Antinuclear

AUKUS Pillar 1 should be scrapped, report says

ICAN Australia urges a rethink of US alliance agreements

By APDR•Nov 8, 2026, https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/posts/aukus-pillar-1-should-be-scrapped-report-says

A comprehensive examination of the AUKUS submarine deal to date is recommending it be immediately scrapped and a Plan B cost-effective alternative implemented immediately to ensure a capable submarine service.  A Royal Commission into how the disastrous defence pact was conceived and allowed to continue for as long as it has, is also required.

Report is available at aukuspublicinquiry.com.au.

The independent, crowdfunded Public Inquiry into AUKUS has found that the security partnership will not succeed in any of its stated aims and constitutes a gross waste of public monies – up to half a trillion dollars if nuclear waste management costs are included – that compromise our national security and sovereignty. The inquiry report included 17 recommendations, including that Australia urgently develop a comprehensive National Security Strategy, suspend plans for a US naval base near Perth, cease seconding RAN submariners on US submarines and that an urgent Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) audit of the AUKUS program be undertaken and the results made public.

Lead Commissioner Peter Garrett said that AUKUS represented an absurd cost for submarines of highly contested utility that may well never arrive. “After carefully considering all the material presented to us, we conclude that AUKUS is the worst, most costly and riskiest defence decision ever made. AUKUS compromises our national security, erodes our sovereignty and commits us to any future conflict in support of US war plans.  AUKUS definitely does NOT keep us safe.”

A substantial number of Australians – including a former Prime Minister, five former Foreign Affairs and Defence Ministers, senior academics and recognised military experts, unions, community groups and citizens – presented to the Inquiry across 10 day-long hearings in 8 cities around Australia since it launched in June.

ICAN Australia urges a rethink of US alliance agreements

ICAN Australia urges a rethink of US alliance agreements and says Australia must sign the nuclear weapon ban treaty Hosting US nuclear-capable forces is increasing the risk to Australian communities, and that risk is set to grow, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) Australia said today.

The AUKUS Public Inquiry’s report, Surrendering Australia, released last week, warns that AUKUS opens the door to nuclear weapons hosted in Australia. It finds the Force Posture Agreement does not prevent the US deploying them here, and that Perth would be a likely nuclear target in a US-China conflict. The report, and recent events, point to what’s currently here and what’s coming:

• Now: US B-52s landed at RAAF Base Tindal, near Katherine, on 1 September. The base has been upgraded to host them, and at least half of the US B-52 fleet is nuclear-capable.
• From 2027: US and UK nuclear-powered submarines will rotate through HMAS Stirling, beside Rockingham.
• After 2032: US Congressman Michael McCaul says it is “logical to assume” rotating US submarines could be nuclear-armed.
• Next: The report names Port Kembla, Newcastle and Brisbane as possible east coast submarine bases.

The report urges the government to recalibrate the US alliance around Australian sovereignty, rescind ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and honour Labor’s commitment to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Associate Professor Tilman Ruff, founding chair of ICAN and contributor to the inquiry said: “The US will neither confirm nor deny whether its aircraft and submarines carry nuclear weapons, and Australian governments say they ‘understand and respect’ that policy. This level of secrecy is unacceptable in a modern democracy. Communities like Katherine and Rockingham are carrying a nuclear risk they were never asked about. We don’t even know whether emergency and medical services have been told what they might face. Our agreements with the US leave the door open to nuclear weapons operations being launched from Australia, and each new deployment pushes it wider. We need to rethink those agreements, including AUKUS Pillar 1, and sign and ratify the nuclear weapon ban treaty. That would replace don’t ask, don’t tell with a clear legal line – no nuclear weapons hosted here.”

November 9, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Inquiry urges Australian gov’t to terminate AUKUS pact

Source: Xinhua, Editor: huaxia, 2026-11-04, https://english.news.cn/20261104/e47195ed31584f15a2214df618abf5c9/c.html

CANBERRA, Nov. 4 (Xinhua) — An independent inquiry has called for the Australian government to immediately terminate the AUKUS treaty, describing the pact as the riskiest defense decision in national history.

Former government minister Peter Garrett and former Australian Defense Force chief Chris Barrie, two of the five commissioners conducting the public inquiry into AUKUS, presented the final report at the National Press Club of Australia in Canberra on Wednesday, concluding that the landmark security pact does not serve Australia well and should be scrapped.

After receiving more than 1,000 submissions and conducting 10 days of public hearings around the country, the final report said that the inquiry did not uncover any “convincing foundations” for AUKUS.

“We concluded that AUKUS is the worst, riskiest and most costly defense decision ever made by an Australian government,” the report said.

“AUKUS jeopardizes our sovereignty, further entangles us with U.S. war planning and actually endangers our security.”

The report made 16 recommendations, including that Australia immediately terminate pillar one of the AUKUS deal, under which Australia would acquire eight nuclear-powered submarines in the 2030s and 2040s, due to current delivery schedules “most likely” being unachievable.

Additionally, it said that plans for a U.S. naval base near Perth in Western Australia should be suspended until “critical questions” regarding nuclear security and health and environmental safety for the local population are fully examined.

The independent inquiry was established after successive federal governments ruled out holding a major public review of the pact.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters on Tuesday after meeting with British counterpart Andy Burnham in the Caribbean that work on AUKUS is progressing very well.■

November 7, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Public inquiry lashes AUKUS pact

Kye Halford November 5, 2026, https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/post/public-inquiry-lashes-aukus-pact

An AUKUS inquiry report released by Peter Garrett and former defence chief Admiral Chris Barrie says agreement should be suspended and calls for royal commission.

What we know:

• The inquiry called the $368bn agreement the “worst, riskiest and most costly defence decision ever made by an Australian government” (The Nightly).
• Its report, titled Surrendering Australia: the Aukus Deception, says the presence of powerful nuclear submarines risks military conflict with China, while the deal weakens Australia’s sovereignty (The Guardian).
• The report recommends Australia “recalibrate” its alliance with the US to “emphasise Australia’s national sovereignty and independence” (Politico).
• “Whatever way you want to look at the future in this region, by 2050, China will be the world’s largest power, the world’s greatest power,” Barrie said on Wednesday, adding that “I worry about the contest between the United States and China” (SMH).

• Polling conducted by the United States Studies Centre in May found that while 48% of Australians believe having nuclear-power submarines is a good idea, only 23% agreed the Australian government had properly explained the rationale for AUKUS (Politico).

Read more: The case against AUKUS (The Saturday Paper)

November 4, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry- AUKUS a Con, a Rort, a Scam! – Ken McCleod

No 273 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wrFaJ2Sfq62zeCu_CfrqUuV_MSb7VpKz/view

AUKUS is supposedly a trilateral “security partnership” between Australia, the United
Kingdom and the United States of America – however, only one partner, Australia, pays all
the costs! The rationale is to “promote a free and open Indo-Pacific that is secure and
stable” The Indo-Pacific is already “free, open and stable”. Just how the introduction of
nuclear-powered submarines into already peaceful waters will improve the situation, is not
explained nor justified.

AUKUS is trilateral – namely a Scam, a Rort, a Con! The unstated goal is obviously not
“collective security” but to covertly threaten one country – China.

China has committed the “sin” of being independent, successful and economically
powerful, with a strong defence force for its own protection against the enormous forces
of the United States ranged against it. China’s defence capacity is justifiably required,
based on its past treatment during the “100 years of humiliation” perpetrated by the
Western Powers and the invasion of its territory by Japan, before and during WW2.
The old colonial mindset of “the West knows Best” for others, still exists in Australia, the
UK and the US – it is clearly the underlying motivation of AUKUS.

Within the Chinese Constitution there are three “NOs”

• NO political interference in any other country
• NO Foreign bases in China, nor Chinese bases in any other country
• NO military alliances
  These are NEVER mentioned by the Australian media.
  China has clearly maintained this three “NOs” since 1949. The same cannot be said of
  Australia, the UK and the USA.
• 
  The “threat” from China rings quite hollow when China has not invaded any other country,
  has established no foreign bases and there is no evidence of foreign interference by
  China. China has never made any threats toward Australia.

• China is 10 hours flying time from Australia
• China is approx. 7,400 kilometres in sailing miles from
  Australia
• 
  China has been turned into a “threat” by a well-funded, toxic propaganda campaign,
  originating in the USA and meekly followed by both Australia and the UK. In fact, the
  USA Congress passed Bill HR 1157, which allocated $(US)1.6 billion to subsidise world
  media and civil society sources to produce what is basically negative, anti-China
  propaganda. China has no similar campaign against any other country.

A large part of this campaign revolves around the issue of Taiwan. Here, the One China
Principle needs clarification. On 15/12/1978 US President Carter announced by way of a
Joint Communique with the PRC that:

“The United States recognises the Government of the Peoples Republic of China as the
sole legal government of China. The Government of the United States of America
acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of
China”.

A Joint Communique has the status of a bilateral treaty which is legally binding.
Both Australia and the UK entered into similar joint communiques with the PRC and are
bound by the same legal principle.

AUKUS is required to counter a “threat” that, in reality, does not exist.

AUKUS has committed only Australia to spend some $(AU)368 billion whilst the UK and
the USA pay zero. In simple terms, that is $(AU)35,251,141 PER DAY for 30 YEARS! A
great deal for UK and USA. Initially Australia was to receive 8 newly-built submarines of
new design, but due to the USA’s inability to build them on schedule, Australia will now
receive 3 second-hand submarines – and no reduction in costs and still no guarantee of
delivery! There will be no refund nor reduction in costs if delivery is not met! No
reduction in costs has been made. One may ask, WHY NOT?

The AUKUS submarines are designed for deep water operations, but Australia’s
coastlines are surrounded by shallow waters. So the “defence of Australia” argument
appears to fail. Any naval “enemies” are assumed to only attack Australia in deep waters!

The old worn out cliche of “freedom of navigation” seems completely out of place, based
on previous and on-going navigation in the Indo-Pacific that has never been threatened,
hindered or interfered with, since the end of World War 2. Shipping to and from China,
principally on Chinese vessels, has never been threatened, stopped nor hindered.

AUKUS should have awakened Australians to the realisation that the USA only ever acts
in its own interest.

Questions relating to AUKUS that need answers are:

• What advice was given to PM Albanese, Defence Minister Marles and Foreign Minister
  Wong, that was not given to the the Australian public and Parliament?
• Who initiated the AUKUS idea?
• Why is Australia the only country paying, while UK and USA reap huge benefits?
• How can the cost NOT decrease, now that second-hand submarines will be provided
• When will detailed costings be made transparent?
• Were alternative views/proposals sought? If so, what were they?If not, why not?
• Why has housing for American sailors been given priority over Australian homeless?
• Who will control the bases built in Australia
• What role does ex-PM Morrison have in AUKUS
• Who currently employs ex-PM Morrison?

The more it is examined, the more AUKUS resembles a scheme hastily cobbled together
on the back of an envelope, rather that a carefully considered plan to clarify the real
defence needs of Australia and identify the optimum assets required to service them.

The whole nuclear submarine deal should be jettisoned before it undermines Australia’s
defence capability any further.

.

November 4, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Submission to the AUKUS Public Inquiry – AUKUS a poorly planned process, hastily agreed on by Labor – Peter Hayes

No.268 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kF0ye1Of2ZBGBX_Wm-VzURxDfAXueUNT/view

I am Peter Hayes, a former RAAF Group Captain, having age-retired in July
2011with 46 years Service, including two terms in HQADF. During the first term, in
1982, I completed the Defence Systems Management Course its purpose being to
deepen participant’s understanding of the Force Capability Development process.

I have also completed RAAF and Joint Service Staff Courses and a Masters in
Defence Studies through the Australian Defence Force Academy (UNSW).

ADF Force Structure and Capability Development is a complex tri-Service process
at the centre of the Defence reforms which began in the period 1971-75 and which
have been evolving since. The process is rooted in a series of major high-level
Defence Committees, namely the Force Structure Committee (FSC) and the
Capability Development Committee (CDC) where the senior leadership of the three
Armed Services engage with the senior civilian leadership of various defence
support functions including intelligence, budget, and systems analysis to identify
the best way to defend Australia.

The process begins with a full spectrum situation awareness drawing on
intelligence assessments from all available sources. That awareness is then paired
with the national defence strategy as the primary influencer for shaping force
structure and capability development. A multi-domain balanced force evolves from
this process. Capital equipment acquisition is an outcome of the Force Capability
Development process.

The manner in which the AUKUS Submarine acquisition was announced, clearly
revealed the absence of a deliberate prior analysis of threat, strategy and
capability development needed to inform the preferred equipment and source.

The Labor Opposition acceptance – within a day or so – of the governing coalition’s
decision and announcement, left no room to validate via the well-tested,
well-defined and reliable Defence Capability and Equipment Acquisition process.
Staged conclusions need not be classified.

How the former coalition government decided such an outcome is mysterious to
everyone – except perhaps to a small coterie of senior US naval submariners
hypothesizing how to conceal nuclear armed submarines in a larger conventional
fleet to deceive and frustrate opponents. Such foreign musings do not belong in
the realm of Australia’s Force structure and capability acquisition deliberations.
This is a matter of vital national importance demanding profoundly detailed
analysis and resolve.

How the ADF would use such a capability is an equally vital element of our national
defence strategy; none of which was analysed prior to the AUKUS announcement.
The fleeting analysis since is unworthy of our national Defence leadership
overseeing the process.

The Australian Parliament, through the Defence leadership responsible for the
Force capability and equipment acquisition processes must be afforded the
opportunity to validate the AUKUS pillar one decision via the established and
trusted process.

There are grave consequences of the AUKUS Pillar 1 decision not being the
outcome of that process. They include:

a. a nuclear-powered submarine capability freaking the regional capability balance
in turn jeopardising Australia’s security.

b. The costs/impacts of AUKUS on Australia’s economy, workforce, industry, and
research sectors, and the opportunity costs for other national priorities not being
fully assessed and analysed.

c. AUKUS nuclear accidents in port or Australian waters cannot be absolutely
averted or contained, nuclear waste can’t be stored safely indefinitely without
quantified environmental and community impacts.

d. The lack of transparency, public consultation, and parliamentary oversight
regarding AUKUS decisions arousing public uncertainty and doubt.

e. technological advancements of AUKUS Pillar 2 may be achievable via other
means

f. the strategic rationale for Australia’s commitment to AUKUS should be assessed
in the context of current geopolitical developments – a full-spectrum situation
analysis based on our own sources and Australian intelligence analysts.

g. Uncertain impacts of AUKUS on the ADF force capability needs.

h. Uncertain cost-effective and achievable alternatives to AUKUS – that may better
enhance Australia’s peace and security.

i. arousing suspicion in Australia’s relations with China, ASEAN, and the Pacific
Islands nations, including commitments under the Treaty of Rarotonga (South
Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty).

j. AUKUS Pillar 1 submarines failing to deliver on time and on budget.

I do not support the proposed AUKUS Pillar 1 submarine acquisition without a prior
validation via the Defence Force Structure and capability acquisition process.

November 4, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry – AUKUS a poorly-conceived, massively-costly and hugely-risky agreement – DR Eric van Buerden.

No. 257

AUKUS is a poorly-conceived, massively-costly and hugely-risky agreement that
should be cancelled forthwith before it creates even more problems than it already
has. Here are just a few of my major concerns, as a scientist with fifty years of
experience using evidence-based methodologies and an extensive record of
publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

First, lengthy delays in the delivery and even start time of AUKUS, have already
been mooted, as dictated by the more-highly-prioritised needs of both the US and
UK provider defence systems. With no set budget or timeline or even guarantee of
delivery, the whole agreement is a travesty of Government’s responsibility to the
Australian tax payer.

By inextricably linking us to the US aggressive stance towards China, AUKUS
jeopardises Australia’s security both economically and militarily. It virtually
ensures we would be a target in the event of any military actions between those
two super powers in the same way that US bases in Arabian states are now being
targeted by Iran.

The chance of nuclear accidents in port or Australian waters will be greatly
increased if we have nuclear submarines being house, serviced and possibly
attacked there. Even storing spent rods is a huge risk that has hardly been
discussed let alone planned in a cautious and respectful way.

The environmental and social implications of an accident are enormous and should
have be deeply considered before even entering such a contract. The impact on
First Nations peoples should also have been discussed in consultation with them as
part of our nation even considering such an agreement.

There has been virtually no transparency or public consultation in the decision
making process for AUKUS which in many ways is the most significant in our
history as a nation. Parliamentary oversight regarding the main AUKUS decisions
should have been totally transparent and multi-partisan.

Even currently-known technological advancements in the field of marine warfare
will very likely make the acquisition of outdated submarines a total waste of
resources. We should be investing in much more cost-effective shore-based
defensive capital such as a shield of air and marine drones, not one or two
out-dated long-range submarines that will have little chance of defending ourmany distantly-spaced coastal cities.

Furthermore, AUKUS has huge implications for regional peace and security,
including Australia’s relations with China, ASEAN, and the Pacific Islands nations,
including commitments under the Treaty of Rarotonga. These should not be
jeopardised by rashly-considered and poorly defined agreements like AUKUS.

On the basis of these main objections, there is in my mind no way that AUKUS
should be continued. I believe it was initiated simply as a political point-scoring
and knee jerk reaction. It carries much greater risks than can possibly be justified
by the touted benefits it would bestow in the extremely unlikely event that it were
ever come to fruition in any truly-functional form.

November 3, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry – AUKUS perhaps the “greatest moral challenge of our generation” – Antony Hing.

No. 247

We should be removing straws from the nuclear camel’s back, not adding to them.

We should be deepening our friendship, & win-win trade with Chinanot provoking them into seeing us as a nuclear enemy.

INTRODUCTION

AUKUS is quite possibly the new “greatest moral challenge of our generation”.
Australia must abandon AUKUS and make a clear statement to the world:
Nuclear war, nuclear provocation and nuclear intimidation have no place in our
modern society.

Annie Jacobsen (author: Nuclear War – A Scenario) points
out a simple human error of judgement can trigger an automated ‘nuclear
Armageddon’ – in only 72 minutes 5 billion human beings are killed. In the
ensuing Nuclear Winter, there are no survivors left anywhere on the planet.
AUKUS is a nuclear force projection posture aimed squarely at one country: China…………………………………………………………………….

ED. This is a very long and well-written, and well-illustrated submission. But I am short of time to re[produce it here

It can be viewed at https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/#view-submissions

The main theme of Antony Hing’s submission is his concern about militarism leading to nuclear war, and Australia’s need to be in a civil and positive relationship with China.

………………………………….. CONCLUSION

The US should not be regarded as always right – history loudly says otherwise.

Australia should be prepared to lead the way by removing straws from the nuclear
camel’s back not adding to them.

Let’s stop repeating the mistake of unwinnable arms races and wars that lead to
financial, societal and civilizational ruin.

Let’s invest instead, the time and eƯort into forging deep understanding and friendships
with China and our ASEAN neighbours and to ensuring our core societal needs such as
health & aged care, education, aƯordable housing, preparing for climate change,
modernising our infrastructure, protecting the environment, boosting bi-lateral trade,
etc are all better funded and resourced.

China stands for the values of mutual respect, amity, non-interference, win-win
cooperation and peaceful, stable harmony between countries.

AUKUS is redundant in the face of these shared values, values which would assure our
own peaceful long-term prosperity.

Xi Jinping puts it in words no enemy of ours ever could: “confrontation hurts
people, cooperation helps people, let’s join hands for the greater good of
humanity.”

AUKUS has only three outcomes:
● It makes us a legitimate military target.
● It eventually bankrupts us (morally and financially).
● If triggered it leads to the end of life as we know it.

Australia must abandon AUKUS and make a clear statement to the world:
Nuclear war, nuclear provocation and nuclear intimidation have no place in our
modern society.

November 3, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Social licence for AUKUS lacking as Public Inquiry report and recommendations due

28 October 2026AIMN Editorial, https://theaimn.net/social-licence-for-aukus-lacking-as-public-inquiry-report-and-recommendations-due/

The Public Inquiry into AUKUS

Social licence for AUKUS lacking as Public Inquiry report and recommendations due 

The Lead Commissioner of Australia’s independent, crowdfunded Public Inquiry into AUKUS has warned the Federal Government about growing community unease about the project, ahead of the release of the Inquiry’s report and recommendations next week in Canberra.

Lead Commissioner Peter Garrett said today that the Inquiry hearings showed successive Governments had comprehensively failed to make the case for the AUKUS submarine pact, and that the sheer scale and cost of the project meant it risked becoming a threat to social cohesion in Australia over time.

“In the absence of any social license for this deal I fear Australians struggling through the current cost-of-living crisis will come to see the AUKUS expenditure going to the US and the UK in a very poor light.

“People aren’t mugs. As well as helping fund overseas shipyard construction these submarines will generate high level nuclear waste, which remains Australia’s responsibility. Once people understand this highly dangerous material needs to be stored somewhere safely, at great expense and for a very long time, they are bound to seek answers that have simply not been provided through the AUKUS process.

“Where is the Government’s plan for this massive waste management undertaking?  It would be negligent not to have a plan, but up to now the community has been kept in the dark.

“That is unsustainable.”

A substantial number of Australians – including a former Prime Minister, former Foreign Affairs and Defence Ministers, senior academics and military experts, community groups and citizens – have presented to the Inquiry across 10 day-long hearings in 8 cities around Australia since it launched in the middle of the year.

Nearly 10,000 people watched the proceedings, either attending in person or via the live-stream.  Over 1,000 written submissions were received.

$220,000 was raised by crowdfunding, from individual donors and from civil society organisations, in order to hold the inquiry.

The Commissioners have now drafted a comprehensive report which will be presented at the National Press Club next Wednesday November 4.

October 29, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear brawl erupts over powering Australia’s AI data boom

Ronald Mizen, Financial Review, Aug 25, 2026

A political fight has broken out over using small modular nuclear reactors to meet the soaring electricity demand from data centres, and new research shows that using renewable power could make Australia a regional hub for low-carbon computing power capacity.

On Monday, Coalition frontbencher Jonno Duniam said using SMRs to power data centres should be part of the conversation, and the government should end the moratorium on nuclear power.

Duniam is leading a push within the Coalition to land a largely bipartisan position on artificial intelligence.

Last week, he was appointed deputy chairman of a bipartisan committee on AI and recently travelled to the United States where he held talks with major AI and data centre companies.

“It was clear to me when talking with representatives of major AI and data centre operatives that, if the moratorium was not in place, these companies would be seriously looking to nuclear SMRs to power their operations and not drive up prices,” he told The Australian Financial Review on Tuesday.

The fresh brawl over nuclear power comes ahead of a meeting of the national cabinet on Wednesday during which Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will seek support from premiers and chief ministers for his AI agenda.

The Albanese government wants to force the owners of next-generation, large-scale data centres – those that train and power artificial intelligence agents – to use renewable electricity, and to add more power to the grid than they consume.

This proposal is opposed by Coalition governments in the Northern Territory and Queensland, which want an energy-agnostic policy, including allowing gas.

Grattan Institute energy program director Tony Wood said that despite having as many SMRs today as there are unicorns, Australia needed a plan B to get its electricity emissions to zero.

“It could be [viable],” Wood said of using SMRs. If the technology is viable, it should be part of the energy mix, he said.

Industry Minister Tim Ayres labelled the idea “an ideological fantasy” and said “nobody in the real world with real money” was talking about nuclear power. Energy Minister Chris Bowen said he was opposed based on “cost and delay”, not safety.

“I’m not aware of any proposals to do that in Australia,” Bowen said.

But the AI sector, in Australia and overseas, is keeping a close eye on the development of SMRs, which some believe could power data centres in as little as three to five years.

In late 2024, Google signed a world-first agreement to purchase up to 500 MW of nuclear energy for its data centres from Kairos Power in the US. The first SMR is scheduled to be online in 2030, and the rest are targeted for 2035.

Local industry sources are reluctant to speak publicly on the topic, given how politically charged it is.

A report commissioned by Data Centres Australia from economic consultancy Mandala, being released on Wednesday, shows Australia could become a big exporter of green computing power capacity to the Asia-Pacific region because emissions from hosting this locally are far less than in other countries…………………..https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/nuclear-brawl-erupts-over-powering-australia-s-ai-data-boom-20260825-p60rce

October 17, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Submission to the AUKUS Public Inquiry – cancel AUKUS, cease to be part of American militarism – Bevan Lee Ramsden

ED. This is a long and clearly argued submission. For reasons of space and time, I am here posting only extracts from it. It can be found in full at https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/

This submission argues that the AUKUS Security Pact should be cancelled and as a
starting point activating the six month cancellation clause in the Naval Propulsion
Agreement.
The AUKUS Security Pact should be cancelled for the following reasons:

1. The eight nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines are neither necessary nor
   suitable for Australia’s territorial defence. Twenty air-independent submarines
   would be far more effective, be easier to maintain and would cost only fraction
   (8%) of the $375 billion.
2. AUKUS gives the United States porting and maintenance facilities for its nuclear
   submarines which may be nuclear-armed and will make Australia a missile target
   by enemies of the United States in war time.
3. AUKUS undermines our sovereign ability to make independent decisions about
   involvement in US wars and will inevitably draw Australia into future US wars
4. AUKUS requires Australia to store toxic nuclear waste from the nuclear
   submarines with consequential health risks to present and future populations and
   exposes local populations to the health risks of a nuclear radiation leak or
   accident.
5. AUKUS Pillar 2 ties Australian defence manufacturing and research into the arms
   manufacturing programs of the United States and for their benefit not Australia’s.
6. AUKUS compromises Australia in undermining its commitment to the Nuclear
   Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Treaty of Rarotonga (South Pacific nuclear-free
   zone) as well as providing an impediment to Australia signing the TPNW.
7. The enormous public expenditure anticipated for this narrowly focussed
   acquisition of up to eight nuclear subs will severely compromise national efforts to
   address other urgent matters of human security including fuel and food security,
   housing and medical security and to address the climate crisis.

I will now provide the arguments for cancellation of the AUKUS Security Pact
starting with Pillar 1.

Pillar 1- The acquisition of nuclear-powered attack submarines.

……………………………………………………………………….. The remaining argument used by nuclear submarine proponents is that they are
needed for defence of Australia’s territorial waters. However, Australia’s territorial
waters are in many places too shallow for the large, noisy, nuclear-powered
submarines to operate in safely and without detection, If submarines are needed
for defence of our territorial waters, smaller vessels are available from Japan and
Sweden which would be far more suitable. These vessels have quieter,
air-independent propulsion, cost far less and are free of radiation hazards. Former SA Senator and submariner Rex Patrick has said that Australia could acquire 20
air-independent subs for $30 billion, which is only 8% of the $375 billion for the 8
nuclear-powered vessels.

The arguments for Australia needing nuclear-powered submarines for our defence
clearly do not withstand scrutiny.

So why are successive governments committed to acquiring them?

There appears to be only one answer.
The US views nuclear subs as a vital part of its strategy to contain China, to track
and destroy Chinese naval vessels in the event of war with China. Our subservient
Australian leadership wants us to participate in such a war as we have done in all
the other post-WW2 wars the US has instigated,………………………..

Conclusion one: The eight nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines are neither
necessary nor suitable for Australia’s territorial defence. Twenty air-independent
submarines would be more effective for territorial defence, be easier to maintain
and would cost only fraction (8%) of the $375 billion.

Conclusion two: The US has made it clear that it will expect Australia’s
nuclear-powered subs to participate in any US-instigated war and be subject to US
orders. To acquire such submarines in order to join a war with the US against
China would not only be extremely foolish but an economic disaster for Australians
and bring an unnecessary war to our soil.

The cost

Cost has to be another reason for questioning the acquisition of these
nuclear-powered submarines. Five of the eight submarines are of a new type, the
SSN series, to be designed by the UK and built largely at the Osborne shipyards in
South Australia. Given that they are yet to be designed and are to be built at a
facility that has no prior experience in building such vessels, the estimated cost of
$375 billion has to be regarded as a massive under-estimate………………………………………………………………..

Under Aukus and the Force Posture Agreement $8 billion of tax-payers fund will be
spent on the development of porting and maintenance facilities at HMAS Stirling,
Garden Island in WA for US and UK nuclear submarines. This development includes
a “controlled industrial facility” which will store the low -level nuclear waste from
these submarines. Greens Senator David Shoebridge has found out that
intermediate-level nuclear waste could also be dumped at this location.

The AUKUS Agreement has thus opened the door to Australia having to store
submarine nuclear waste and the concern is that the high level nuclear waste from
the nuclear reactors that drive the propulsion system of these submarines will also
have to be stored somewhere in Australia when those reactors have passed their
use-by-date.. Such a facility has not been determined yet and the provision of such
a secure facility which will prevent toxic leaks for centuries has proved a problem
for many countries and therefore presents a potential toxic threat to Australians in
the future. It should be noted that these nuclear propulsion reactors use
weapons-grade enriched uranium.

No costing has been done on the design and provisioning of such a facility in
Australia…………………………………………..

The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill, 2023 declares Garden Island in WA
and Osborne in SA to be nuclear zones, areas in which the scenarios determined
by ARPANSA, would apply

The residents living near Garden Island and the Osborne Shipyard have not been
ad-vised of the ARPANSA risk analysis and emergency responses in relation to a
nucle-ar radiation leak or accident and so have had no opportunity to ask questions or raise any opposition based on this concern.

It is becoming clear that whether Australia receives or builds its own nuclear
subma-rines, this porting and maintenance facility at Garden Island and also the
proposed similar porting and maintenance at a facility on the east coast of
Australia, will be-come southern ocean ports for the US navy,its nuclear
submarines and perhaps more of its naval fleet pulling Australia even more
securely into US war plans.

In doing so they make Australia a missile target by enemies of the United States in
times of war.

AUKUS introduces nuclear weapons into Australia………………………………………………

The flawed process of signing onto the AUKUS Security Pact

The decision-making process behind AUKUS reeks of authoritarianism and
contempt for the Australian people and parliament. There was no public or
parliamentary discussion as one would expect prior to making such a significant
and costly national decision.

Scott Morrison was the Prime Minister who in 2021 secretly signed us up for AUKUS
together with an unknown number of faceless security advisors. He then sold the
idea to the leaders of the ALP in a two- hour power point presentation with no
documentation, no business case and no costing detail.

The ALP leadership enthusiastically embraced AUKUS and have never questioned
its legitimacy and never held any public discussion or inquiry into AUKUS and the
nuclear submarine acquisition. It has become bipartisan policy of the ALP and
Liberal Coalition with One Nation applauding in the background.

Only the Greens and some Independents have voiced questions and opposition regarding AUKUS.
AUKUS was entered into by a deeply flawed and anti-democratic process and
should be subjected to an immediate review in the form of a Royal Commission or
independent public inquiry.

AUKUS Pillar 2- Integrating Australian research and manufacturing with the US to
increase supply to the US war machine.

………………………………………………………………………………. Under Pillar 2, Australian defence industry will also be increasingly dominated by
the big three US software corporations (which already dominate and surveil all of
us), us-ing massive data centres and military focussed artificial intelligence (AI)
corporations such as Anduril and Palantir.

In practice, Australian defence developments and research will be acquired by the
US military. The Pillar II focus on sharing technologies between partners means in
prac-tice a mostly one-way sharing that is towards the US and building up its war
industry. So they will suck our brains for their benefit.

Under Pillar 2, Australian industry will become increasingly integrated into the US
mili-tary industrial complex – serving the needs of US government and US military rather than Australia.

We do not need Pillar 2. We need a publicly -owned, sovereign defence industry
manufacturing to meet our territorial self-defence needs which is quite a different
role to one designed to meet the needs of the US in its wars of aggression.

Alternatives to AUKUS.………………………….

The United States is a fractured, undemocratic society flouting international law
with impunity. We can have no affinity with this dangerous “ally” as former PM
Malcom Fraser said in his book “dangerous allies”.

The heavy US military footprint on our country will only attract a missile attack by
enemies of the US when they are at war. AUKUS is part of the US military footprint
on Australia…………………………………………………………………….

For a peaceful, independent and more secure future, AUKUS must be cancelled
and the Force Posture Agreement terminated, a consequence of which will be the
regaining of sovereignty and ending the heavy US military footprint on our
continent.

October 11, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Submission to the AUKUS Public Inquiry – against Australia’s interest to be aligned with aggressor USA – Diane Atkinson

When they attacked Iran, the United States acted as a rogue state. They launched this attack in defiance of rules laid down in the United Nations’ charter, against wars of aggression. This war is already proving to be very much against Australia’s interests

Australia should be seeking to extricate ourselves from the alliance with the US, given the nature and direction of its wars of aggression, rather than tying ourselves more deeply to this alliance through AUKUS.

the danger that wars will be launched from Australian territory by the US, and that Australia will bear the brunt of retaliation against the US.

No 233.

AUKUS represents a very large investment by Australia: $368 billion over 30 years. This is a very
significant portion of our total budget, so we would want to ensure that we get good value, and that
it prepares Australia for the future. However, there is plenty of evidence that this commitment is
taking Australia in the wrong direction. Where we need to be contributing to a more stable and
cooperative world, so that we can solve collective challenges, we will instead be contributing to the
humanitarian and environmental damage that will be wrought by a declining empire, with no
tangible benefit to Australia.

We need to carefully weigh the security threats that are unfolding at this point in history, before we
commit to 30 years of spending. We know that climate change represents a major threat, which is
proving very difficult to confront. Building goodwill and cooperation would contribute to this task,
however the AUKUS alliance does the opposite. Australians have always resisted the nuclear
industry, but this deal forces us to accept the presence of nuclear-powered submarines, and the
waste that will require disposal on our soils. Having nuclear submarines present here is likely to
drive a regional arms race. At a time when resources need to be spent finding solutions to pressing
problems such as climate change, we will instead spend those resources on wasteful weapons of war.
The increased military spending will be perceived as a threat by other powers, and will undermine
the goodwill and global cooperation needed to produce binding agreements to reduce carbon
emissions. Instead, other countries will be obliged to also waste more resources on military
production.

When they attacked Iran, the United States acted as a rogue state. They launched this attack in
defiance of rules laid down in the United Nations’ charter, against wars of aggression. This war is
already proving to be very much against Australia’s interests. It threatens the availability of diesel
fuel and fertilizers, which are so important to Australia’s food security. At this time in history,
Australia should be seeking to extricate ourselves from the alliance with the US, given the nature and
direction of its wars of aggression, rather than tying ourselves more deeply to this alliance through
AUKUS.
Australia’s national security interests are not identical with those of our military ally, the United
States of America. The Global Financial Crisis of 2008 did not impact Australia in the severe way that
it impacted the USA or Europe. One of the reasons that Australia barely registered a recession
during this crisis, is the strength of our trade with China, which accounts for 25% of Australian trade,
based on 2025 figures from DFAT. It could be argued that we are too dependent on trade with China,
but when we think about our national interests, this current reality of China being our strongest
trading partner, needs to be factored in. Australia’s interests are not identical to those of the USA or
Europe, and this is a reflection of both geographical and economic differences. Our proximity with
Asia means that it makes sense for us to trade with Asia, including China. This also makes sense
because we have natural resources that these markets need, while we have lost or failed to develop
our manufacturing base, and our Asian neighbours can supply low-cost manufactured goods. We
made a decision to reduce tariffs and close down some of our industries. These decisions have
consequences for our security.

There is no identifiable threat to Australia’s security that currently emanates from our Asian
neighbours, including China. However, as a result of our free trade policies, we do now face an
economic threat, if our trade is interrupted. This could happen as a result of war, or of trade wars. Neither are in Australia’s interests, given our lack of self-reliance. Australia’s lack of self-reliance in
oil stands in contrast to the position of the United States. The problems in the Strait of Hormuz,
caused by US attacks on Iran, impact Australia more heavily than our military ally.

The United States has different defence priorities to Australia. The US seeks to suppress the rising
powers that have begun to challenge US hegemony. This has become obvious through their attacks
on Iran, which also have a negative impact on both Russia and China, since Iran is at the centre of key
trade corridors, and for that reason both countries have substantial investments in Iran. US leaders
make it very clear that they are hostile to China and Russia, along with a list of nations that are not
willing to accept US domination.

Since the US dollar is the world reserve currency, and this confers huge economic benefits on the US,
challenges such as the BRICS nations trading in their own currencies and using their own payment
systems, are likely to have negative consequences for the position that the US has enjoyed. The
power to shape institutions like the World Bank and trade rules such as the GATT arises from the
overwhelming economic power that the US has held, and this is ultimately backed by their military
power, which has been used to thwart countries that want to reduce the economic and political
dominance of the US over their internal governance. This was manifest in repeated military
interventions in Latin America last century, and in the Middle East more recently.

However, Australia is in a very different position. We are not an empire with hegemony to defend.
We are a smaller power, very reliant on trade, and therefore we have an interest in a stable world
order, and good relations with our Asian neighbours. We have already been adversely affected by
the war on Iran, and this could lead to a direct threat to our national security. One dimension of this
is food security. Diesel and fertilizers are essential inputs to our farming sector, and any resumption
of the war on Iran is likely to cause shortages of both.

The other threat to Australia’s security is the danger that wars will be launched from Australian
territory by the US, and that Australia will bear the brunt of retaliation against the US. We have seen
this happen in the Middle East. Iran retaliated against US military bases in the UAE, Kuwait, Iraq,
Bahrain, Qatar and most recently Jordan, since the US launched their attacks from those bases.
Military agreements such as the Force Posture Agreement and AUKUS prevent Australia from
controlling what the US does on our soil. We may not expect retaliation from Iran because US bases
in Australia in all likelihood provide intelligence for attacks on Iran, but we could well expect
retaliation if the US goes to war with China. Based on US threats, this scenario is currently the most
likely reason that any country might attack Australia.

Australia is currently allied with the very country that is launching wars of aggression. Even the
average person living in the US does not benefit from these wars. They have seen their standard of
living deteriorate over past decades. This deterioration is caused by a shift in the US economy,
whereby it is increasingly dominated by private monopolies, and the public sector increasingly serves
the interests of these rather than the general public interest. This tendency has reduced the
vibrancy of US industry. Even the arms industry, which receives so much public funding, produces
expensive equipment which is proving to be obsolete on the battlefield. Aircraft carriers and
battleships have repeatedly been withdrawn from the area of engagement in the Strait of Hormuz, as
they make easy targets for cheap drones and for missiles. The USA is not demonstrating that it can
use military force to great effect, and yet it relies on such force increasingly, suggesting once again
that it is an empire in decline.

In its attempts to shore up this loss of power, the US is leaning more heavily on its allies like Australia.
We are expected to subsidize the extravagant expenditure on arms that continued world domination
would require, at the expense of our own interests. AUKUS arose out of Australian attempts to
purchase non-nuclear submarines from France. We now find that the Australian prime minister who
undermined that process, and instead committed Australia to purchasing nuclear submarines from
the US and the UK, is now working for the US arms industry. It is obvious that as prime minister, he
was already promoting those interests. Instead of obtaining working submarines in a reasonable
timeframe at a reasonable cost, we now have a program that commits Australia to massive spending,
with no guarantees as to what Australia will get in return. Meanwhile AUKUS spending is driving a
war economy. Education spending by the South Australian government subsidises degrees for the
arms industry, instead of degrees for health care workers and teachers. In this way we are directly
subsidising US owned arms manufacturers, while under-investing in the sectors that ensure our
collective well-being. In the midst of a housing crisis, when many young Australians cannot afford to
buy a home, and many cannot even find let alone afford rent, we neglect to make the necessary
investments in social housing, and instead spend to subsidise the operations of foreign arms
companies. We train our young people to build arms instead of building houses.

The secrecy surrounding AUKUS shows that its proponents have no faith in their ability to convince
Australians that this appalling decision is in our interests. Any reasonable person can see that it is
not.

October 11, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry – AUKUS a sellout of Australia’s security – Michael Gilligan

232. Michael Gilligan

I was responsible for Defence Department advice on options after retirement of
Oberon class submarines (Head of Force Development and Analysis Division in early 1980s). I am a Board member of Pearls and Irritations (P&I), online policy forum created by John Menadue. Regular contributor to P&I.

Despite its crippling cost, no Minister for Defence has ever explained what the
Virginia class submarine is meant to do. Why has such an obvious ministerial
obligation been evaded? Because it would reveal a sell-out of Australia’s security.
And an extraordinary direct underwriting of US shipbuilding and defence budgets
by Australian taxpayers – of perhaps half a trillion of our dollars. The Virginia class
submarine is not a general-purpose vessel such as our Collins class. It is designed
for supreme acoustic invisibility for a specific purpose – to find, doggedly track
underwater for months and be able to destroy submarines seen as a nuclear threat
to the US mainland. Principally Russian and Chinese SSBN boats. The United States
is stretched beyond its industrial capacity to deal with China’s growing SSBN fleet.

Assisting in that ongoing task is what Australia offered in AUKUS, and so the US
expects Australia’s submarines to do – effectively embedded into US military
command – against China’s burgeoning capacity to annihilate continental America
from under the sea.

LINK – https://johnmenadue.com/post/2026/06/australias-submarine-betrayal/
More broadly, the Minister for Defence has misled Australians habitually on the
value of submarines in defending Australia. His case rests on treating submarines
as essential to Australian sovereignty, while ignoring the powerful array of
capabilities which already protect Australia and its maritime approaches.

Assessments of the submarines’ marginal effectiveness in a whole-of-Defence
context raise serious questions about the value of submarines, even whether they
are warranted at all on cost-effectiveness grounds.

So, the debate on submarines currently consuming Australia’s headlines is
corrupted by two compounding Ministerial lies by omission – the submarines’ job
within AUKUS, and Australia’s range of defence capabilities purposefully created
over decades, which marginalise submarine importance to our security.

October 11, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry – dissolve AUKUS, stop being a cog in USA’s military industrial complex – Heidi Glaser.

226. Heidi Glaser

AUKUS must be dissolved. It is beyond comprehension, the level of incompetence
and ignorance our government is capable of to think Australian’s would support
and agree to these conditions. It could not be more insulting to our intelligence.

We are a peaceful people. We have no interest in wars. We do not want to be
aligned with the US and participate in their forever wars. We have become a cog in
their military industrial complex. Why are we supporting a country we know are
involved in illegal wars who are committing war crimes with complete impunity?
Why would we sacrifice our country for them? The US are not our ally. We have
become a vasal state against our will. No wonder they mockingly refer to us as a
lap dog.

We are enabling them to continue their slaughtering of innocent civilians
around the world. We want no association with them, their bullying, coercion and
disruption globally needs to end now. We are paying them to become a military
target on their behalf, we are less safe because of AUKUS.

We have no interest in
conflict with China. They have no reason to attack us and have never threatened
our country. We rely on them for our economic success. We should be doing more
to partner with them and create a coalition in the global south to make Australasia
the safest and economically sound region in the world.

We have great relationships with our neighbours and AUKUS will destroy that. That is the
incredible insanity of this agreement. It is ensuring our future failure not
prosperity. If we spent this much time and money on peace in the world, and not
on planning for future wars, humanity would be thriving. Fearmongering from the
US must be stopped, not supported.

We can never allow nuclear dumping on this
land. These submarines shouldn’t even be made. Why are they even allowed to
build anything that produces a radioactive poisonous waste? They have no idea of
the long term damage to the planet and it’s unbelievable to hear they have never
had an established protocol around safe storage of the nuclear waste produced.

That is sickening to me. Stop making things that are killing us and the earth. We
need to protect this land. The first nations people are the oldest continuous
civilisation on the planet, the ancient history of their people and of their land is
sacred and it should be honoured and protected at all costs. We can not let them
down, we owe them to fight for this beautiful land.

We reject AUKUS, we don’t
want wars, we don’t want a world where we even need weapons. This can not be
allowed to proceed. No intelligent Australian supports this. It’s time Australia took
back it’s sovereignty. Imperialist America’s must be stopped and this is our chance
to cut all ties with them.

October 11, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry – concern about AUKUS Command unit within the Federal Police -Suzanne Pinchen

218 Suzanne Pinchen

the function of this unit will be to protect AUKUS related activities and facilities, including public order responsibilities.

this unit will be supplied with
firearms, and, what are referred to as, “crowd suppression munitions” including rubber bullets, tear gas and capsicum spray.

Question for Inquiry:
I am a grandmother of two identical twin boys aged 3 1⁄2, for whom AUKUS
will have real consequence. I am also retired after working in
Broadmeadows as a Social Worker working with women and their families
for 40 years. I am now a chorister – part of a choir which became the
unofficial choir for the Yes to the Voice to the Parliament Referendum in
Melbourne and a member of both the Australian Living Peace Museum
and Labor Against War.

The issue I would like to address is one I have already raised in person at
an electorate meeting with my local MP, Peter Khalil, Assistant Minister for
Defence. At this meeting Mr. Khalil advised that he was unable to answer
my question but requested that I email him the question and committed
himself to a quick response, which I have not received.

It is an issue that goes to the impact of AUKUS on internal relations
between agencies in Australia and its consequence for public expression
of concern raised by Australia’s binding relationship with the US. Now,
having not received an answer or acknowledgment of the email, I now
raise the issue with the Public Inquiry Commissioners in the hope that you
may be able to examine the issue.

You may be aware that there have been reports in the ABC, the Australian
and the Guardian gathered through FOI requests regarding the
establishment of an AUKUS Command as a unit within the Federal Police in
conjunction with the Department for Defence. These reports indicate that
the function of this unit will be to protect AUKUS related activities and
facilities, including public order responsibilities.

In addition, it has also been to reported that this unit will be supplied with
firearms, and, what are referred to as, “crowd suppression munitions”
including rubber bullets, tear gas and capsicum spray.
In particular, could the Inquiry please examine the impact of the
establishment of an AUKUS Command may have on the legitimate
expression of community dissent in Australia; both in areas surrounding
defence installations and other general venues.

October 11, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment