brings new light on recent commentary about the AUKUS deal and
Australia’s position, held by both Labour and the Liberal National party coalition.
My feedback relates to If and how.
IF
The key question Australians deserve further dialogue over is whether or not its in our best interests
to develop a first of a kind, pro US, assertive (some would consider aggressive) defense posture in
the region. Australia is a peaceful country, with a diverse and increasingly multi-cultural pan Asian
background. History tells us that wars are difficult, do not end well nor are in any parties interests.
Whatsmore, history also tells us that deterrence based on increased defence capability is not based
in fact. Rather, strategic ambiguity – where by any threat does not understand which side we would
take in a conflict, may be a better deterrent, as it gives parties options and does not actively signal a
threat.
AUKUS removes this opportunity.
likelihood of getting into conflict. Switzerland is an excellent example here – across their history from
the late 1200s, they have managed to achieve this ambiguity, which has provided them with options
in alliances and support, in different scenarios across history.
China has never in its long history shown a track record of external aggressiveness. On the contrary,
despite them being very assertive in their economic position, often crossing the line, the latest
example from 2020/21 economic stoush with Australia highlights to us that this can be managed and
resolved, by using soft power – diplomacy, patience and dialogue. In any conflict, showdown or
threat, we have already engaged by virtue of the posture that is in question built into AUKUS. We
have no option but to engage, regardless of the rhetoric of Minister Marles suggesting that this is
within our discretion. We effectively have a target on our back.
As Ray Dalio highlights in his essays regarding world power being reshaped, its highly likely that
rather than China, the US in fact may become more unstable and less trustworthy in the coming
decades, even sooner perhaps. If this happens, where does this leave Australias options around
independence, freedom of defence action and strategic ambiguity? If this world power shift continues and China continues its ascendency, why is it in Australias interest to maintain an
aggressive posture with the new world power? This makes no sense.
How
If one is to assume that based on a long history of alliance, collaboration and defence information
and knowledge sharing, Australia should join an AUKUS alliance, then the question is how this can be
achieved whilst maintaining a) as much of the above ambiguity as possible as its in our long term
interests, and b) a commercial strategy that sees Australia have an equitable commercial
relationship, grow its economy, not primarily its debt. It is in Australias interest to have a resilient
and multi faceted defence capability, whilst also managing a careful cost benefit of investing in these
assets. This means that we need to be extremely commercial, shrewd and strategic in the use of
multiple options to fend off potential threats and get the best long term value for money. This
classically is now termed ‘Asymmetric’ capabilities. Aside from the issue of how Australian Defence
experts and the Government choose to renew this capability, one thing is for certain, we need to
develop much better commercial capabilities in this space given the quantum were talking about,
this role would be similar in scale to a Deputy capability group within the ATO or home affairs for
example, dealing with the size of the spend. We should be extremely commercially aggressive on
clawing back spend where budgets have been over run, ultimately meaning that shared success is
the primary objective for all parties.
The deal that has been presented to Australians, with scant detail, suggests that none of the above
has been achieved. On the contrary, it seems like we have entered into an agreement MAXIMISING
our partners interests and not ours. The context that this deal is/has taken shape under is that for
the health and prosperity of the region, it is in many parties (US, Japan, Indo Pacific nations etc)
interests for Australia and other nations to have strategic defence capabilities. It is also important to
note, that in doing so, we are buttressing the US’s defence posture in the region and as such,
deserve special economic consideration, just like the defence consideration (being given access to
these tools). We are also an extension of the US defence capability, given the tools being selected. It
somehow flies in the face of economic reality and pragmatism, that Australia is the sole payer at
what appears a significant premium, where the bulk of the jobs, companies and profits will go
offshore.
This is an enormous let down to Australians. A let down for the significant work and taxpayer dollars
that taxpayers are burdened by. There is no question that a) we have enormous spending
commitments over the coming decades with an ageing population and at best c class infrastructure
across the country and b) declining tax revenues combined with c) an inability to reform the tax
system so that the wealthy, mining and other multinationals pay way too little tax. It is more that
arguable that Australia simply cannot afford this luxury capability, especially until one or many of
these aforementioned planks of our economic condition are improved measurably.
Ultimately, if we have no choice but to contribute to the AUKUS pact, we should do so judiciously,
economically, and carefully. However – its not too late to maintain some form of independence by
walking back commitments to acquire nuclear submarines, which will undoubtedly be well over
budget, technologically inferior and pin us down to be a multi decade minion of the US, as one
recently put it – ‘the 51 state of the United States’. Developing a more conservative stance within
these treaties is in all Australians interests. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions
‘Relief’ Australia won’t take high-level nuclear waste under AUKUS
In response to recommendations made by a parliamentary committee, Labor has proposed changes that make clear Australia will be responsible only for high-level waste produced by its submarines
New Daily Tess Ikonomou, Sep 11, 2024
Australia will not accept high-level nuclear waste from other countries under a security pact with the US and UK.
Australia will acquire nuclear-powered submarines for $368 billion under the AUKUS agreement.
The Albanese government is introducing amendments to the bill which sets up the framework to regulate the safety of activities relating to the nuclear-powered submarines.
In response to recommendations made by a parliamentary committee, Labor has proposed changes that make clear Australia will only be responsible for high-level waste produced by its submarines.
The need to manage nuclear fuel is expected to occur in the 2050s
The University of Melbourne’s Professor Tilman Ruff, from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, said the welcome move was a “relief”.
“The other issue that concerns us is the proliferation potential of the fact that there is highly enriched uranium in any nuclear submarine that Australia is likely to acquire,” he said.
Dr Ruff said it was “really unfortunate” the new regulator monitoring how nuclear material would be handled would sit within Defence.
“That’s a fundamental conflict with good governance – the regulators should be independent,” he said.
“This obviously requires very expert, but also very independent, transparent and accountable regulation.”
Under the treaty, the US or UK can quit the pact with a year’s notice.
It also requires Australia to legally protect both allies against costs or injuries arising from nuclear risks.
The agreement will remain in force until 2075 and says the AUKUS deal should not adversely affect the ability of the US and UK to “meet their respective military requirements and to not degrade their respective naval nuclear propulsion programs”.
US government and military officials have moved to reassure the deal will withstand changing administrations for decades to come, amid fears it could be torn up by a new leader. https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-politics/2024/09/11/australia-nuclear-waste-aukus—
Protecting the Merchants of Death: The Police Effort for Land Forces 2024
September 12, 2024, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/protecting-the-merchants-of-death-the-police-effort-for-land-forces-2024/—
September 11. Melbourne. The scene: the area between Spencer Street Bridge and the Batman Park–Spencer Street tram stop. Heavily armed police, with glinting face coverings and shields, had seized and blocked the bridge over the course of the morning, preventing all traffic from transiting through it. Behind them stood second tier personnel, lightly armed. Then, barricades, followed by horse mounted police. Holding up the rear: two fire trucks.
In the skies, unmanned drones hovered like black, stationary ravens of menace. But these were not deemed sufficient by Victoria Police. Helicopters kept them company. Surveillance cameras also stood prominently to the north end of the bridge.
Before this assortment of marshalled force was an eclectic gathering of individuals from keffiyeh-swaddled pro-Palestinian activists to drummers kitted out in the Palestinian colours, and any number of theatrical types dressed in the shades and costumery of death. At one point, a chilling Joker figure made an appearance, his outfit and suitcase covered in mock blood. The share stock of chants was readily deployed: “No justice, no peace, no racist police”; “We, the people, will not be silenced. Stop the bombing now, now, now.” Innumerable placards condemning the arms industry and Israel’s war on Gaza also make their appearance.
The purpose of this vast, costly exercise proved elementary and brutal: to defend Land Forces 2024, one of the largest arms fairs in the southern hemisphere, from Disrupt Land Forces, a collective demonised by the Victorian state government as the great unwashed, polluted rebel rousers and anarchists. Much had been made of the potential size of the gathering, with uncritical journalists consuming gobbets of information from police sources keen to justify an operation deemed the largest since the 2000 World Economic Forum. Police officers from regional centres in the state had been called up, and while Chief Commissioner Shane Patton proved tight–lipped on the exact number, an estimate exceeding 1,000 was not refuted. The total cost of the effort: somewhere between A$10 to A$15 million.
It all began as a healthy gathering at the dawn of day, with protestors moving to the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre to picket entry points for those attending Land Forces.
Over time, there was movement between the various entrances to prevent these modern merchants of death from spruiking their merchandise and touting for offers. As Green Left Online noted, “The Victorian Police barricaded the entrance of the Melbourne Convention Centre so protestors marched to the back entrance to disrupt Land Forces whilst attendees are going through security checks.”
In keeping with a variant of Anton Chekhov’s principle, if a loaded gun is placed upon the stage, it is bound to be used. Otherwise, leave it out of the script. A large police presence would hardly be worthwhile without a few cracked skulls, flesh wounds or arrests. Scuffles accordingly broke out with banal predictability. The mounted personnel were also brought out to add a snap of hostility and intimidation to the protestors as they sought to hamper access to the Convention. For all of this, it was the police who left complaining, worried about their safety.
Then came the broader push from the officers to create a zone of exclusion around the building, resulting in the closure of Clarendon Street to the south, up to Batman Park. Efforts were made to push the protests from the convention centre across the bridge towards the park. This was in keeping with the promise by the Chief Commissioner that the MCEC site and its surrounds would be deemed a designated area over the duration of the arms fair from September 11 to 13.
Such designated areas, enabled by the passage of a 2009 law, vests the police with powers to stop and search a person within the zone without a warrant. Anything perceived to be a weapon can be seized, with officers having powers to request that civilians reveal their identity.
Despite such exercisable powers, the relevant legislation imposes a time limit of 12 hours for such areas, something most conspicuously breached by the Commissioner. But as Melbourne Activist Legal Support (MALS) group remarks, the broader criteria outlined in the legislative regime are often not met and constitute a “method of protest control” that impairs “the rights to assembly, association, and political expression” protected by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.
The Victorian government had little time for the language of protest. In a stunningly grotesque twist, the Victorian Premier, Jacinta Allan, defended those at the Land Forces conference as legitimate representatives of business engaging in a peaceful enterprise. “Any industry deserves the right to have these sorts of events in a peaceful and respectful way.” If the manufacture, sale and distribution of weapons constitutes a “peaceful and respectful” pursuit, we have disappeared down the rabbit hole with Alice at great speed.
That theme continued with efforts by both Allan and the opposition leader, John Pesutto, to tarnish the efforts by fellow politicians to attend the protest. Both fumed indignantly at the efforts of Greens MP Gabrielle de Vietri to participate, with the premier calling the measure one designed for “divisive political purposes.” The Green MP had a pertinent response: “The community has spoken loud and clear, they don’t want weapons and war profiting to come to our doorstep, and the Victorian Labor government is sponsoring this.”
The absurd, morally inverted spectacle was duly affirmed: a taxpayer funded arms exposition, defended by the taxpayer funded police, used to repel the tax paying protestors keen to promote peace in the face of an industry that thrives on death, mutilation and misery.
Submission- Jennifer Lyons -re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion- reject AUKUS and its dangerous war games
Enough of the fat cat white men making decisions, that are more about a bunch of boys playing war games than the health and future of our country.
Submission no. 17
Why would Australia spend so much money (our money, the people’s money) on something that
would put us in a volatile position with China?
America and Britain are both crumbling sick societies with useless political leaders, and here we
are following their lead.
Wake up Australia before it is too late. You are killing us, our land and my grandchildren’s future
with stupidity.
Enough of the fat cat white men making decisions, that are more about a bunch of boys playing
war games than the health and future of our country.
I am a concerned citizen and I am begging you to change.
Jennifer Lyons
Submission- Robert Coney -re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion- this must not stand – its only purpose being to attack China
The AUKUS submarines will not be here to defend Australia, but only to attack China in a subordinate role with the American forces.
Do we buy guns in support of an American led war of aggression? Or commit that funding to the wellbeing of our people?
Submission no.16
AUKUS. This is a horror for which I now fear for the lives of my children and their children.
This is now changing the direction of Australia for the next forty or fifty years.
We have never seen anything like this in peacetime Australia. At any stage.
This must not stand.
The horrors of AUKUS
Firstly, the automatic involvement in war.
We have already been tied to the United States by the bases – by Pine Gap, by North West
Cape, by the Space Surveillance Telescope that take us into space warfare, by the many
other Australian bases to which the US has access.
We are already tied in, hard-wired in many cases, to the American war machine.
And the ADF is barely an autonomous force today.
But AUKUS takes us very much further down that road.
We already know what the submarines are there for.
This is a politically-driven, call-from-Washington-inspired scheme for long-range, long endurance nuclear-powered submarines whose only rational use is to attack China.
The AUKUS submarines will not be here to defend Australia, but only to attack China in a
subordinate role with the American forces.
What could $368 billion in funding – $12 billion per annum for the next 30 years – fund for
Australia and Australians?
That is the question Australians must ask.
With Australia facing the most severe housing crisis in our history, rising cost of living,
increasing inequality, the pressing need to reform our schools, health, disability and aged
care systems, and the critical need to transform our energy systems and reduce our carbon
emissions to net zero, we face a choice.
Do we buy guns in support of an American led war of aggression? Or commit that funding to
the wellbeing of our people?
What, could $368 billion dollars achieve in developing relations with our close neighbour,
Indonesia, and the Association of South East Asian Nations?
Do we forget that any possible aggression – and there is absolutely no sign of it – from China,
would be first experienced by our ASEAN neighbours?
I believe AUKUS must not stand.
South Australia is aiming for 100% renewable energy by 2027. It’s already internationally ‘remarkable’
Experts say the state’s approach could provide a template for what can be achieved elsewhere.
Eight years ago, South Australia’s renewable energy future was in doubt as an extraordinary statewide blackout saw recriminations flow.
On 28 September 2016, a catastrophic weather event sent the entire state into system black. Around 4pm, some 850,000 homes and businesses lost power as supercell thunderstorms and destructive winds – some travelling up to 260km/h – crumpled transmission towers, causing three major power lines to trip.
Almost immediately, and despite advice to the contrary, members of the federal government sought to blame the blackout on wind and solar, with the then prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, saying several state governments had set “extremely aggressive, extremely unrealistic” renewable energy targets.
Instead of relenting,SA chose to persevere. It now leads the world in the integration of variable, or weather-dependent, renewables.
Wind and solar power in South Australia grew to 75% in 2023, with few other systems reaching comparable levels. For instance, frontrunner Denmark achieved 67% in the same year.
The International Energy Agency says demonstrating the ability to power a large grid with wind and solar is crucial in the context of climate change, and South Australia’s share is “remarkable”.
The state government is now attempting to legislate a target of 100% renewable energy by 2027. Experts say the state’s approach could provide a template for what can be achieved elsewhere.
Energy specialist Dr Gabrielle Kuiper says powering a jurisdiction of almost 2 million people with majority wind and solar is a globally significant achievement.
“One of the most impressive things about that feat, from a technical point of view, is there have also been periods, starting in September last year, where the entire state was powered by rooftop solar alone,” Kuiper says.
On New Year’s Eve 2023, rooftop solar met 101.7% of South Australia’s energy needs for 30 minutes. Australia’s energy operator says that’s a world record for a grid of that size. Its engineering roadmap seeks to enable similar milestones throughout the national grid.
Daniel Westerman, chief executive of the Australian Energy Market Operator, says the “world-leading” rooftop solar contribution is made possible by power system equipment providing security, smarter connections between rooftop solar and the grid, and policies which protect consumers from unwanted disruptions.
Dr Susan Close, South Australia’s deputy premier and climate change minister, was a government minister during the 2016 statewide blackout. She believes the then federal government’s reaction at the time, blaming the state’s renewable energy, was “unfair and unsubstantiated”.
But if anything, she says the unhelpful response from Canberra hardened the state’s resolve. “In South Australia, the vast majority of people were proud of what we were doing, and simply wanted us to make sure that it was as secure and stable as possible,” Close says.
Close says the state’s energy shift hasn’t happened by chance. World-leading climate laws, consistent policy and a supportive planning system attracted investment and helped the state gain an early advantage under federal renewable energy targets. High retail power prices combined with a generous feed-in tariff scheme (now finished) to drive early uptake in rooftop solar. Now every second home in the state has solar installed.
Johanna Bowyer, lead analyst at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, said while South Australia does have fantastic wind and solar resources, “that’s the case for a lot of Australia”. Crucially, coal power stations were allowed to close under market conditions, she said. “They didn’t subsidise it to stay open for longer, like what is happening in New South Wales with Eraring.”
As coal generation was phased out, renewable energy grew to fill the gap.
Proposed changes to South Australia’s Climate Change Act include a 100% net renewable energy target, formalising statements by the energy minister earlier in the year.
The “net” terminology recognises that interstate transmission lines – connecting South Australia to Victoria and eventually NSW – will continue to share electricity across state borders.
The amendments also include a 60% emissions reduction target by 2030 – compared to 43% federally, and 50% in Queensland, NSW and Victoria – and a framework for timely updates along the pathway to net zero by 2050.
Kirsty Bevan, chief executive of the Conservation Council of SA, says the state’s “trailblazing renewable energy transition” puts it in a unique position to adopt much stronger emissions targets than other state governments. The council supports the renewable energy and 2030 emissions targets, but is keen to see the net zero target date brought forward.
“We should be proud of our past renewable energy accomplishments, but also build upon and capitalise on those accomplishments – to the benefit of all South Australians, our nature, and our shared planet,” Bevan said.
The state government’s focus is on stability, flexibility and reliability, with more large-scale battery storage following in the footsteps of the Hornsdale battery (the world’s biggest when it was activated), and hydrogen part of the plan to soak up excess wind and sun.
Kuiper says the secure and reliable system is made possible thanks to investment in storage, smarter management and grid flexibility. But the key to SA’s success isn’t merely technical, she says, it’s also political.
“The bipartisan support for renewable energy in South Australia has been really significant. It’s given investors a sense of certainty,” Kuiper said.
“I think there are lessons at a federal level, particularly for the federal opposition, about what can be achieved if you provide consistent support to this vitally important industry – that’s important for the domestic economy and for Australia’s development of export industries into the future.”
The aim of 100% net renewables was initially set under the Marshall Liberal government, with the Malinauskas Labor government bringing the date forward.
Close acknowledges the opposition’s part in supporting the state’s decarbonisation, adding that the current bill protects to a degree from “a sudden shift in temperament from the other side of politics.”
She says there’s no reason the energy and cultural transition in South Australia couldn’t be replicated in other parts of the country.
“The sooner you start, the easier it is,” she said. “The real cost is in being the last ones to make the change. And so we wish our interstate colleagues well in making that shift.”
Submission- G.H. Toll -re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion- Australia should pursue an independent non aligned foreign policy.
Submission no. 13
I wish to express my complete opposition to the Aukus agreement.
Australia should pursue an independent non aligned foreign policy.
We should not ratify this Aukus agreement and should refuse to continue to humiliate
ourselves by acting as a vassal state for the will of the USA.
Yours sincerely,
Mr G H Toll
Australian citizen and fully emerged Australian elder.
Voter
Melbourne
For Australia to meet emissions reduction targets, we don’t need nuclear energy
Pearls and Irritations, By Brendan Mackey and David LindenmayerSep 9, 2024
The Federal Opposition’s energy policy includes the construction of nuclear power plants. Peter Dutton says that we need them because Australia’s emissions reduction target of 43% on 2005 levels by 2030 is unachievable. Is this true? We argue that it is not – and especially if the Australian Government works with state and territory governments to stop native forest logging and land clearing.
Ending land clearing and halting logging of native forests would achieve a reduction of between 14.5 million and 37.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent a year. This is greater than the annual reduction of 14.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent needed to meet Australia’s 2030 target. A major reduction in emissions from logging and clearing forests would be sit admirably along Australia’s efforts to transition from fossil fuels to clean energy – which is now 40% of the electricity market (up from 15% a decade ago).
This is an entirely feasible proposition, as ending native forest logging will serve to further stimulate investment in the plantation sector – where there are the most jobs and the best profits in the forest industry. Indeed, 90% of all sawn timber in Australia (to make roof trusses, floorboards and furniture) already comes from plantations. Native forest logging generates predominantly woodchips, paper pulp and packaging (and not high-quality timber products). Plantations employ, on average, three times more people per ha of trees than do native forests. In addition, the capital investment needed for one full-time equivalent position in a native forest logging operation is almost 10 times that needed for a full-time equivalent in a plantation…………………………………………………………….. more https://johnmenadue.com/for-australia-to-meet-emissions-reduction-targets-we-dont-need-nuclear-energy/
Basing US Nuclear Subs at Stirling on Garden Island makes Western Australia a nuclear target, while risking “catastrophic conditions” in a N-Sub reactor accident.
Briefer by David Noonan, Independent Environment Campaigner, 07 Sept 2024
What price should West Australian’s pay for AUKUS ? see “AUKUS: The worst defence and
foreign policy decision our country has made” by ex-FA Minister Gareth Evans (17 August 2024):
“… the price now being demanded by the US for giving us access to its nuclear
propulsion technology is, it is now becoming ever more clear, extraordinarily high.
Not only the now open-ended expansion of Tindal as a US B52 base; not only the
conversion of Stirling into a major base for a US Indian Ocean fleet, making Perth
now join Pine Gap and the North West Cape – and increasingly likely, Tindal – as a
nuclear target …”
No Emergency capability exists to respond to a nuclear weapons strike on Stirling off Freo
Nor can Federal and WA Labor claim to have a ‘social license’ for a US N-Sub Base at Stirling
while failing to inform affected community of the nuclear Health & Safety risks they could face.
Community has a basic ‘Right to Know’, a right to full disclosure of nuclear risks in advance of
decisions. A Labor Bill to declare Stirling a “Designated Nuclear Zone” is before Parliament
after a Senate Report. Now 3 yrs into AUKUS, it is long past time for Labor to inform community.
Federal & WA Labor Ministers Joint Ministerial Statement on Nuclear Reactors on Agricultural
Land (18 July 2024) have tackled Dutton over his crazy nuclear ‘power’ reactors at Muja, citing
accident impacts out to 80 km, but Labor fails to be transparent on nuclear risks they impose.
Federal and WA Labor have failed to make public required Health Impact Studies and
Nuclear Accident Scenario Modelling for US N-Sub visits and for a N-Sub Base at Stirling.
The WA State Hazard Plan “HAZMAT Annex A Radiation Escape from a Nuclear Powered
Warship” (update 20 Nov 2023) provides only scant over-view information to the public.
Federal Emergency provisions apply in event of a US N-Sub reactor accident at Stirling. The
federal civilian nuclear safety regulator ARPANSA sets out required Health Impact Studies,
Emergency response measures and Zones that are to be put in place (see “Guide for Radiation
Protection in Emergency Exposure Situations, Part 1 & 2, 2019).
A Defence Operations Manual “OPSMAN 1” (update 2023) is supposed to ‘operationalise’ the
Emergency measures for US N-Sub nuclear reactor accidents in Australian Ports and waters.
An “Urgent Protective Action Zone” of up to 2.8 km radius around the site of a US N-Sub
accident requires an Evacuation Plan for workers and affected residents. An “Extended
Planning Distance”, where “the surrounding population may be subject to hazards”, is set at
‘several kms’ around an accident site. This can extend to 5 km in UK N-Sub Emergency Zones.
ARPANSA and Defence also require studies of a local population out to 15 km from a US NSub mooring – as you can’t tell how far a radioactive pollution plume will spread by wind…
Children are at untenable Health risk in a nuclear strike OR in a US N-Sub reactor accident:
In a military nuclear reactor accident at Stirling the ARPANSA Guide Part 2 (p.18-19 & Table 3.1)
‘authorises’ ionising radiation health exposures to affected civilian workers AND to residents
and their children at a high dose of up to 50 mSv (milli-Sievert). Firty times more than Health
Authorities recommended maximum allowed dose of 1 mSv per year for members of the public.
Exposed residents and especially children need to be able to take stable iodine tablets ASAP to
try to reduce the radiological health risk of contracting thyroid cancer. Evacuees could have to
undergo ‘decontamination’ and need medical treatment, care which may have to be ongoing.
.
The Impact of Nuclear Weapons on Children (ICAN Report, August 2024) “shows in compelling
and often gut-wrenching detail, it is children who would suffer the most in the event of a nuclear
attack against a city today”. The Report is a dire warning that urgent action is needed to rid the
world of nuclear weapons. Australia must Sign & Ratify the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty.
WA Emergency workers could face “catastrophic conditions” at a N-Sub reactor accident:
In event of a severe US N-Sub reactor accident at Stirling the ARPANSA “Guide for Radiation
Protection in Emergency Exposure Situations (The Guide Part 2, p.18-19 & Table 3.1) authorises
“actions to prevent the development of catastrophic conditions” by designated WA workers.
‘Category 1 Emergency workers’ could “receive a dose of up to 500 mSv”, a dangerously high
ionising radiation dose exposure that is up to 500 times the public’s max allowed annual dose:
“Emergency workers may include workers employed by an operating organisation, as
well as personnel of response organisations, such as police officers, firefighters,
medical personnel, and drivers and crews of vehicles used for evacuation. …
- Category 1: Emergency workers undertaking mitigatory actions and urgent protective
actions on-site, including lifesaving actions, actions to prevent serious injury, actions
to prevent the development of catastrophic conditions that could significantly affect
people and the environment, and actions to prevent severe tissue reactions. … They
may also receive a dose of up to 500 mSv for life saving actions, to prevent the
development of catastrophic conditions and to prevent severe tissue reactions.”
The ARPANSA Guide Part 1 (Annex A, p.64 Table A.1, 2019) states in stark terms that Emergency
workers can be called upon to ‘volunteer’ for actions “to prevent the development of
catastrophic conditions” in event of a severe US N-Sub nuclear reactor accident:
“… under circumstances in which the expected benefits to others clearly outweigh
the emergency worker’s own health risks”.
As evidence of the extent of nuclear risks to the health of Emergency workers, the ARPANSA
Guide Part 1 (Annex A, p.63) requires female workers to be excluded from these roles:
“…female workers who might be pregnant need to be excluded from taking actions
that might result in an equivalent dose exceeding 50 mSv”
Note: the ‘safety’ of N-Subs in UK Ports has been found seriously wanting, see a Report (2009)
by Large and Associates Consulting Engineers on UK off-site Emergency Planning Measures.
1 This month
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
