Eating the three-eyed fish: where is Australia on nuclear wastewater in the Pacific?
As is usual in this framing, the peoples of the Pacific – the people impacted most by the decisions of rich, developed nations sitting on the edge of the vast ocean home of the Pacific Islands – have been ignored.
Our “Pacific family” is no doubt, once again, deeply disappointed by Australian inaction and acquiescence. A government “committed” to the Pacific is apparently not entirely on board with supporting the aspirations of its peoples – at least not when it comes to their aspirations to not live in a radioactive ocean.
by Emma Shortis https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/eating-the-three-eyed-fish-where-is-australia-on-nuclear-wastewater-in-the-pacific/00
The Australian government’s muted response to Japan’s release of Fukushima wastewater into the Pacific raises serious questions about its commitment to the region and Australia’s history of standing against nuclear testing.
In August, Japan began what will be a decades-long process of releasing more than one million tons of treated wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear meltdown into the Pacific Ocean.
Though deemed in compliance with international safety standards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the release of water containing tritium – a form of radioactive hydrogen – has been met with significant opposition.
Most of that opposition has come, unsurprisingly, from China. In June, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson said that the “ocean is humanity’s common good, not Japan’s private sewer.”
Opposition from Japan’s other neighbours and allies, meanwhile, has been muted. After expressing significant concerns, the governments of nearby nations like Korea have apparently been assuaged by promises of regulatory compliance – notwithstanding the continued opposition of local environmental and industry groups.
What appears to have happened is that the release of irradiated water into the world’s biggest ocean has been drawn all too quickly into either side of the now well-worn battle lines of “strategic competition” in the Indo-Pacific. Opposition and acquiescence fell easily, and predictably, into the binary framing of US President Biden’s world of democracies versus autocracies. So the focus of dissent has been on China.
As is usual in this framing, the peoples of the Pacific – the people impacted most by the decisions of rich, developed nations sitting on the edge of the vast ocean home of the Pacific Islands – have been ignored.
Pacific Islander peoples have been expressing their significant, historically grounded concerns about the Fukushima release since the plan was announced. In June, a member of the Pacific Islands Forum independent panel of experts, appointed to support the Pacific Islands in consultations with Japan over the release, questioned the IAEA sign-off, arguing that “the critical, foundational data upon which a sound decision could be made was either absent or, when we started getting more data…extremely concerning.”
The “unanimous conclusion” of the expert panel was that “this is a bad idea that is not defended properly at this point, and that there are alternatives that Japan should really be looking at.”
So where is Australia, an apparently critical player in the stability and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific, in all this?
This country, we have long been told, is “committed to our Pacific family, and to working together to realise our shared vision for a stable, secure and prosperous region, and to support the aspirations of Pacific island countries.”
But in a short statement released by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade just before the wastewater release began, the Australian government expressed “confidence in the process that has led to the decision by Japan to release the treated water.” In February, Foreign Minister Penny Wong acknowledged the concerns of Pacific Islanders, but was assured that “transparency and trust” were in place. In a move redolent of an iconic Simpsons episode, diplomatic staff at the Australian Embassy in Tokyo even went so far as to enjoy a meal of “Fukushima fish and chips”.
Our “Pacific family” is no doubt, once again, deeply disappointed by Australian inaction and acquiescence. A government “committed” to the Pacific is apparently not entirely on board with supporting the aspirations of its peoples – at least not when it comes to their aspirations to not live in a radioactive ocean.
This muted reaction is doubly disappointing from a country, and a party, that has a long and proud history of both contesting nuclear activity in the Pacific and standing up to Japanese efforts to trample environmental consensus.
For decades, and particularly in the 1990s, Australian labor governments stood alongside Pacific Island nations in furiously contesting French nuclear testing. Stretching into the 2000s, Australian governments remained staunch in their opposition to Japanese “scientific” whaling. In both cases, Australia successfully expressed significant opposition to the damaging actions of an important strategic ally. In both cases, that opposition was mostly contained to the specific issue at hand, and did not impinge on broader security relationships – which, even if they became tense, never broke down completely and have now fully recovered.
In the same Department that joyously expressed its “confidence” in Japan and effectively ignored its “family” in the Pacific, there is – or at least there should be – deep institutional knowledge of how to manage strong disagreements and successfully cordon them off from deeper security ties. Our history should make us confident that we can – and should – share and support the legitimate, evidence-based anger of our Pacific family.
So why isn’t the Australian government condemning, loudly, the release of nuclear wastewater into the world’s largest ocean?
As is becoming increasingly clear, the Labor Party’s decision to support the Morrison government’s pursuit of nuclear-powered submarines has far-reaching consequences. That decision, made within a matter of hours, has unthinkingly shattered many labor traditions – the most relevant of which here is that long, proud history of labor governments unapologetically standing against rich and powerful nuclear powers treating the Pacific as a dumping ground.
The insistence that Australia “needs” AUKUS has apparently created a reluctance to engage in that discussion in good faith, most likely to avoid the topic of nuclear waste as much as possible – now, because of Labor’s doubling down on AUKUS, a sensitive topic domestically.
AUKUS also points to another factor – this government’s extreme insecurity over issues of foreign and security policy. As was made clear at Labor’s recent national conference, party leadership is determined not to be wedged on issues of national security. Despite all the talk of being able to have “adult conversations”, the government is not willing to allow even the slightest appearance of concession to China, around which every aspect of foreign and security policy now revolves. While on paper, wastewater dumping looks like it should fall into Wong’s category of “cooperate where we can”, in reality, we cannot be opposed to something China opposes, because we are not, and can never be, on the same side about anything – even if that thing is the dumping of radioactive wastewater into the Pacific.
This framing of a world divided into enemies and allies now extends into all of Australia’s relationships. The Australian government’s reaction to the Fukushima release, and its broader relationship with Japan, make that abundantly clear. As a member of the Quad, alongside India and the United States, Japan is regarded as critical to “stability” in the Indo-Pacific and to countering or containing China. That now means, apparently, that Japan can effectively dictate Australian policy – it can be assured of our “confidence” that dumping radioactive water in the Pacific Ocean is fine, actually, and that also, we’d better not even consider phasing out the export of fossil gas to a critical ally, lest we undermine our own security and the stability of our region.
Taken together, all of this – bad faith engagement with the Pacific, AUKUS, and the ongoing insistence that our own use and export of fossil fuels is necessary to regional stability – reveal a deeply uncomfortable truth about this labor government.
Despite all assurances to the contrary, it does not take climate change seriously. Nor does it take nuclear hygiene seriously. And questions have to be asked about its long-term commitment to nuclear disarmament.
Like its predecessors, this government is hiding behind security in order to avoid doing the hard work on climate. That weakness, which extends across all areas of domestic and international policy, is why the Australian government is not “committed” to “our Pacific family”, not really.
In failing to support Pacific Islanders’ aspirations for a nuclear-free Pacific, and in failing to rapidly decarbonise, the Australian government shows “our family” who we are, every day. And they see it.
This, in the words of the Prime Minister, is how Australia deals with “the world as it is.” Our Pacific family could be forgiven for thinking that our vision of a “bright future” for the world is one in which nuclear-powered submarines prowl silently through a rising, irradiated Pacific.
Two years after AUKUS announcement, American politicians are divided on delivery of submarines to Australia
ABC By North America bureau chief Jade Macmillan in Washington DC, 16 Sept 23
A Republican senator has renewed calls for the US to step up its production of nuclear-powered submarines before selling them as part of AUKUS, arguing America is as “unprepared” as it was ahead of the Pearl Harbor attack.
The US is set to transfer at least three Virginia-class submarines to Australia from the early 2030s under the AUKUS agreement.
However, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services committee, Roger Wicker, told a hearing in Washington this week that the US was failing to meet its own shipbuilding targets.
“We should be producing somewhere between 2.3 and 2.5 attack submarines a year to fulfil our own requirements as we implement AUKUS,” he said………….
Senator Wicker insists he supports the AUKUS agreement but has refused to back legislation in congress authorising the transfer of the submarines, arguing substantial new investments are needed in America’s shipbuilding capacity first.
In a letter to the president last month, he and 24 other Republicans argued selling submarines to Australia without a clear plan to replace them would “unacceptably weaken” the US fleet at the same time that China expands its military power.
Push for speed amid prospect of another Trump term
The AUKUS agreement will see Australia obtain up to five Virginia-class submarines from the US before eventually building its own nuclear-powered boats.
But two years after the deal was first announced, the US Congress still needs to sign off on several legislative proposals to progress it.
They include legislation to approve the sale of the subs, to allow Australia to make a promised $3 billion contribution to US shipyards, and to facilitate the sharing of sensitive technology………………………………………………………………………………………………
The political debate in the United States comes amid ongoing questions in Australia about the merits and the cost of AUKUS, which could have a price tag of up to $386 billion…………………………
Tensions within the Labor Party were exposed at its recent national conference, while former prime minister Paul Keating has described the agreement as the “worst deal in all history”.
Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles also previously expressed confidence in the level of bipartisan support for the agreement in the US………………………………
Big batteries and solar push new boundaries on the grid
The rapid evolution of Australia’s energy system continues apace as the
mild weather of spring and new production benchmarks give voice to the new
capacity that has been added over the past 12 months. As noted earlier this
week, spring is the season for new records because of the good conditions
and moderate demand.
In South Australia on Sunday, solar set a new record
of 120 per cent of local demand in the state (the excess was exported to
Victoria) and on Wednesday and Thursday it was the turn of wind and battery
storage. Wind hit a peak of 141.4 per cent of local demand at 4.35am on
Thursday morning. That wasn’t a record in itself, but the big share of
wind and later solar during the daytime was accompanied by a record amount
of activity from the state’s growing fleet of big batteries.
Renew Economy 14th Sept 2023
The normalisation of nuclear power and militarism in our schools
Solidarity Brakfast (transcript of podcast)
Saturday, 9 September 2023 – 7:30am to 9:00am https://www.3cr.org.au/solidaritybreakfast/episode/palestine-laboratory-ii-militarization-schools-ii-within-these-walls-ii
Annie interviews Sanne de Swart from ACE Nuclear-Free Collective (Friends of the Earth Melbourne) on the normalisation of nuclear power and militarism in our schools.
The issue of normalising nuclear weapons and nuclear power has become a hot topic. STEM competitions financed by weapons companies supported by the Ministry of Defence.
- Friends of the Earth Nuclear Free Collective has an email petition to Environment Ministers to show dissent on this and has other suggestions for actions https://www.melbournefoe.org.au/no_defence_curriculum
Sanne de Swart. Normalisation of nuclear promotion under the guise of STEM education. Nuclear propulsion submarine challenge is directed at primary school students. Very young kids groomed to take part in military preparation. Teachers approached FOE with their concernsVictorian teachers unions are resisting this, and the matter has been taken up by Australian teachers union. AEU federal executive has condemned the programme.Education department guidelines are not to accept sponsorships from tobacco companies. and weapons companies. The STEM hub is working together with Dept of Defence and with BAE weapons manufacturer to promote this nuclear submarine technology.. BAE has been taken to the UN over human rights issues. BAE has pecuniary interest in this promotion.
Vic Education Dept is in breach of their own policy by promoting this actively on their website. Use of financial support from large weapons companies in our schools is against Victorian education Dept policy, probably also the policy in NSW. and SA. STEM education – impression given that STEM has only relevance to fighting machines..
Sanne – But really the STEM hub – we will need the brightest minds for the transition to a greener, more liveable society, need engineering and science and technology. This programme is taking away from that need, and directing education towards militarism and war efforts.It also fails to acknowledge from a nuclear perspective the devastating history around nuclear, that Australia has, starting from the British nuclear bomb tests 70 years ago , through to uranium mining and trying to impose radioactive waste dumps on Aboriginal land, all of which disproportionately affects First Nations people.
The Victorian Education Department is very actively promoting the nuclear submarine project The whole government, with AUKUS deal, is preparing for war, and being quite straightforward about that. Probably the Ed Dept is working with the Defence Dept on the same pathTeachers are concerned that this happening in their classrooms. That it is so explicit. Even BAE Systems is saying they want to create an extraordinary workforce. ADF Careers are talking about the pipeline of recruits that they need. Real concerns from teachers that this will be taught in their classrooms, and that the military agenda will be perpetuated for children – which is irresponsible and unethical, because children under 18 – it is all about positive brand association, they cannot make those decisions, as adults can, they are being groomed from a very young age.
Primary school programmes.
There is a LEGO challenge that is ongoing – also run by weapons companies The weapons companies come in, and promote what they do as something exciting and innovative. There’s a programme called Beacon – it is targeted at years 4 to 6 students. It is funded by BAE Systems – it is less explicit – focussed towards AUKUS, but it’s focussed at lower socioeconomic areas and schools,. That makes it hard for schools to say “No” to them, because those come as well-resourced projects. It is quite insidious in the way that it is targeted at young children, to have that positive brand association with military and weapons companies.I think that this is happening in other countries as well. Teachers in Britainhave been working on this, tooFOE has a few calls for action, for teachers to become aware of this. Also parents are encouraged to take this up , FOE is contacting the government on the issue.There is a lack of alternative programmes for STEM education
63 Members of Parliament call on US to free Assange
Sixty-three MPs and senators have written a strong letter calling on the US to stop persecuting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and warning of ‘a sharp and sustained outcry in Australia’ if he is extradited from the UK
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH’
Sixty-three Australian MPs and senators have signed a letter demanding that “the prosecution and incarceration of the Australian citizen Julian Assange must end”, Guardian Australia reports, warning it is eroding our respect for the US justice system.
The WikiLeaks founder, who is languishing in the UK’s Belmarsh prison, has suffered for a decade in various states of incarceration — it’s “wrong”, “serves no purpose” and is “unjust” for him to be further persecuted, they wrote. The US wants him on charges under the Espionage Act because of the publication of hundreds of thousands of documents on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But if he is extradited, “there will be a sharp and sustained outcry in Australia”.
The latest supporters included Labor’s Shayne Neumann and Louise Pratt, and the Coalition’s Melissa Price, and Opposition leader Peter Dutton has also called for Assange’s return. A bipartisan Assange delegation leaves for Washington next week. https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/09/14/63-mps-letter-us-free-assange/
Nuclear subs challenge trains 10 year old children for war
By Sue WarehamSep 11, 2023 https://johnmenadue.com/nuclear-subs-challenge-trains-10-year-old-children-for-war/
It’s time for education ministers across the country to show leadership and protect our children from vested interests and pro-war propaganda.
On 19 June, the Defence Department launched its Nuclear-Powered Submarine Propulsion Challenge, for years 7 – 12 students across the nation. The program seeks to engage the enthusiasm of young people for the complex and hugely controversial nuclear submarine program, in the hope that some of the students will want to contribute to this form of war-fighting when they leave school.
The nuclear submarine proposal has implications that go far beyond the understanding of the students targeted for this program (which include those as young as 11 years). They include the nuclear weapons proliferation potential, the consequences of a war – possibly nuclear war – with China, for which the submarines are planned, the problem of high-level, long-lived nuclear waste for which there is no solution anywhere, and the matter of what else will suffer financially as we attempt the gargantuan task of paying for this program. In the absence of any awareness or understanding of this context, the schools program is little more than propaganda.
The program fits with the growing prevalence of private weapons company-sponsored STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) programs in schools. Their purpose is to create positive brand name associations, such as happy memories, from which can flow varying degrees of attachment to the corporate brand. Company logos are displayed on all materials, and there is often direct contact between students, teachers and company representatives. An underfunded public education system is perfect for the companies’ purposes, because overstretched teachers will welcome material that might make their job a little easier.
There is ample evidence that children are very susceptible to the creation of positive associations with an advertised product. Even into adolescence, children don’t necessarily have the skills to critically assess the intentions behind persuasive marketing tactics, or understand what a brand or product really represents.
The militarisation of STEM education is not confined to our schools (and universities, which comprise a huge network in themselves of weapons company partnerships). The National Youth Science Forum has as its primary sponsor Lockheed Martin, the world’s biggest weapons maker. The Questacon National Science and Technology Centre in Canberra receives major funding for its Engineering is Elementary program from the Defence Department, with ADF engineers being actively involved in delivering the program.
The industry’s need is for a workforce socialised to accept warfare as inevitable and the industry itself as always a force for good. The “Minors and Missiles” report of the Medical Association for Prevention of War outlines the problem, its extent in Australia and how it can be addressed. The new organisation Teachers for Peace works to this end also.
In relation to the nuclear submarine challenge for schools, on 1 July the Adelaide Advertiser published an article “Kids, 10, training for to build a workforce for AUKUS, SA’s $368bn nuclear submarine project”, about the Beacon program in some schools, run in conjunction with weapons giant BAE Systems. Among other activities, it allows students to virtually load and fire weaponry, one student stating “It’s a lot more fun, it’s like playing a video game but it’s a lot more educational”. Such presentation of warfare and its associated hardware to children as a game – which extends also to our war commemoration – is an abuse of their right to aspire to live in a peaceful society.
An additional concern with the Nuclear-Powered Submarine Propulsion Challenge is that it anti-democratically circumvents strong community opposition to a technology – nuclear power – which has been consistently rejected by the Australian people. Barely a person in the country, including in our parliament, was even asked about the nuclear submarines, and yet the opposition to the proposal is strong, with much highly critical commentary. To ignore all that and go straight to the next generation with exciting prizes is reprehensible.
On 31 August, the Federal Executive of the Australian Education Union (AEU) passed a strong resolution reaffirming the AEU’s deep commitment to peace and its opposition to militarism. In relation to the nuclear submarine challenge, the resolution stated that the AEU “condemns this program, and the use of Australian schools by the Defence Department, in drawing secondary students into the government’s development of new industries focused on armament manufacture and industries associated with warfare.”
It continued “A politicised pro-AUKUS curriculum has no place in our schools, alongside other private industries who attempt to use schools as a vehicle for promotion of their own products and profits hidden behind spurious educational benefits for students.”
The AEU is to be applauded. It’s time for education ministers across the country to show the same leadership in protecting our children from vested interests and pro-war propaganda.
Nuclear energy remains weapon of choice for climate deniers and coal lobby.
ReNeweconomy, Giles Parkinson 11 September 2023
The Nationals, and the Liberal Party coalition partners, are in furious
agreement: They are not the slightest bit serious about strong climate
action, and the only difference between former National leader Barnaby
Joyce and current leader David Littleproud is that Joyce wants to stop the
pretence.
Littleproud, let’s remember, believes that net zero 2050 means
not having to do much any time soon. Like too many corporates, and the
fossil fuel industry in particular, it’s an excuse to sit around and do
nothing – make some grand promises and wait for some new technology to come
along that doesn’t disrupt their business plan. Nuclear, and small modular
reactors, are a perfect tool for this. SMRs don’t exist in any western
country, do not have a licence to exist, and no-one – even in the nuclear
industry – seriously believes they will be in commercial production within
a decade, if then.
Renew Economy 11th Sept 2023
Waste site: Govt reveals bill for dumped Kimba nuclear facility
Former SA senator Rex Patrick was concerned the money “wasted” on the failed repository could be replicated with the AUKUS nuclear submarine program.
The high cost of the federal government’s failed bid for a national nuclear waste storage site on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula has been revealed.
Resources Minister Madeleine King says that $108.6 million was spent on preparations for establishing the now dumped National Radioactive Waste Management Facility near Kimba between July 1, 2014, and August 11, 2023.
The figure was given in response to a Senate Question lodged by Liberal Senator Gerard Rennick on August 11, but information relating to his questions about further expected expenditure of taxpayer dollars around the project was not provided.
King was asked whether the government planned to select a new site before May 17, 2025 – the last date before Prime Minister Anthony Albanese can call a federal election – or whether the Woomera Prohibited Area in SA’s outback was being considered.
“Information on expenditure and site selection will be available once the government has considered options and made decisions in due course,” SA Labor Senator Don Farrell said while answering the question on behalf of King.
The news comes after the federal government announced in August it was walking away from the Napandee plan after seven years of consultation and promises of around $31 million in incentives for the Kimba region.
Its decision was triggered by a Federal Court ruling in favour of the Barngarla Determination Aboriginal Corporation’s battle to stop the low-level waste repository on the Eyre Peninsula.
The costly court battle centred on the Barngarla arguing that Indigenous owners were not consulted by the former Morrison Government when it announced it had won “majority support” of 61 per cent in the community for the Napandee site.
Justice Natalie Charlesworth quashed former Liberal Federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt’s decision to build the National Radioactive Waste Management Facility in Kimba, saying it was affected “by bias”.
InDaily reported last year that in reply to questions on notice, SA senator Barbara Pocock heard that since January 1, 2017, the Commonwealth Government had spent at least $9,905,737 on legal work for the nuclear waste dump and the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency.
Work has now been halted at the Napandee site and King said work already completed would be reversed.
Former SA senator Rex Patrick was concerned the money “wasted” on the failed repository could be replicated with the AUKUS nuclear submarine program.
“It was clear back in February 2018, when I initiated a Senate Inquiry into the selection process for a national radioactive waste management facility in South Australia, that the selection process had gone off the rails,” Patrick said.
“The then government were cautioned about the flawed nature of the process, but ignored the findings and recommendations of the inquiry.
“There is a $110 million dollar lesson for the current Government in the need to engage the community and listen when dealing with these sorts of programs.”
He called on the federal government to be more open with the community with its AUKUS nuclear submarine program in relation to what will happen in relation to nuclear stewardship, operational radioactive waste and dealing with spent nuclear fuel rods.
Federal government spent $100 million on now abandoned nuclear waste dump near Kimba
ABC News, By Ethan Rix, 12Sept 23,
Key points:
- The Federal Resources Minister said the government had spent $108.6 million
- The Commonwealth abandoned plans to build the facility after a Federal Court ruling
- Former SA senator Rex Patrick said the “waste” of taxpayer money could have been avoided
………………………. Senator Rennick also questioned whether the government would find a new location for the NRWMF before May 17, 2025 and if the government would consider placing the facility within the Woomera Prohibited Area.
Ms King said that information about a future site and any further spending would be available once the government had “considered options and made decisions in due course”……………………………………………………………
Former resources minister had ‘foreclosed mind’
Federal Court Justice Natalie Charlesworth found there had been apprehended bias in the decision-making process under then-resources minister Keith Pitt.
Justice Charlesworth found that Mr Pitt — who formally declared the site in 2021 — could be seen to have had a “foreclosed mind” on the issue “simply because his statements strongly conveyed the impression that his mind was made up”.
The court set aside the declaration from 2021 that the site at Napandee, a 211-hectare property, be used for the facility.
Following the Federal Court ruling, Ms King told federal parliament in August that Australia still needed a nuclear storage facility and that the government remained committed to finding a solution that did not involve the Napandee site.
………………………………Mr Patrick said he was concerned that the current Labor government had not learnt any lessons from the recent Federal Court ruling.
“The lesson that needs to be learned, in relation to this, is you need to properly engage [with] a community to get a social licence,” he said.
He said it was clear the government “has their eye on” the Woomera Prohibited Area as a potential location for the facility, which is a military testing range more than 400 kilometres north of Adelaide.
“They are simply not being transparent — they’re not talking about it and that’s going to end up in tears in several years’ time.”
A spokesperson for Ms King said she has instructed her department to develop “policy options” for managing Commonwealth radioactive waste into the future. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-11/commonwealth-kimba-napandee-nuclear-waste-dump-100-million/102840994
Australia’s Navy Pursues Nuclear Submarines and AI-Powered Ghost Sharks
the potential for AI-driven robots to make lethal decisions independently,
https://www.gktoday.in/australias-navy-pursues-nuclear-submarines-and-ai-powered-ghost-sharks 10 Sept 23
Australia’s Navy is adopting two contrasting approaches to advanced submarine technology to address the challenges posed by a rising China. On one hand, Australia is investing in a costly and slow project to acquire up to 13 nuclear-powered attack submarines. On the other hand, Australia is rapidly developing AI-powered unmanned submarines called “Ghost Sharks,” AI-powered subs will be delivered in the near future, offering a cost-effective and swift solution to enhance naval capabilities. The divergent approaches highlight the transformative impact of automation and AI on modern warfare.
How do the cost and delivery timelines of the nuclear submarines and Ghost Sharks differ?
The nuclear submarines are estimated to cost over AUD$28 billion each and will not be delivered until well past the middle of the century. In contrast, Ghost Sharks have a per-unit cost of just over AUD$23 million and will be delivered by mid-2025.
Significance of the Ghost Shark project
The Ghost Shark project illustrates the transformative impact of automation and AI on modern warfare, offering a cost-effective and swift solution to enhance naval capabilities. Such AI-powered unmanned submarines can operate autonomously, descend to greater depths, and be deployed in large numbers without risking human lives. They offer increased flexibility, cost-effectiveness, and the ability to perform maneuvers that might be impossible for crewed submarines.
Link to Geopolitical Challenges?
Australia’s investments in advanced submarine technology are linked to the geopolitical challenges posed by a rising China in the Asia-Pacific region. These developments are part of efforts to maintain military capabilities and respond to regional security concerns.
nfluence of AI
AI technology is influencing the development of various military capabilities, including autonomous weapons, fighter drones, swarming aerial drones, and ground combat vehicles. AI is also playing a role in data analysis and decision support for military commanders.
The AI technology arms race has high stakes in terms of military dominance and geopolitical influence. Winning the race could reshape the global political and economic order, with potential consequences for peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
Challenges of AI
Challenges and concerns include the potential for AI-driven robots to make lethal decisions independently, the need for regulation related to the military application of AI, and the ethical considerations of using AI in warfare, including the targeting of combatants and non-combatants.
Private Sector’s Role
Private companies like Anduril are actively involved in developing AI-powered military technologies. They are contributing to the development of autonomous systems, sensor fusion, computer vision, edge computing, and AI, with applications in various defense domains, including submarines, drones, and counter-drone systems.
Nuclear submarines are now a core Labor value?
By Margaret Reynolds, Sep 9, 2023, https://johnmenadue.com/nuclear-submarines-are-now-a-core-labor-value/
Perhaps AUKUS should be renamed MAUKUS – the Morrison, Albanese, United Kingdom and United States agreement – to clearly identify those responsible. Indeed, it is surprising that neither Defence Minister Richard Marles nor Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy invited Australian Labor Party National Conference delegates to support a motion of appreciation to former Prime Minister Morrison for providing a ready-made defence policy for the Labor Government.
Does Kim Beazley support AUKUS as an Historian, Former Defence Minister or Former Ambassador to the United States?
As a former Defence Minister it is entirely predictable that Kim Beazley would be an enthusiastic cheerleader for the massive $368 billion nuclear submarine deal now in place. Writing with Peter Dean for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, “The Strategist”, Beazley celebrates the success of AUKUS at the recent ALP National Conference in Brisbane.
“There was no rebellion. In the end support for AUKUS was resoundingly endorsed.”
However, as an historian he should be more diligent in presenting evidence to support his claim.
In the lead up to the National Conference, there was considerable angst within government and party hierarchies, anxious about dissent on two fronts, AUKUS and Palestine. The Prime Minister himself led the charge announcing there would be no debate on these policy issues. Clearly this was unacceptable and mobilised many members in Labor branches and trade unions to express their concerns about the way a major defence decision had been taken without open and independent consideration about the risks and costs to the Australian community. The need for an AUKUS debate at the National Conference became a media focus so ultimately of course the ban was withdrawn.
However, it is important to record that at the conclusion of debate the vote was not put to conference delegates for a democratic show of hands to record the numbers in support as that was deemed too politically risky. Instead, this motion of such significance to the future of Australia was passed on the voices and various reports have estimated that about one third of delegates voiced their opposition.
The ALP National Conference focus on AUKUS has revealed grass root activism across Australia questioning our lack of independence, our increased militarisation and unknown agreements which lock us into future American defence policy. Labor Against War, a network of ALP branches, is leading a strong and growing movement against Australia outsourcing its defence policy. Unionists, students, church and peace groups are active in many communities determined that Australia must not be led into another war launched from Washington. The Australian Education Union is leading a revolt against the way the Defence Department is encroaching on schools’ curriculum and university students oppose those staff who welcome defence grants to further the training of nuclear submariners.
Furthermore, a number of these groups are already in contact with our Asia Pacific neighbours who are distressed that so many billions of dollars are being directed into our military infrastructure while Australian dollars are so limited in tackling the impacts of climate change in the region.
The Lowy Institute April 2023 Survey of Australian attitudes reveals that neither the Albanese Government nor the Australian Labor Party can assume their current defence policy is “resoundingly endorsed“ by the community. Polling attitudes to defence policy show widely divergent opinions.
- 48% consider AUKUS will make us safer, while 44% consider the agreement makes us less safe.
- Nuclear powered submarines are supported by 33%, but only 28% consider they will deter conflict, while 30% believe they will contribute to greater risk.
- The cost of Australia’s nuclear powered submarine program is supported by 27% but rejected by 44%.
- 28% consider Australia should invest more in defence to deter our enemies but 40% wanted investment closer to home.
- There was limited support for foreign military to be based in Australia with 22% supporting the UK and 17% the U.S
Neither the Albanese Cabinet nor the defence and security establishments can ignore the increased disquiet many Australians share about the way AUKUS has been imposed on future generations without rigorous scrutiny and independent assessment. We have witnessed two Prime Ministers, Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese, fail their due diligence test requiring expert analysis of the economic, social and environmental impacts of AUKUS. Perhaps indeed this defence policy should be renamed MAUKUS, -the Morrison, Albanese, United Kingdom and United States agreement to clearly identify those responsible! Indeed, it is surprising that neither Defence Minister Richard Marles nor Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy invited National Conference delegates to support a motion of appreciation to former Prime Minister Morrison for providing a ready-made defence policy the Labor Government could so easily adopt!
According to the article in “The Strategist”:
“Nuclear powered submarines are now a core Labor value and a critical part of the party’s platform to support both deterrence and self-reliance.”
Really? Just how could nuclear powered submarines be regarded as a core value? How will Australia’s eight nuclear submarines deter an aggressor? And how does an outsourced defence policy make us self-reliant when it ties us closer to allies with a record of warfare?
The US Congressional Research Service has reported 251 American military interventions around the globe 1991 -2021 (Multipolarista, September 2022) so it is only realistic for Australians to worry about our future security depending on a country so preoccupied with military solutions.
Kim Beazley has a proud record of service to the Australian people and long history of commitment to the real values of the Australian Labor Party.
Perhaps as he takes on his new role as chair of the Australian War Memorial, he will need to review his understanding of Australia’s war history, which highlights the tragic consequences of Australia’s subservience to foreign governments.
Nuclear shift and net zero feud stir Nationals’ leadership tensions
SMH, By Paul Sakkal, September 9, 2023
A nuclear policy overhaul backed by a trio of Nationals MPs and a push to ditch the Coalition-backed net zero emissions target has intensified pressure on leader David Littleproud and reignited the party’s long-standing climate feud.
Former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce said he wants Australia to talk about building conventional nuclear plants, days after conservative Queenslanders Keith Pitt and Matt Canavan urged Coalition MPs in a private meeting to consider the merits of the technology.
Until now, debate on nuclear energy has been confined to the prospect of what are known as small modular nuclear reactors, which are supported by the Coalition. But Pitt and Canavan put the far more expensive and controversial idea of traditional plants on the agenda in Tuesday’s Coalition party room meeting, according to five MPs who spoke anonymously because the meetings are confidential.
Joyce said debate on large-scale nuclear plants was valid, and claimed Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who strongly rejects nuclear options, was more pro-renewables than climate activist Greta Thunberg, who has criticised the German government for reopening coal mines instead of keeping nuclear plants alive…………………………..
The climate change mitigation policy is hated by right-wingers such as Pitt and Canavan. However, it is supported by Littleproud and politically important for Opposition Leader Peter Dutton to win the votes of those who worry about climate change. Dutton reaffirmed his commitment to net zero on Friday………………………….
Former chief scientist Alan Finkel said last month said it would take decades for Australia to develop a nuclear energy industry, and he and other experts rejected the push to switch focus from renewables to nuclear energy as implausible………………………………………………………………………..more https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/nuclear-shift-and-net-zero-feud-stir-nationals-leadership-tensions-20230908-p5e367.html
Educating the US Imperium: Australia’s Mission for Assange
Then there is the issue of whether the delegation’s urgings will have any purchase beyond being a performing flea act. US State Department officials remain glacial in their dismissal of Canberra’s “enough is enough” concerns and defer matters to the US Department of Justice. The unimpressive ambassador Kennedy has been the perfect barometer of this sentiment: host Australian MPs for lunch, keep up appearances, listen politely and ignore their views. Such is the relationship between lord and vassal.
September 6, 2023 Dr Binoy Kampmark https://theaimn.com/educating-the-us-imperium-australias-mission-for-assange/
An odder political bunch you could not find, at least when it comes to pursuing a single goal. Given that the goal is the release of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange makes it all the more striking. Six Australian parliamentarians of various stripes will be heading to Washington ahead of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s October visit to test the ground of empire, maybe even plant a few seeds of doubt, about why the indictment against their countryman should be dropped.
That indictment, an outrageous, piffling shambles of a document comprising 18 charges, 17 based on that nasty, brutish statute, the Espionage Act of 1917, risks earning Assange a prison sentence in the order of 175 years. But in any instrumental sense, his incarceration remains ongoing, with the United Kingdom currently acting as prison warden and custodian.
In the politics of his homeland, the icy polarisation that came with Assange’s initial publishing exploits (former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard was convinced Cablegate was a crime) has shifted to something almost amounting to a consensus. The cynic will say that votes are in the offing, if not at risk if nothing is done; the principled will argue that enlightenment has finally dawned.
The Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Opposition leader, Peter Dutton, agree on almost nothing else but the fact that Assange has suffered enough. In Parliament, the tireless work of the independent MP from Tasmania, Andrew Wilkie, has bloomed into the garrulous Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group.
The Washington mission, which will arrive in the US on September 20, comprises former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce, the scattergun former Nationals leader, Labor MP Tony Zappia, Greens Senators David Shoebridge and Peter Whish-Wilson, Liberal Senator Alex Antic and the competent independent member for Kooyong, Dr. Monique Ryan.
What will be said will hardly be pleasing to the ears of the Washington establishment. Senator Shoebridge, for instance, promises to make the case that Assange was merely telling the truth about US war crimes, hardly music for guardians from Freedom’s Land. Sounding like an impassioned pastor, he will tell his unsuspecting flock “the truth about this prosecution.”
Joyce, however, tried to pour some oil over troubled waters by insisting on ABC News that the delegates were not there “to pick a fight”. He did not necessarily want to give the impression that his views aligned with WikiLeaks. The principles, soundly, were that Assange had not committed any of the alleged offences as a US national, let alone in the United States itself. The material Assange had published had not been appropriated by himself. He had received it from Chelsea Manning, a US military source, “who is now walking the streets as a free person.”
To pursue the indictment to its logical conclusion would mean that Assange, or any journalist for that matter, could be extradited to the US from, say, Australia, for the activities in question. This extraterritorial eccentricity set a “very, very bad precedent”, and it was a “duty” to defend his status as an Australian citizen.
The Nationals MP also noted, rather saliently, that Beijing was currently interested in pursuing four Chinese nationals on Australian soil for a number of alleged offences that did not, necessarily, have a nexus to Chinese territory. Should Australia now extradite them as a matter of course? (The same observation has been made by an adviser to the Assange campaign, Greg Barns SC: “You’ve got China using the Assange case as a sort of moral equivalence argument.”)
Broadly speaking, the delegation is hoping to draw attention to the nature of publishing itself and the risks posed to free speech and the journalistic craft by the indictment. But there is another catch. In Shoebridge’s words, the delegates will also remind US lawmakers “that one of their closest allies sees the treatment of Julian Assange as a key indicator on the health of the bilateral relationship.”
Ryan expressed much the same view. “Australia is an excellent friend of the US and it’s not unreasonable to request to ask the US to cease this extradition attempt on Mr Assange.” The WikiLeaks founder was “a “journalist; he should not be prosecuted for crimes against journalism.”
While these efforts are laudable, they are also revealing. The first is that the clout of the Albanese government in Washington, on this point, has been minimal. Meekly, the government awaits the legal process in the UK to exhaust itself, possibly leading to a plea deal with all its attendant dangers to Assange. (The recent floating of that idea, based on remarks made by US ambassador to Australia Caroline Kennedy, was scotched by former British diplomat and Assange confidante Craig Murray in an interview with WBAI radio last week.) Best, then, to leave it to a diverse set of politicians representative of the “Australian voice” to convey the message across the pond.
Then there is the issue of whether the delegation’s urgings will have any purchase beyond being a performing flea act. US State Department officials remain glacial in their dismissal of Canberra’s “enough is enough” concerns and defer matters to the US Department of Justice. The unimpressive ambassador Kennedy has been the perfect barometer of this sentiment: host Australian MPs for lunch, keep up appearances, listen politely and ignore their views. Such is the relationship between lord and vassal.
In Washington, the perspective remains ossified, retributive and wrongheaded. Assange is myth and monster, the hacker who pilfered state secrets and compromised US national security; the man who revealed confidential sources and endangered informants; a propagandist who harmed the sweet sombre warriors of freedom by encouraging a new army of whistleblowers and transparency advocates.
Whatever the outcome from this trip, some stirring of hope is at least possible. The recent political movement down under shows that Assange is increasingly being seen less in the narrow context of personality than high principle. Forget whether you know the man, his habits, his inclinations. Remember him as the principle, or even a set of principles: the publisher who, with audacity, exposed the crimes and misdeeds of power; that, in doing so, he is now being hounded and persecuted in a way that will chill global efforts to do something similar.
What’s Behind Talk of a Possible Plea Deal for Assange?
Were Assange to give up his legal battle and voluntarily go to the U.S. it would achieve two things for Washington:
1). remove the chance of a European Court of Human Rights injunction stopping his extradition should the High Court in London reject his last appeal; and
2). it would give the U.S. an opportunity to “change its mind” once Assange was in its clutches inside the Virginia federal courthouse.
Top U.S. officials are speaking at cross purposes when it comes to Julian Assange. What is really going on? asks Joe Lauria.
By Joe Lauria, Consortium News https://consortiumnews.com/2023/09/03/whats-behind-talk-of-a-possible-plea-deal-for-assange/
It was a little more than perplexing. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, on Australian soil, left no doubt about how his government feels about one of Australia’s most prominent citizens.
“I understand the concerns and views of Australians,” Blinken said in Brisbane on July 31 with the Australian foreign minister at his side. “I think it’s very important that our friends here understand our concerns about this matter.” He went on:
“What our Department of Justice has already said repeatedly, publicly, is this: Mr. Assange was charged with very serious criminal conduct in the United States in connection with his alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of our country. So I say that only because just as we understand sensitivities here, it’s important that our friends understand sensitivities in the United States.”
In other words, when it comes to Julian Assange, the U.S. elite cares little for what Australians have to say. There are more impolite ways to describe Blinken’s response. Upwards of 88 percent of Australians and both parties in the Australian government have told Washington to free the man. And Blinken essentially told them to stuff it. The U.S. won’t drop the case.
A few days before Blinken spoke, Caroline Kennedy, the U.S. ambassador to Australia and daughter of slain President John F. Kennedy, was also dismissive of Australians’ concerns, telling Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio:
“I met with Parliamentary supporters of Julian Assange and I’ve listened to their concerns and I understand that this has been raised at the highest levels of our government, but it is an ongoing legal case, so the Department of Justice is really in charge but I’m sure that for Julian Assange it means a lot that he has this kind of support but we’re just going to have to wait to see what happens.”
Asked why she met with the parliamentarians at all, she said: “Well, it’s an important issue, it has, as I’ve said, been raised at the highest levels and I wanted to hear directly from them about their concerns to make sure that we all understood where each other was coming from and I thought it was a very useful conversation.”
Asked whether her meeting with the MPs had shifted her thinking on the Assange case, Kennedy said bluntly: “Not really.” She added that her “personal thinking isn’t really relevant here.”
Blowback
Australia has too often behaved as a doormat to the United States, to the point where Australia is threatening its own security by going along with an aggressive U.S. policy towards China, which poses no threat to Australia.
But this time, Blinken got an earful. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reiterated that he wanted the Assange case to be dropped. Certain members of Parliament brusquely gave it back to Blinken.
Assange was “not the villain … and if the US wasn’t obsessed with revenge it would drop the extradition charge as soon as possible,” Independent MP Andrew Wilkie told The Guardian‘s Australian edition.
“Antony Blinken’s allegation that Julian Assange risked very serious harm to US national security is patent nonsense,” said Wilkie said.
“Mr Blinken would be well aware of the inquiries in both the US and Australia which found that the relevant WikiLeaks disclosures did not result in harm to anyone,” the MP said. “The only deadly behaviour was by US forces … exposed by WikiLeaks, like the Apache crew who gunned down Iraqi civilians and Reuters journalists” in the infamous Collateral Murder video.
As was shown conclusively by defense witnesses in his September 2020 extradition hearing in London, Assange worked assiduously to redact names of U.S. informants before WikiLeaks publications on Iraq and Afghanistan in 2010. U.S. Gen. Robert Carr testified at the court martial of WikiLeaks‘ source, Chelsea Manning, that no one was harmed by the material’s publication.
Instead, Assange faces 175 years in a U.S. dungeon on charges of violating the Espionage Act, not for stealing U.S. classified material, but for the First Amendment-protected publication of it.
Labor MP Julian Hill, also part of the Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group, told The Guardian he had “a fundamentally different view of the substance of the matter than secretary Blinken expressed. But I appreciate that at least his remarks are candid and direct.”
“In the same vein, I would say back to the United States: at the very least, take Julian Assange’s health issues seriously and go into court in the United Kingdom and get him the hell out of a maximum security prison where he’s at risk of dying without medical care if he has another stroke,” Hill said.
Damage Control
The fierce Australian reaction to both Blinken and Kennedy’s remarks appears to have taken Washington by surprise, given how accustomed to Canberra’s supine behavior the U.S. has become. Just two weeks after Blinken’s remarks, Kennedy tried to soften the blow by muddying Blinken’s clear waters.
She told The Sydney Morning Herald in a front-page interview published on Aug. 14 that the United States was now, despite Blinken’s unequivocal words, suddenly open to a plea agreement that could free Assange, allowing him to serve a shortened sentence for a lesser crime in his home country.
The newspaper said there could be a “David Hicks-style plea bargain,” a so-called Alford Plea, in which Assange would continue to state his innocence while accepting a lesser charge that would allow him to serve additional time in Australia. The four years Assange has already served on remand at London’s maximum security Belmarsh Prison could perhaps be taken into account.
Kennedy said a decision on such a plea deal was up to the U.S. Justice Department. “So it’s not really a diplomatic issue, but I think that there absolutely could be a resolution,” she told the newspaper.
Kennedy acknowledged Blinken’s harsh comments. “But there is a way to resolve it,” she said. “You can read the [newspapers] just like I can.” It is not quite clear what in the newspapers she was reading.
Blinken is Kennedy’s boss. There is little chance she had spoken out of turn. Blinken allowed her to put out the story that the U.S. is interested in a plea bargain with Assange. But why?
First, the harsh reaction in Australia to Blinken’s words probably had something to do with it. If it was up to the U.S. Justice Department alone to handle the prosecution of Assange, as Kennedy says, why was the Secretary of State saying anything about it at all? Blinken appears to have spoken out of turn himself and sent Kennedy out to reel it back in.
Given the growing opposition to the AUKUS alliance in Australia, including within the ruling Labor Party, perhaps Blinken and the rest of the U.S. security establishment is not taking Australia’s support for granted anymore. Blinken stepped in it and had Kennedy try to clean up the mess.
Second, as suspected by many Assange supporters on social media, Kennedy’s words may have been intended as a kind of ploy, perhaps to lure Assange to the United States to give up his fight against extradition in exchange for leniency.
In its article based on Kennedy’s interview, The Sydney Morning Herald spoke to only one international law expert, a Don Rothwell, of Australian National University in Canberra, who said Assange would have to go to the United States to negotiate a plea. In a second interview on Australian television, Rothwell said Assange would also have to drop his extradition fight.
Of course, neither is true. “Usually American courts don’t act unless a defendant is inside that district and shows up to the court,” U.S. constitutional lawyer Bruce Afran told Consortium News. “However, there’s nothing strictly prohibiting it either. And in a given instance, a plea could be taken internationally. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. It’s not barred by any laws. If all parties consent to it, then the court has jurisdiction.” But would the U.S. consent to it?
Were Assange to give up his legal battle and voluntarily go to the U.S. it would achieve two things for Washington: 1). remove the chance of a European Court of Human Rights injunction stopping his extradition should the High Court in London reject his last appeal; and 2). it would give the U.S. an opportunity to “change its mind” once Assange was in its clutches inside the Virginia federal courthouse.
“The U.S. sometimes finds ways to get around these agreements,” Afran said. “The better approach would be that he pleads while in the U.K., we resolve the sentence by either an additional sentence of seven months, such as David Hicks had or a year to be served in the U.K. or in Australia or time served.”
Assange’s brother, Gabriel Shipton, told the Herald his brother going to the U.S. was a “non-starter.” He said: “Julian cannot go to the US under any circumstances.” Assange’s father, John Shipton, told the same to Glenn Greenwald last week.
So the U.S. won’t be getting Assange on its soil voluntarily, and perhaps not very soon either. And maybe it wants it that way. Gabriel Shipton added: “Caroline Kennedy wouldn’t be saying these things if they didn’t want a way out. The Americans want this off their plate.”
Third, the U.S. may be trying to prolong Assange’s ordeal for at least another 14 months past the November 2024 U.S. presidential election. As Greenwald told John Shipton, the last thing President Joe Biden would want in the thick of his reelection campaign next year would be a high-profile criminal trial in which he was seen trying to put a publisher away for life for printing embarrassing U.S. state secrets.
But rather than a way out, as Gabriel Shipton called it, the U.S. may have in mind something more like a Great Postponement.
The postponement could come with the High Court of England and Wales continuing to take its time to give Assange his last hearing — for all of 30 minutes — before it rendered its final judgement, months after that, on his extradition. This could be stretched over 14 months. As Assange is a U.S. campaign issue, the High Court could justify its inaction by saying it wanted to avoid interference in the election.
According to Craig Murray, a former British diplomat and close Assange associate, the United States has not, despite Kennedy’s words last month, so far offered any sort of plea deal to Assange’s legal team. Murray told WBAI radio in New York:
“There have been noises made by the U.S. ambassador to Australia saying that a plea deal is possible. And that’s what the Australian Government have been pushing for as a way to solve it. What I can tell you is that there have been no official approaches from the American government indicating any willingness to soften or ameliorate their posihttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnNjwQNV4Gction. The position of the Biden administration still seems to be that they wish to persecute and destroy Julian and lock him up for life for publishing the truth about war crimes …
So there’s no evidence of any sincerity on behalf of the U.S. government in these noises we’ve been hearing. It seems to be to placate public opinion in Australia, which is over 80% in favor of dropping the charges and allowing Julian to go home to his native country…
The American ambassador has made comments about, oh well, a plea deal might be possible, but this is just rubbish. This is just talk in the air. There’s been no kind of approach or indication from the Justice Department or anything like that at all. It’s just not true. It’s a false statement, in order to placate public opinion in Australia.”
Afran said a plea deal can be initiated by the Assange side as well. Assange lawyer Jennifer Robinson said in May for the first time on behalf of his legal team that they were open to discussion of a plea deal, though she said she knew of no crime Assange had committed to plead guilty to.
The U.S. would have many ways to keep prolonging talks on an Assange initiative, if one came, beyond the U.S. election. After the vote, the Justice Department could then receive Assange in Virginia courtesy of the British courts, if this the strategy the U.S. is pursuing.
NUCLEAR WASTE – PLANNING RESPONSIBLY FOR THE FUTURE
Dr. Margare Beavis . Medical Assiction for the Prevention of War, 2 Sept 23
MAPW welcomes the Federal Court decision in July to completely set aside approval of the proposed interim national radioactive waste facility at Kimba in South Australia.
We thank the Barngarla Traditional Owners who took this legal action. The Federal Court ruled that former Resources Minister Keith Pitt’s declaration of the Kimba site was affected by apprehended bias. We also acknowledge the work of the “No Radioactive Waste on Agricultural Land in Kimba or SA” group and so many others.
We welcome the decision by Resources Minster Madeleine King not to appeal the court ruling on the 10th of August.
In a shamefully delayed public reassurance, on the same day as the minister’s decision, ANSTO noted it will have sufficient storage capacity for their radioactive waste until a purpose-built facility is established, and that there is no threat to production and supply of nuclear medicines at the Lucas Heights reactor. Lucas Heights has the best facilities, experience and security to hold this waste until a permanent disposal facility is developed.
Now is the right time for a new more responsible approach
The Australian government should now embark on something we have never had: a rigorous, transparent, open to the public and experts, evidence-based, accountable process that comprehensively considers the production and management of radioactive waste in Australia now and in the future and establishes a comprehensive, long-term, best-practice national plan for radioactive waste management, including permanent disposal. Such a process will be required to gain community licence for a permanent national disposal site; considerable trust has to be rebuilt.
We must not repeat yet again the multiple failed attempts by federal ministers to impose a radioactive waste dump on a remote Aboriginal community. We should seek to minimise the future production of intermediate and high-level radioactive waste. We should avoid double-handling of waste, as was planned at Kimba. International experience shows that accidents and theft of radioactive materials occurs most often during transport. Intermediate Level Waste (ILW) and High Level Waste (HLW) present much greater challenges than low level waste (LLW). It is likely that disposal of ILW and any HLW will be most effectively, cost-effectively and securely managed in the same facility. Australia should not store or dispose of radioactive waste from other countries. ARPANSA is the body which should provide regulatory oversight for radioactive waste management in Australia.
We need to recognise the extremely long-term nature of highly toxic ILW. The vast majority of this waste is at Lucas Heights (3753 m3), with a very small volume in non-government sites (industry 3 m3, hospitals 1 m3 and none in research institutions). This waste has been safely stored for decades so there is time for responsible planning.
Future production of ILW at Lucas Heights
There are now much cleaner accelerator rather that nuclear reactor-based methods for producing nuclear isotopes that are medically and commercially approved internationally. These are the future of production of isotopes for medicine and science. Australia needs to adopt and deploy these methods. ANSTO’s current massive expansion to export reactor-produced nuclear isotopes is nowhere close to true cost recovery and will leave future generations with vastly more ILW than cleaner and cheaper accelerator-based production.
High level nuclear waste
Australia does not currently possess any HLW. However, Australia is to be burdened with a large amount of high level nuclear waste under the proposed acquisition of second-hand US nuclear-powered Virginia-class submarines and then submarines built under the AUKUS agreement. The proposed acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines is very high risk and problematic on many levels, but needs to be borne in mind in planning radioactive waste management.
Currently, all US and UK naval nuclear reactors utilise highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel. It is therefore likely that proposed new SSN-AUKUS submarines will also be fuelled by HEU. This raises substantial proliferation concerns and risks and complicates implementation of nuclear safeguards. It also means that the naval reactor waste would still be HEU and still be weapons-usable. This adds not only a radiological dimension to the long-term danger of HLW but also a substantial security dimension, as this waste will need to be stored not only contained to minimise any risk to health and the environment over the geological timeframes of its toxicity, but will also need to be subject to military levels of security effectively indefinitely.
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 