“Catastrophic:” Coalition plan to stop renewables and push nuclear will result in massive supply gaps
Giles Parkinson, Sep 20, 2024, https://reneweconomy.com.au/catastrophic-coalition-plan-to-stop-renewables-and-push-nuclear-will-result-in-massive-supply-gaps/
Federal energy minister Chris Bowen has launched a new attack against the federal Coalition’s nuclear power policy, saying its plan to stop renewables and potentially “sweat” the remaining coal assets could lead to “catastrophic” supply gaps in the electricity market.
The federal government released new modelling on Friday, the same day as another independent report pointed to a $1,000 a year bill hike to consumers from a nuclear power policy, and just days before Coalition leader Peter Dutton is expected to outline more details at a Sydney event.
The Coalition has been vague about its nuclear power plans to date, identifying only seven potential sites for large scale nuclear or small modular reactors, but has said it intends to stop new wind, solar and battery projects, cease the rollout of new transmission lines, and boost coal and gas output.
In response, the federal department of energy has modelled several different scenarios, and both point to massive supply gaps in the future if the Coalition holds firm on its promise to stop renewable, and even “tear up” as some contracts, as National leader David Littleproud has threatened.
The department estimates that the Coalition’s energy plan will leave a “gaping black hole” of between 18 per cent to 49 per cent of unserved energy, ie the gap between supply and demand.
The biggest gap is created on the assumption that private coal operators do close their ageing coal fired generators between now and 2035, and that the Coalition does not build any new utility scale renewables beyond what’s currently committed, and does not support new transmission builds.
On that scenario, the department modelling estimates a shortfall of around 156 terawatt hours (TWh) between demand for energy (around 316 TWh) and available supply (arround 160 TWh).
The second scenario assumes that all coal plants are extended beyond 2040, to allow time for the Coalition to begin construction of its promised nuclear power plant, but that still results in a shortfall of 18 per cent if the Coalition delivers on its promise to stop the rollout of large scale renewables.
“These scenarios are so catastrophic for the economy, for ordinary Australians, and for Australia’s place as an advanced country they seem implausible,” the department report says.
“But that will be the result of the Coalition’s nuclear scheme.”
It’s ironic because the Coalition is pitching its nuclear scheme on three assumptions: That it is lower cost, that it is more reliable, and that it is compatible on a net zero strategy.
But analysis shows that it would fail on all three counts. Multiple reports have highlighted the higher cost of nuclear, and although the Coalition insists there higher costs affect only investors and not consumers (without ever explaining why), the new analysis from IEEFA points to a blow out in retail bills.
The Coalition insists that a reliance on wind and solar will lead to the destruction of industry, but that is proved a nonsense by South Australia, already at more than 70 per cent wind and solar and aiming for net 100 per cent by 2027, and its inability to explain what will be meeting growing demand needs.
“The fact of the matter is that Mr Dutton and Mr Littleproud and Mr O’Brien wander around the country saying that they will pause renewable energy investments,” Bowen told journalists on Friday.
“Even under their own scheme, they admit that we would not have any nuclear power in Australia until 2035 at the earliest, and that is wildly optimistic.
“Now the question that Mr Dutton has to answer is, where will the electricity come from? If we stop building renewables now and nuclear takes so long, as Australia’s electricity needs are increasing every day, where will he get the power from?
“He wanders around making outrageous accusations about black‑outs under this government, when in fact it’s his own scheme which is the biggest risk to reliability in Australia.”
The department report is just one of three released this week that undermines the Coalition’s case for nuclear in Australia. One is the IEEFA report on the impact on bills, and the World Nuclear Industry Status Report on nuclear that shows an industry that is barely advancing, despite the Dutton rhetoric.
And the problem around reliability is further highlighted by issues at Vogtle, the first nuclear power plant to be built in the US for more than three decades. (And despite Coalition claims of a nuclear renaissance, no other nuclear power projects are being built or committed).
One of the two units at Plant Vogtle, a plant that ran way over budget and time in the country with the biggest nuclear fleet of any, was shut down in July, and again in September, due to various valve issues in what critics note is the most expensive power plant on the planet.
The Coalition has been selling nuclear as reliable and “always on”, but like any generation source it can face hiccups, and the bigger the generation unit – the Westinghouse AP1000s at Vogtle (cited as a potential technology choice by the Coalition) have a capacity of 1,117 MW – the more back-up that is required.
And it is these unexpected interruptions, as opposed to the entirely predictable setting of the sun each day, that creates the biggest problems for the market operator.
“I’ve never said the shift to a clean, cheap, renewable energy system would be easy. But it is achievable, and our plan is working,” Bowen wrote in an op-ed in The Australian.
“Supporting new investment in generation and batteries, bringing on offshore wind projects, and underwriting crucial transmission lines through Rewiring the Nation are real policy solutions underway now.
“Last month AEMO confirmed on time delivery of federal, state and territory programs as planned and legislated, will be sufficient to meet demand out to 2035, within the stringent reliability standard.
“Contrast that with the Coalition’s ideological pursuit of its anti-renewable nuclear scheme that leave almost half Australia’s energy needs unserved in the same period.”
The challenge for Labor, however, is not to convince the Australian or even international energy industry of this. The industry understands just how unsuitable the nuclear option is.
But the Coalition, with the often uncritical and sometime active support of mainstream media and most conservative “think tanks”, is seeking only to win a public debate on this, and the public care little about the details.
“They are treating the Australian people like mugs, arrogantly holding the details of their costings, of the modelling, of the impact of their policies on Australians from the Australian people,” Bowen said.
Peter Dutton and the pursuit of fame.
21 September 24 https://theaimn.com/peter-dutton-and-the-pursuit-of-fame/
Peter Dutton is the leader of Australia’s opposition party – the Liberal-National Coalition.
Which is pretty noteworthy and important, anyway. But of course, he would be more important if he is elected as Prime Minister in 2025. But is that enough fame for him?
Dutton aspires to a greater, global, significance. He would be the first world leader to introduce the commercial, peaceful, advanced nuclear industry to not just a country, but to an entire continent. And not to some “third-world” “undeveloped” country “in need of charity” – but to a prosperous, privileged, purportedly well-educated, and still mainly white population.
For the global nuclear industry – that would be a first! And not just any old first, but an extremely timely one. Just released this week, The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2024 describes an industry on life support. Even back in 2016 Former World Nuclear Association executive Steve Kidd spoke to this problem, noting that “the industry is essentially running to stand still.”
For Australia to adopt a government-run nuclear industry involving both large and small nuclear reactors across a continent – what a wonderful shot in the arm for the global nuclear lobby. And Dutton – what a hero!
Dutton would be famous not just in Australia, but world-wide
Is this why Peter Dutton is promoting his nuclear policy?
I can’t think of any other reason.
Australia, especially in the State of South Australia, is becoming a world leader in renewable energy use – particularly in decentralised household rooftop solar, but also in large solar and wind programmes. Of course, Australia’s mining magnates are pretty happy with Dutton’s plan, as it will mean more mining, not just of uranium, but of coal and gas in the decades before nuclear power actually comes into use.
So – look – it’s a winner for Dutton’s fame.
And if that doesn’t work, there’s fame in another way
The last Liberal Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, is a great contender for the worst Prime Minister in Australian history. Just a few of his achievements to merit this award were:
- By 2022, Australia’s gross national debt was 42.5 per cent of GDP (Peak Whitlam government was 24.5. Peak Hawke-Keating was 24. Peak Rudd-Gillard Government debt was 20.)
- Notorious for taking a holiday during Australia’s 2019–20 bushfire season.
- Signed Australia up to the costly AUKUS nuclear submarine deal
- Secretly appointed himself to five ministerial positions without the knowledge of the public or his own government.
Economically, the nuclear power programme, added to the continuing AUKUS nuclear deal, could pretty well bankrupt Australia. Although Dutton claims that nuclear power will be cheap, he’s given no costings, and the over-riding opinion of energy and economics experts is that nuclear power would be the most expensive form of energy for Australia.
Environmentally, Dutton’s plan includes advanced nuclear reactors, which will require plutonium or enriched uranium – so this brings virtually eternal radioactive pollution into Australia (something that has been nearly avoided up until now). It also brings the hazards of nuclear weapons proliferation, and terrorism targets.
So – it’s a bold venture for Peter Dutton, to centre his election campaign on promoting the nuclear industry. He is to be commended for bravery in taking such a big risk.
If Dutton carries this through, as Prime Minister, he will rapidly gain world fame.
But also, as far as Australia is concerned, he could beat Scott Morrison into history as the nation’s worst Prime Minister.
Dutton’s big risk is that he might not get elected in 2025, and vanish very quickly from history.
Coalition’s nuclear plan will lead to ‘massive’ electricity shortages and risk blackouts, new analysis warns
Energy minister Chris Bowen says Peter Dutton must explain what happens to national grid over next decade if opposition stops building renewables
Guardian, Adam Morton Climate and environment editor, 20 Sept,24
The Coalition’s proposal to cap large-scale renewable energy and eventually build nuclear power plants would lead to “massive” electricity supply shortages risking blackouts, according to analysis released by the federal government.
The climate change and energy minister, Chris Bowen, released the findings of an energy department analysis that suggested electricity supply could be at least 18% less than what will be needed in 2035 under a scenario that reflects the few details of the Coalition plan that have been released.
Those details include the country building fewer solar and wind farms, the cancellation of the “rewiring the nation” policy to build transmission lines, extending the life of ageing coal plants and building nuclear plants at seven sites.
The Coalition’s proposal to cap large-scale renewable energy and eventually build nuclear power plants would lead to “massive” electricity supply shortages risking blackouts, according to analysis released by the federal government.
Under a scenario in which about 90% of remaining coal generation closes by 2035 – consistent with what the Australian Energy Market Operator (Aemo) projects – the gap between demand and supply could be 49%, according to the analysis.
Bowen said it showed Peter Dutton would “take to our finely tuned electricity system planning with a sledgehammer” and cause “massive supply shortages over the next decade”.
“The question that Mr Dutton has to answer is: where would the electricity come from if we stop building renewables now and nuclear takes so long?” Bowen said at a media conference. “He wanders around making outrageous accusations about blackouts under this government when in fact it’s his own scheme [that] is the biggest risk to reliability in Australia.”
The analysis, released via an opinion piece in The Australian, is timed to precede a speech by Dutton on Monday on whether nuclear power could work in Australia.
Dutton and the opposition treasury spokesman, Angus Taylor, rejected Bowen’s analysis in TV interviews on Friday, but declined to release details of their proposal. Speaking on Sky News Australia, Taylor said Bowen was “full of nonsense” and Labor’s policies would “always cost Australians more than our alternative policies”.
The Coalition has said if elected it would use public money to build nuclear plants at seven sites. It has suggested it would also cap investment in large-scale renewable energy and back more gas, a fossil fuel responsible for 21% of Australia’s climate pollution.
It has not released the expected cost of the plants, explained how the Coalition would lift legislated bans on nuclear power, or said why he believed the first two plants could be operating by 2035 or 2037 – a much faster timeframe than experts say would be possible.
Government agencies and independent analysts have found nuclear and more gas would be more expensive for households and businesses than Labor’s plan of running on variable renewable energy backed by “firming” from batteries, pumped hydro, more transmission lines and some gas.
Aemo last month suggested the country’s main power grid, covering the five eastern states, would remain reliable as it shifted from running on mostly coal to mostly renewables if planned investments in new generation were delivered “on time and in full”. Bowen said this would not be possible under the Coalition’s plan……………………………………….. more https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/sep/20/coalitions-nuclear-plan-will-lead-to-massive-electricity-shortages-and-risk-blackouts-new-analysis-warns?fbclid=IwY2xjawFZ80RleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHRjcdt-9ZgyIv3BFzTaDCzbuWnZHwb4j4tAAT811vpZzm5UGVBP0h9xHpA_aem_LiV8Y3dC8T95lCzPdJNBHQ
Peter Dutton is about to talk nuclear at CEDA. Will he be fact checked by Chris Uhlmann?
Dutton and his team have not come close to explaining how it will dance around rooftop solar, or how rooftop solar will be forced to dance around nuclear. Will Dutton tell solar households that their PV will be switched off in the middle of the day to accommodate his energy ideology?
Giles Parkinson, Sep 19, 2024
Federal energy minister Chris Bowen calls it the great distraction. Virtually everyone in the electricity market calls it a nonsense, but Opposition leader Peter Dutton’s efforts to put the nuclear debate on centre stage appears to be gaining traction.
On Monday, Dutton takes his nuclear campaign, complete with obvious untruths and exaggerations, to the august environment of the Committee For Economic Development of Australia. The event, on Monday, is titled “A nuclear powered Australia – could it work?
CEDA was established in 1960 to “better understand and interrogate public policy” and says it remains independent and not restricted by vested interests or political persuasion. It should, in that case, be the perfect place for Dutton’s nuclear claims to be fact-checked.
Dutton has so far revealed little about his nuclear policy, apart from a vague plan to build reactors, both large-scale and the yet-to-be-commercialised small modular reactors (SMRs) at seven sites across the country where coal fired power stations have or still do operate.
The premise, according to the Coalition, is simple. Just build them and plug them in where there is an existing grid connection, and Australians will be protected from the lights going out and the economy being sent back to the dark ages, something it insists will be the result of Labor’s renewable energy roadmap.
It’s not clear how much more Dutton will tell CEDA about the details of the nuclear plan. He has insisted that the first reactors could be up and running and producing power by 2035 – a fanciful idea according to the regulators and other experts who point out that the late 2040s might be closer to the mark.
Dutton insists that nuclear is essential for the net zero target. It might be for other countries, particularly those with inferior solar resources and a well-established nuclear industry, but for Australia that claim is a nonsense.
The clear intention of the Coalition to slow, even stop, the rollout of new wind, solar and battery storage projects, extend the life of ageing coal generators and invest heavily in new gas – all of which will blow Australia’s emissions budget over the coming decades. It is difficult to think of a worse idea if climate change is the motivation.
Dutton has been regularly fact-checked on a number of other claims both here, and on the Guardian – less so, if not at all, in the rest of mainstream media and on radio and TV, where the claims are often broadcast. It hasn’t deterred him.
It includes the claim that Labor is looking to build 28,000 km of transmission lines to support its green energy transition. Not true. it has only targeted little more than 5,000kms.
The 28,000 km is a target under the most optimistic green energy scenario – it was developed by the Australian Energy Market Operator in its modelling under the previous Coalition government, and has changed little since then.
Dutton claims that nuclear is cheaper than wind, solar and storage. Again, not true and not by a long shot, according to recognised and respected Australian and international experts – all of whom have come under fierce attack by the Coalition and its attack dogs on social media.
It includes the claim that nuclear leads to lower power bills for consumers. But that only happens when the nuclear power is heavily subsidised, as it is in France, and when consumers are protected from market forces.
Ontario is often cited by the Coalition as having cheaper electricity prices than Australia, but they forget to tell you Ontario’s electricity prices are significantly higher than other Canadian provinces, thanks to nuclear.
Australia’s bills are weighed down by the cost of networks, servicing a population nearly twice the size of Ontario in a land are more than seven times bigger.
Dutton’s claim that nuclear can be plugged in to existing power grids without the need for upgrades is also nonsense. Most of those sites already have replacement capacity – Port Augusta and Collie in particular, and the site owners at Liddell, Mt Piper and Loy Yang have their own plans that definitely do not include nuclear.
The Coalition and their choristers also insist that nuclear somehow requires no additional back-up. That would be a miracle. All forms of generation require back up to ensure the lights stay on in case of an unexpected outage, or planned and long term maintenance.
Nuclear is no exception – it was the cause of massive amounts of pumped hydro being built around the world, in France, the Americas and China – and the size of its units at large scale mean additional measures are needed should the units go offline, even if the cause is as mundane as a tree falling across power lines.
Dutton insists that nuclear is attractive because it is “baseload” and “always on.” But modern grids demand flexibility, and none more so than Australia where – because of its excellent solar resources, the falling cost of PV and the high retail prices – more rooftop solar has been installed per capita than anywhere else in the world.
That rooftop PV is already causing problems for the existing “baseload” generators – coal and gas: It destroys their business models, and is technically challenging. The economics of nuclear relies more than any other on being “always on”.
Dutton and his team have not come close to explaining how it will dance around rooftop solar, or how rooftop solar will be forced to dance around nuclear. Will Dutton tell solar households that their PV will be switched off in the middle of the day to accommodate his energy ideology?
Dutton’s event will be compered by Chris Uhlmann, the former ABC political editor who became an instant “expert” in grids and renewables when he seized on the South Australia state-blackout and blamed it all on wind energy, even though multiple reports from regulators and energy experts have shown that not to be the case.
Will Uhlmann fact-check Dutton in the way that CEDA might expect? Uhlmann has spent much of his time since joining Sky News and The Australian earlier this year attacking the same targets as the Coalition – the IPCC, climate science itself, emissions targets, and the transition away from fossil fuels.
One of his more egregious pieces was an attack last month on a research report “Fossil Fuels are a Health Hazard” that was put together by the Doctors for the Environment Australia. Uhlmann’s piece in the Weekend Australian was titled “Fossil fuel bans are hazardous to our health”.
It included claims by Uhlmann that products such as panadol and soap depend on fossil fuels. Nonsense, the doctors wrote in response: These products might source fossil fuels now, but they don’t need to. No, we can’t stop using fossil fuels overnight, but we can phase them out very quickly.
The promotion of nuclear and fossil fuels, and attacks and the downplaying of climate science often go hand in hand. Will that be the case at CEDA next week?
As Nicholas Talley and Kate Wylie wrote in the excellent Croakey:
“Journalists have an opportunity to raise public awareness of climate change, using their power to encourage transformative action on what is termed the defining story of our time. They have a responsibility to ensure their coverage is evidence based and reports on the very real scientific and health warnings.”
Monday’s event should be very interesting.
The Public Interest and Indigenous Rights in South Australia must not be compromised by an untenable Defence imposition of AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste & nuclear weapons usable fissile material on the Woomera Area
David Noonan’s Submission to the Review of the Woomera Prohibited Area Coexistence Framework
30 August 2024
Contents:
Introduction
The public has a ‘Right to Know’ who is targeted for imposed storage of AUKUS N- wastes.
AUKUS N-wastes are a threat to the Rights of the People of SA to decide their own Future.
3 There is an onus on this Woomera Area Review to see it doesn’t add to a sad history of nuclear disrespect for Indigenous Human Rights and Interests in our State.………………….
4 Civil Society faces imposition of an AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste dump …………………..
5 Defence is already targeting the Woomera Area as a potential region to site an imposed
AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste dump ……………………………….
6 Indigenous People have a UN recognised Human Right to Say No to AUKUS N-wastes …………………….
7 Is US origin military High-Level nuclear waste from US N-Subs to be dumped at Woomera? ……………………………
8 Multi-billion $ N-waste Costs are ignored while the US gets Indemnity over nuclear risks ……………….
9 Recommendations
10 Discussion
The Review must be transparent on Defence roles for Woomera in AUKUS and in war
11 As to my Relevant Background
The public has a ‘Right to Know’ who is targeted for imposed storage of AUKUS N- wastes.
Minister Marles MP has still not made a promised ‘announcement’, said to be by early 2024, on
a process to manage High-Level nuclear waste and to site a waste disposal facility, he saying
“obviously that facility will be remote from populations” (ABC News 15 March 2023).
The national press (11 August 2023) reports the Woomera rocket range is understood to be the
‘favoured location’ for storage and disposal of submarine nuclear waste (“Woomera looms as
national nuclear waste dump site including for AUKUS submarine high-level waste afr.com).
Political leaders in WA, Qld and Vic have already rejected a High-Level nuclear waste disposal
site. SA’s Premier has so far only said it should go to a ‘remote’ location in the national interest.
This Review must respect the SA public and Traditional Owners rights to full disclosure of
potential nuclear risks and impacts in advance of any decisions, legislation and process to
impose AUKUS N-waste onto community in the Woomera Area or anywhere else in SA.
Defence can-not claim to have a ‘social license’ to operate in the Woomera Area while failing to
inform affected community of the AUKUS nuclear risks, the cultural and environmental impacts,
and socio-economic impacts they may face through siting for AUKUS nuclear waste storage.
Defence has so far denied South Australians their ‘Right to Know’ the nuclear risks they face.
AUKUS N-wastes are a threat to the Rights of the People of SA to decide their own Future.
The Woomera Area Review must understand that South Australians will not accept federal
Labor and Defence undemocratic imposition of AUKUS nuclear wastes in our State.
If federal Labor go ahead with storage of AUKUS nuclear wastes in SA, it will have to over-ride
State Law to impose the dump. AUKUS N-wastes are a threat to the Safety of the People of SA.
Storage and disposal of nuclear wastes compromises the Safety and Welfare of the people of
South Australia, that is why it is prohibited by the Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000.
The Reforming Defence Legislation Review also proposes to take on Defence Act powers to
override State legislation to ‘provide certainty’ to Defence roles, operations and facilities. My
input and Recommendations to the Defence Review called for transparency on these issues:
Defence should become transparent over proposed Navy High-Level nuclear waste
disposal, policy, siting process, rights and legal issues. Defence must declare whether
the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 will be respected OR is intended to
be over-ridden to impose a Navy High-Level nuclear waste storage or disposal site on
‘remote’ lands and unwilling community in South Australia. (April 2023, p.7 & Rec 6-7)
I refer the Review’s consideration to “The Politics of Nuclear Waste Disposal: Lessons from
Australia”, a Report by Dr Jim Green and Dimity Hawkins AM, Published by the Asia-Pacific
Leadership Network (January 2024). The Defence AUKUS agenda needs to learn these lessons…………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Recommendations
These Recommendations No.1-5 comprise public interest disclosures that must be required
from Defence to facilitate an informed public Review of the future of the Woomera Area:
Civil Society faces imposition of an AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste dump
This Review must respect affected Communities and Indigenous People’s ‘Right to Know’ the
Defence imposed nuclear risks they face in intended High-Level nuclear waste & nuclear
weapons usable fissile material storage and disposal facilities.
1.1 The Review must call on Defence to publicly disclose which Australian regions and
Indigenous Peoples are currently under threat of imposed siting and compulsory land
acquisition for an AUKUS High-Level nuclear waste dump, and which – if any – existing Defence
lands are included in the regional short list that is currently being prepared.
1.2 The Review must make Defence become accountable over the future and fate of the
Woomera Area, understood in national media to be a ‘favoured location’ for storage and
disposal of submarine nuclear waste (“Woomera looms as national nuclear waste dump site
including for AUKUS submarine high-level waste afr.com AFR 11 August 2023). Noting the
Woomera Area is currently subject to a Defence ‘Review’: “to ensure it remains fit for purpose
and meets Australia’s national security requirements” – read AUKUS requirements.
1.3 Defence must become publicly accountable and declare its intension to over-ride the SA
Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 through powers in an AUKUS Bill now before
Parliament (Sec.135 “Operation of State and Territory laws”): to impose an AUKUS nuclear
waste dump on outback lands and unwilling community in SA, by decree in federal Regulations.
This Defence agenda to impose nuclear waste storage in SA also involves Defence over-ride of
the SA Environment Protection Act 1993 and over-ride of the SA Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988.
2 Indigenous People have a UN recognised Human Right to Say No to AUKUS N-wastes
The Woomera Area Review must respect the clear views of Indigenous Labor Senator Patrick
Dodson and act in accordance with the Recommendations of a Federal Inquiry Report (Nov
2023) into the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, stating:
“the Commonwealth Government ensure its approach to developing legislation and
policy on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be consistent
with the Articles outlined in the UNDRIP”.
2.1 This Review must seek an explanation from the federal Labor Gov as to whether they will
commit to respect and comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples Article 29 provision of Indigenous Peoples Rights to “Free, Prior and Informed
Consent”, as a Right to Say No, over storage or disposal of hazardous materials on their lands;
OR if Federal Labor intends to claim a sanction to over-ride UNDRIP and to impose a hazardous AUKUS nuclear waste dump against the potential express wishes of Traditional Owners.
3 US origin military High-Level nuclear waste from US N-Subs to be dumped at Woomera?
The Woomera Area Review must recognise the AUKUS Agreement’s proposed importation of US
origin military High-Level nuclear wastes sourced in 10–12-year-old US Navy nuclear reactors in
second hand US Virginia Class N-Subs that will require perpetual storage in Australia:
This Review must seek a full explanation of how Defence Minister Marles claims to be able
to manage a globally unprecedented task in siting and perpetual storage & disposal of
intractable US origin High-Level nuclear wastes from second-hand US Virginia N-Subs.
It is not credible for the Review to overly rely on claims by AUKUS proponent Minister Marles.
3.1 The Review should call on Minister Marles to explain the incompatibility between the AUKUS
Agreement’s transfer of US origin Virginia Class N-Sub nuclear wastes to Australia, effective
importation of nuclear wastes sourced from the US, and the pre AUKUS Federal Labor Policy
commitment in the ALP National Platform (2021, Uranium p.96-98) to oppose overseas waste:
Labor will: 8. d. Remain strongly opposed to the importation and storage of nuclear
waste that is sourced from overseas in Australia.
4 Multi-billion $ N-waste Costs are ignored while the US gets Indemnity over nuclear risks.
There is an onus on this Review to require public $ Costings and an evidentiary basis on:
- the liability $ Cost consequent in required capability and facilities for in perpetuity High-
Level nuclear waste storage and geological waste disposal at the Woomera Area; - whether the $ Cost of High-Level nuclear waste storage and claimed geological disposal
is included in – OR is additional to – the public Cost of AUKUS at approx. A$368 billion.
These unstated, kept secret, liability $ Costs must be in the order of at least A$10’s of billions.
4.1 In the public interest the Review must require a full exposition on the array of nuclear waste
risks the AUKUS Agreement exposes the Woomera Area to and grants the US Indemnity over.
“Indemnity 22. The Agreement requires Australia to indemnify the UK and the US
against any liability, loss, costs, damage, or injury (including third party claims) arising
out of, related to, or resulting from nuclear risks (risks attributable to the radioactive,
toxic, explosive or other hazardous properties of materials) … transferred pursuant to the
Agreement (Article IV(E)).” (In the National Interest Analysis [2024] ATNIA 14)
5. The Review must be transparent on Defence’s roles for Woomera in AUKUS and in war.
Our survival is at stake, ex-Ambassador to China, Ross Garnaut has stated (20 August 2024):
“America would be damaged by war with China over the status of Taiwan, but, short of a
major nuclear exchange debilitating both great powers, its sovereignty would not be at
risk. Australia’s would be. Indeed, I doubt that Australia could survive as a sovereign
entity the isolation from most of Asia that would be likely to follow anything other than a
decisive and quick US victory in a war in which our military was engaged.”
Discussion:
Defence imposed AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste & nuclear weapons usable fissile
material on all future generations of Australians is untenable and will be opposed at Woomera.
This Review must at least be able to facilitate informed public consideration of the future of the
Woomera Area through required full disclosures from Defence to the set of pre-requisite public
interest Recommendations No.1-5 presented in this public input.
Australian regional communities and Indigenous groups have a ‘Right to Know’ who is being
currently targeted for siting and assessment of an AUKUS nuclear waste storage / dump.
The Review must realise an answer from federal Labor over whether the UNDRIP championed
by Senator Patrick Dodson will be complied with OR over-ridden to impose AUKUS N-wastes.
Three years into AUKUS the failure to respect affected communities ‘Right to Know’ is evidence
Defence is on a seriously wrong track and is undermining trust in governance in Australia.
There is an onus is on this Review to investigate the array of serious nuclear waste risks to be
imposed on Woomera through AUKUS and subject to an Indemnity to favour US interests.
The Review must be transparent on Defence roles for Woomera in AUKUS and in war.
It is arguable that AUKUS and N-Subs bring Australia closer to a devastating war between the
US and China, including likely strikes on Australia with a real risk of nuclear weapons strikes.
For instance, the Review should consider “AUKUS: The worst defence and foreign policy
decision our country has made” by ex-Foreign Affairs Minister Gareth Evans (17 August 2024):
“… Four, the price now being demanded by the US for giving us access to its nuclear
propulsion technology is, it is now becoming ever more clear, extraordinarily high. Not
only the now open-ended expansion of Tindal as a US B52 base; not only the conversion
of Stirling into a major base for a US Indian Ocean fleet, making Perth now join Pine Gap
and the North West Cape – and increasingly likely, Tindal – as a nuclear target …
Australia’s no-holds-barred embrace of AUKUS is more likely than not to prove one
of the worst defence and foreign policy decisions our country has made, not only
putting at profound risk our sovereign independence, but generating more risk than
reward for the very national security it promises to protect.”…………………………………………………………..
David Noonan confronts Australia’s politicians with critical unanswered questions on the AUKUS agreement – will they pretend not to hear this?
Federal Labor has failed to inform the SA community of the Health risks they face in imposed N-Subs at Port Adelaide and failed to carry out required nuclear accident Health Impact Studies.
AUKUS aims Australia buy existing US military nuclear reactors in second-hand N-Subs that are to be up to 10-12 years old, loaded with intractable US origin High-Level nuclear wastes that are also weapons usage fissile materials – and remain as Bomb Fuel long after decommissioning.
AUKUS will aim to compulsorily acquire and declare a High-Level nuclear waste dump site, with override of State laws through this Bill, long before the 2032 first purchase of a second-hand US N-Sub.
This Inquiry should respect and investigate the ‘Right to Know’ of affected Communities and Indigenous People facing federal imposed nuclear risks in an AUKUS Agreement requiring HighLevel nuclear waste & nuclear weapons usable fissile material storage and disposal facilities:
It is not credible for the JSCT to over rely on an AUKUS proponent in Defence Minister Marles.
Submission no. 154
Submission to Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Inquiry into the AUKUS 2.0 Agreement:
‘Agreement among the Government of Australia, the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the United States of America for Cooperation Related to Naval Nuclear Propulsion’.
Public Input by Mr David J. Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St.
Independent Environment Campaigner 1 September 2024 https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions
RE: National Interest, Public Safety and Indigenous Consent are compromised as the Agreement imposes N-Subs risks and untenable AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste & nuclear weapons usable fissile material on all future generations of Australians
Dear Secretary
This Inquiry into ‘the Agreement’ (Washington, dated 4 August) goes to fundamental matters of public interest through the powers, imprimatur and pathway this AUKUS Agreement provides to an unfolding Federal Labor agenda to impose nuclear powered submarine (N-Subs) risks and nuclear reactor wastes (N-wastes), with serious consequences for Civil Society and Indigenous People in Australia.
Please consider this Public Submission, the Recommendations provided (see p.10-12) and Discussion (p.13).
I also request an opportunity to give Evidence as a Witness in a Hearing (see my Relevant Background, p.14).
This public input focuses on serious N-Sub reactor accident risks and N-waste impacts due to this AUKUS Agreement:
First: N-Subs inherent nuclear reactor accident risks & impacts are imposed on Australian Port communities without their informed consent, while the US is granted Indemnity.
Port communities face Evacuation and persons may require ‘decontamination’ and medical treatment, while children require Stable Iodine Tablets to lessen the risk of Thyroid cancer.
Second: untenable AUKUS military High-Level nuclear waste & nuclear weapons usable fissile materials are recklessly imposed as an uncosted liability on all future generations.
Continue readingRecord weeks for renewables blow up Dutton’s nuclear con
The record high of low-cost wind and solar in the grid comes as we are still waiting for the costing on the Coalition’s plan to nationalise the eye-watering cost of seven nuclear plants.
Tim Buckley and Annemarie Jonson, 12 Sept 24, https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/record-weeks-for-renewables-blow-up-dutton-s-nuclear-con-20240910-p5k9e4
It’s been a red-letter few weeks for renewables in Australia. In the last week of August, coal dropped below 50 per cent of electricity generation for the first time, as renewables’ share rose to a record high 48.7 per cent, boosted by windy conditions and low grid demand.
In August last year, coal contributed 57 per cent and renewable energy held a 37 per cent share
As in the US and Britain, where zero-emissions supply is burgeoning as fossil fuels’ contribution to generation falls, this threshold moment in Australia symbolises that the inevitable shift to clean energy is well under way and accelerating here and globally. China is deploying 23 gigawatts of renewables every month, four times what Australia does in a year.
The record-high renewable energy penetration in our national electricity market was accompanied by near record-low wholesale prices, averaging $57 per megawatt hour in the last week of August, versus $91 in August last year. This shows that more renewables equals cheaper power.
South Australia is the standard-bearer for Australia’s renewable energy future. In the past seven days, more than 75 per cent of its power use was generated by renewables, at average wholesale prices of just $37 per megawatt hour, way below the $123 average over the past year.
South Australian Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis has revised the state’s renewables target to 100 per cent by 2027, off the back of the continued rollout of clean energy infrastructure.
This includes three big batteries announced last week under Federal Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s flagship Capacity Investment Scheme – a key driver of investment momentum underpinning the renewables build-out nationally – and major grid developments, with concomitant projected residential and business energy bill savings.
The federal government and its state counterparts are getting on with the job of accelerating our national energy transition, working to deliver the federal 82 per cent renewables by 2030 target and the resulting energy bill relief. The lower house passed the Future Made in Australia Act this week, key to the government’s vision for a renewables-powered economy.
Still no nuclear costings
Meanwhile, the federal Coalition continues to perpetuate its nuclear con, designed to blow up progress on the transformation of our energy system to low-cost, reliable firmed renewables and entrench decades more of volatile, expensive fossil fuel-based power while we wait … and wait.
Next week marks three months since Opposition Leader Peter Dutton and chief nuclear spruiker Ted O’Brien released their fact- and costings-free, one-page nuclear memo, effectively a note proposing to nationalise the eye-watering cost of construction of seven nuclear plants nationwide – in a country with zero history and expertise in nuclear power generation, on a timeframe that, by all expert accounts, will not result in any material delivery before the mid-2040s. We’re still waiting for their budget projections on this excuse for a policy.
Only this week, Dutton was reported as dismissing questions about budget impacts because he didn’t want to overload Australians with too much information, as the government released an ad citing calculation by industry body the Smart Energy Council that the nuclear energy build would cost up to $600 billion and add $1000 annually to household electricity bills.
Our estimate is that the public cost would be a minimum of $100 billion, and this would inevitably be taxpayer-funded because, unlike firmed renewables, into which private capital is increasingly flowing, there is zero investor interest in nuclear in Australia without massive government subsidies, risk transfer and guarantees.
The Coalition plan involves a fiscally negligent impost on consumers already struggling with cost-of-living pressures. The global history of huge cost blowouts and bailouts in every Western economy building nuclear exacerbates this, and should discourage even the most credulous believer.
This alone makes nuclear unviable here. But the clincher is ongoing generation costs feeding into retail prices. The 2024 GenCost report by the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator prices large-scale nuclear energy at $155 to $252 a megawatt hour. That is double their estimate of the cost of fully firmed renewable energy of $90 to $100, even after factoring in grid transmission, curtailment and battery firming costs.
The renewables surge is the way of the future. We cannot afford to entertain the Coalition’s damaging nuclear distraction.
Any government proposing nuclear here would be robbing Australians three times: once via a $100 billion public capital subsidy for nuclear reactors; again by locking in long-term hyperinflated energy prices; and third to compensate owners of the former coal power sites the Coalition has slated for nuclear, which have already built new clean energy assets, such as batteries onsite.
Progress is building on transforming our grid with superabundant wind and solar energy, distributed across rooftops and utility-scale, backed up by battery storage and modernised transmission. This now needs further acceleration, particularly given looming closures of breakdown-prone, expensive end-of-life coal power clunkers.
The evidence that firmed renewables win on cost is irrefutable, and double-digit annual deflation of battery and solar costs widens this advantage every year. The energy market operator last month confirmed it sees no energy supply reliability gaps to 2030 in the national electricity market, assuming planned renewables projects proceed on time and at the targeted scale.
The renewables surge we have experienced is the way of the future. We cannot afford to entertain the Coalition’s damaging nuclear distraction. For the sake of Australia, let’s hope that as the renewables reality rises, the Coalition’s domestic nuclear pipe dream is consigned to oblivion, where it belongs.
Any government proposing nuclear here would be robbing Australians three times: once via a $100 billion public capital subsidy for nuclear reactors; again by locking in long-term hyperinflated energy prices; and third to compensate owners of the former coal power sites the Coalition has slated for nuclear, which have already built new clean energy assets, such as batteries onsite.
Progress is building on transforming our grid with superabundant wind and solar energy, distributed across rooftops and utility-scale, backed up by battery storage and modernised transmission. This now needs further acceleration, particularly given looming closures of breakdown-prone, expensive end-of-life coal power clunkers.
The evidence that firmed renewables win on cost is irrefutable, and double-digit annual deflation of battery and solar costs widens this advantage every year. The energy market operator last month confirmed it sees no energy supply reliability gaps to 2030 in the national electricity market, assuming planned renewables projects proceed on time and at the targeted scale.
The renewables surge we have experienced is the way of the future. We cannot afford to entertain the Coalition’s damaging nuclear distraction. For the sake of Australia, let’s hope that as the renewables reality rises, the Coalition’s domestic nuclear pipe dream is consigned to oblivion, where it belongs.
Barnaby Joyce — nuclear energy not as cheap as he thinks it is
Independent Australia, By Belinda Jones | 14 September 2024,
Barnaby Joyce jumps on the nuclear energy bandwagon but gets his facts wrong, writes Belinda Jones.
THE COALITION’S NUCLEAR PLANS suffered another setback this week when it revealed that the Member for New England, Barnaby Joyce, got key nuclear facts wrong in a recent debate.
As part of the annual Bush Summit, presented by Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting and News Corp, Joyce took part in a debate with Chair of the Climate Change Authority, Matt Kean.
The Bush Summit has been an annual event on the bush calendar since 2019, which meets in rural and remote locations around the country and brings together leaders in politics, mining, agriculture and many other fields……………………………………..
Joyce had jumped on the nuclear energy bandwagon a few years earlier and has been there ever since. Joyce’s position was supported in 2019 with a push for an inquiry into the feasibility of nuclear energy by fellow National Keith Pitt and L-NP Senator James McGrath.
In 2022, Coalition donor Rinehart invested $60 million in Arafura Rare Earths. Arafura’s Nolans Project outputs involve exploration and processing of rare earths, including uranium ‘as a minor product’. A minor product that could be very lucrative if Australia had nuclear energy.
According to the Minerals Council of Australia ‘Australia’s uranium reserves are the world’s largest, with around one-third of global resources’, which might explain mining billionaire Rinehart’s embrace of nuclear energy as the transition away from coal continues…………..
Joyce’s passion for nuclear energy does beg the question — why didn’t the Coalition seize the opportunity to begin a transition to nuclear energy while they were in government from 2013 to 2022? One government minister said at the time it was because ‘financially it doesn’t stack up’.
In 2021, Morrison rejected nuclear energy because of a lack of bi-partisan support. Joyce revealed at the recent Bush Summit debate with Matt Kean that the real reason Morrison had rejected nuclear energy was because internal polling said nuclear energy was unpopular, as it still does, not because of a lack of bipartisan support.
During the recent Bush Summit debate, Joyce claimed that France and Finland’s energy is cheaper than Australia’s because they use nuclear energy.
This claim has since been fact-checked by AAP as wrong:
‘The National Party MP was responding to a suggestion that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 had driven up power prices globally.
When asked to provide evidence for the claim, Mr Joyce’s office sent AAP FactCheck an article from the Australian Energy Council comparing household electricity prices internationally.
The analysis is from February 3, 2022, which predates the beginning of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine by three weeks.’
Currently, the Coalition has released scant details about their nuclear energy ambitions. In the absence of a clear, comprehensive, costed nuclear energy plan from which Coalition politicians can work, misinformation or disinformation is more likely to spread on the nuclear issue…………………………….
Joyce has become the self-appointed poster boy for groups opposing renewables, particularly the New England, Illawarra and Hunter regions. He will be a panelist on ABC’s Q and A next Monday. Advertised shuttle buses will likely be ferrying anti-renewables activist audience members from Muswellbrook and Port Stephens to the Newcastle studio. Joyce will be at his theatrical best, knowing he has an audience full of supporters………………………… more https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/barnaby-joyce–nuclear-energy-not-as-cheap-as-he-thinks-it-is,18977
The fake charity AMDA Foundation is exposed by Michael West Media’s Michelle Fahy.
Landforces’ brothers in arms: how a weapons peddler qualified for charitable status . https://www.michaelwest.com.au/landforces-brothers-in-arms-how-a-weapons-peddler-qualified-for-charitable-status/
by Michelle Fahy | Jun 4, 2021 The Coalition is cracking down on charitable organisations. However, the Australian charity promoting arms deals on behalf of weapons makers that profit from humanitarian catastrophes is unlikely to be in the government’s sights. With the weapons expo LandForces wrapping up in Brisbane this week, Michelle Fahy delves into the charity behind LandForces.
The Morrison government has charitable organisations in its sights. It proposes to amend the legislation covering charities so that minor legal misdemeanours by staff or supporters of a charity could be used as a prompt by the regulator for a review of a charity’s privileged status.
St Vincent de Paul told The Saturday Paper that if an activist wearing a Vinnies T-shirt refused to move along when asked by police, Vinnies could risk having its charitable status removed.
Hands Off Our Charities, an alliance of Australian charities, said in a submission to government: “The proposal is a major overreach and the need for further regulation has not been (and in our view cannot be) properly explained.”
Yet consider the activities of a not-for-profit organisation that many Australians will be astounded to discover has gained privileged charitable status – AMDA Foundation Limited (AMDA).
AMDA is the organiser of Land Forces, a biennial military and weapons exhibition running in Brisbane this week showcasing organisations “operating across the full spectrum of land warfare”.
The 600 exhibitors at Land Forces include local and multinational weapons manufacturers and other suppliers to military forces. Event sponsors include global arms corporations such as Boeing, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, Rheinmetall, General Dynamics, Saab and Hanwha, along with local companies Electro Optic Systems (EOS), CEA, and NIOA. Representatives from foreign governments and militaries are among the attendees.
Several of AMDA’s arms-maker sponsors have supplied their weaponry to the two countries leading the coalition fighting the war in Yemen – Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The UN has been pleading for years for countries to cease supplying weaponry to these countries.
In late 2018, the New York Times published distressing photographs of emaciated children in Yemen dying as a result of aid blockades during the war. The mass starvation continues. UNICEF has said more than 400,000 Yemeni children under five could die preventable deaths this year.
Promoting arms deals on behalf of corporations that have profited from this unspeakable humanitarian catastrophe is the antithesis of what an Australian registered charity should be doing.
But the political posturing evident in the government’s proposed changes is unlikely to result in any repercussions for the AMDA Foundation. Instead, it is ‘activist’ environmental charities that are being targeted by the changes. Which is precisely the problem with such sweeping broad powers. They can be implemented selectively to silence voices the government does not want heard.
“It is the principle that underpins the change that is wrong, regardless of who it is used to target,” said Matt Rose, Economy & Democracy Program Manager at the Australian Conservation Foundation.
Arms trade promotion a “charitable activity”?
AMDA runs numerous major military and weapons-related trade exhibitions around Australia. Its roster of events includes Avalon, a biennial aerospace military and weapons expo in Victoria, next slated for early December 2021. The Indo Pacific Expo, a maritime warfare exhibition, is scheduled for May 2022 in Sydney.
These and other industry trade shows bring together sellers and buyers of weaponry and other military and security-related equipment. “Doing business is easy at Land Forces,” says its website, noting that Land Forces serves as a “powerful promotional and industry engagement forum”.
AMDA says it exists to help the “general community in Australia”. But the general community is not permitted to attend Land Forces nor AMDA’s other arms exhibitions. (The public can attend the Avalon Air Show, a separate public event run at the same time as the Avalon arms expo.)
AMDA is part of a group of companies registered with ACNC which operates around the country. It had 24 full-time-equivalent employees and a gross income in 2020 of $11.7 million – 32% of which came from government grants and 61% from operating revenue. Its income in 2019 was $26.2 million, mostly from operating revenue.
Revolving doors and conflicted interests
The AMDA board is an all-male affair. Its chair is former chief of the Royal Australian Navy, Christopher Ritchie, who joined the board in May 2017 while concurrently sitting on the boards of Lockheed Martin Australia (until 2020) and German naval shipbuilder Luerssen Australia, both multibillion dollar contractors to the Defence Department.
Former chief of army Kenneth Gillespie sits on the AMDA board while also sitting on the board of Naval Group, the French multinational building Australia’s controversial new submarines. Gillespie is also chair of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) Council, the highly influential and supposedly “independent” think tank tasked with providing strategic advice to the government.
ASPI is sponsored by Naval Group as well as other global arms manufacturers including Lockheed Martin, Thales, Saab and Northrop Grumman. ASPI has been vocal in its anti-China ‘war drums’ rhetoric, stoking regional tensions, along with the Asia Pacific arms race.
Why Aged Care Funding Scrutinised, but Military Spending Not
Double Standards in Public Discourse
The double standard in how we view social versus military spending is stark. While aged care is framed as a financial burden that requires higher contributions from individuals, military spending is accepted without the same level of scrutiny. Why is it that investments in the well-being of citizens are questioned while investments in military equipment go ahead without question?
Australia’s government has the financial ability to distribute more resources toward aged care without compromising national defence. By reallocating just, a fraction of the $368 billion earmarked for submarines, the aged care system could receive the necessary funding to address worker shortages, improve infrastructure, and ensure that no senior is left without quality care.
September 13, 2024 by By Denis Hay, The AIM Network
Introduction
Australia is grappling with rising demands for aged care services as its population grows older, leading to a $5.6 billion reform package to improve the sector. Yet, every dollar given to aged care is met with scrutiny, with questions about sustainability and affordability. In stark contrast, military spending – including the $368 billion given for the AUKUS submarine deal – goes ahead with far less financial scrutiny.
Why do we ask, “At what cost?” for aged care, yet overlook the same question for military projects? This article explores these double standards and how Australia’s currency sovereignty means the government has the financial capacity to fund both without compromising one for the other.
Disparities in Spending Scrutiny
I. Aged Care Reforms: Why “At What Cost” is Constantly Asked
A. Key Changes in Aged Care
The Australian government’s $5.6 billion aged care reform package aims to improve services for more than 1.4 million older Australians, helping them stay at home longer before entering institutional care. However, the reforms include higher means-tested contributions from seniors, raising concerns about affordability for lower-income individuals.
B. Challenges in Aged Care Funding
Australia’s aged care sector is facing significant challenges, even with the new reforms:
1. Workforce shortages – More than 300,000 workers are needed to meet the demand for aged care services, but underfunding is making recruitment and retention difficult.
2. Underfunding – The sector is still underfunded despite the reforms, with many care facilities still struggling to provide adequate services.
3. Increased demand – With Australia’s aging population expected to double by 2050, more funds will be needed to provide quality care.
Despite these growing challenges, aged care funding is constantly questioned. The $5.6 billion reform package was seen as necessary, but it came with a public narrative focused on budget concerns and intergenerational equity, suggesting the government is walking a financial tightrope when funding such social services.
C. Public and Political Scrutiny
Aged care spending is consistently subjected to public and political debate, with media coverage often emphasising the “cost to the taxpayer“ and generational fairness. Yet this intense scrutiny stands in stark contrast to how military spending is viewed, where multibillion-dollar defence projects move forward with little financial questioning.
II. Military Spending: An Unquestioned Cost
A. Overview of Military Expenditures
In 2023, Australia committed $368 billion over the next 30 years to the AUKUS submarine program, making it one of the largest military spending commitments in the country’s history. The overall defence budget for 2023-2024 alone reached $50 billion, marking a significant increase compared to previous years.
B. Justifications for Military Spending
Proponents of military spending often argue that defence investments are critical for national security, particularly with the growing military presence of China in the Indo-Pacific region. The AUKUS deal, which promises to deliver nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, has been framed as necessary for safeguarding Australia’s interests in the future.
However, this narrative ignores the question of cost. While $368 billion has been committed for submarines over the next three decades, far less attention is given to the financial opportunity costs – what else could be funded with such vast sums?
C. Limited Scrutiny on Defence Budgets
In contrast to aged care, military expenditures are rarely subject to serious financial scrutiny. Public debate around defence spending typically focuses on national security threats rather than the financial burden of these projects. Even when media coverage addresses military budgets, it rarely compares them to the costs of social services, leaving aged care and defence spending to occupy entirely different public conversations.
Australia’s Currency Sovereignty and the Real Limits…………………………………………………………………………..
Double Standards in Public Discourse
The double standard in how we view social versus military spending is stark. While aged care is framed as a financial burden that requires higher contributions from individuals, military spending is accepted without the same level of scrutiny. Why is it that investments in the well-being of citizens are questioned while investments in military equipment go ahead without question?
…………………………………………………………… Rebalancing Australia’s Budget Priorities
…………………..Australia’s government has the financial ability to distribute more resources toward aged care without compromising national defence. By reallocating just, a fraction of the $368 billion earmarked for submarines, the aged care system could receive the necessary funding to address worker shortages, improve infrastructure, and ensure that no senior is left without quality care. ……………..more https://theaimn.com/why-aged-care-funding-scrutinised-but-military-spending-not/
Submission -Terry Barridge – re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion – it’s dangerous, the public should vote on it.
Given the significant implications of such a security pact, it is only democratic that the Australian population has a direct say in this matter. I strongly advocate for this issue to be put to a vote, allowing the voices of Australian citizens to be heard and respected in a decision that will impact our nation’s future.
I am writing to express my concerns and opposition to the recent enhancement of the AUKUS agreement,
commonly referred to as AUKUS 2.0, between Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. As an
Australian citizen deeply invested in the long-term security and prosperity of our nation, I feel compelled to voice my apprehensions regarding the implications of this agreement
Firstly, I am troubled by the increased proximity of Australian military and security policies to those of the
United States. The United States, in its current geopolitical stance, appears to many as a waning power, facing significant domestic challenges and shifting international allegiances. By binding our security interests so closely with those of the United States through agreements like AUKUS 2.0, Australia risks inheriting the animosities and conflicts that are directed towards America. This alignment not only draws us into the sphere of influence of a nation facing considerable global scrutiny and criticism but also potentially makes Australia a target for those who view the United States unfavorably.
Secondly, the financial burden of AUKUS 2.0 on Australian taxpayers is a major concern. The investment
required to uphold the commitments within this agreement is substantial, and the returns – both in terms of security enhancements and economic benefits – are uncertain. In an era where economic stability is precarious, it is crucial that government expenditures are made with a clear and guaranteed return on investment. The lack of transparency regarding the financial implications and benefits of AUKUS 2.0 is worrying. Australian taxpayers deserve clarity on how their funds are being used and assurances that these expenditures will not only safeguard but also enhance our national interests.
Furthermore, in light of the current “cost of living” crisis, the financial commitment required for this deal
appears especially irresponsible. Many Australians are already struggling to manage everyday expenses, from utility bills to housing costs. Allocating substantial public funds to an uncertain and contentious military agreement further burdens the average citizen without offering immediate or transparent benefits.
Moreover, the United States has a long and contentious history of treating warfare as a business opportunity, enriching a select few at the expense of many. This perspective on military engagement should not be what we aspire to promote in our region. America’s track record in wars across the globe has often led to long-standing conflicts without clear successes, posing significant concerns about the wisdom of aligning our defense policies so closely with their strategies.
Given the significant implications of such a security pact, it is only democratic that the Australian population has a direct say in this matter. I strongly advocate for this issue to be put to a vote, allowing the voices of Australian citizens to be heard and respected in a decision that will impact our nation’s future.
I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your response, outlining how you and your office will address these concerns. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions
Submission – Stephen Clendinnen – re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion – oppose this costly, dangerous, AUKUS mistake
I am writing to you to oppose the proposed AUKUS deal. Here are my reasons.
1 The AUKUS deal will provoke an arms race with China which will destabilise the entire Indo-Pacific region and lead to increased conflict in our region. China is our number one trading partner. Entering an arms race with China will seriously jeopardise our economic interests with potential massive financial costs. Entering an arms race with China will also make us more of a target for attack.
2 The proposal is extremely expensive and we know from past experience that these type of high tech defence projects usually run massively over budget. So it is safe to say that the cost will be well over $386 billion.
3 The AUKUS deal will make us completely subservient to the USA. These submarines will not really be owned by Australia; the US and the UK will retain complete control over crucial technologies that operate the subs. Without active support from the US and the UK the subs will not be able to operate.
4 There are very real risks that the USA will cease to be a functioning democracy in the near future. There are no contingency plans for this eventuality. The USA is complicit in war crimes that Israel is committing through the supply of weapons. Both the Republicans and the Democrats support this policy. By entering the AUKUS agreement Australia will bear legal and moral responsibility for participating in war crimes.
5 These subs will not be built in Australia. There are massive technical and labour force impediments to this ever happening. The promises made about building submarines here are always deliberately vague about the time line.
6 The US cannot make enough of the subs for their own needs and are running way behind schedule. Delivery of submarines to Australia will be massively delayed, however Australia has already started making payments.
7 This is a very expensive proposal that gives all the benefits to the USA and the UK with many of the up front costs being paid by Australia.
8 Australia will be receiving large amounts of nuclear waste from the USA and from the UK as part of this arrangement.
Submission -James Lechte – re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion it’s not too late to walk back this AUKUS commitment
China has never in its long history shown a track record of external aggressiveness.
its highly likely that
rather than China, the US in fact may become more unstable and less trustworthy in the coming
decades, even sooner perhaps.
Submission no 19
This is formal feedback on the proposed AUKUS legislation/policy and related $ 370 billion budget
spend forecast by the current administration for the nuclear submarine acquisition from the US.
As a concerned Aussie citizen, and having had the privilege of living in Switzerland for a number of
years whilst working overseas, it brings new light on recent commentary about the AUKUS deal and
Australia’s position, held by both Labour and the Liberal National party coalition.
My feedback relates to If and how.
IF
The key question Australians deserve further dialogue over is whether or not its in our best interests
to develop a first of a kind, pro US, assertive (some would consider aggressive) defense posture in
the region. Australia is a peaceful country, with a diverse and increasingly multi-cultural pan Asian
background. History tells us that wars are difficult, do not end well nor are in any parties interests.
Whatsmore, history also tells us that deterrence based on increased defence capability is not based
in fact. Rather, strategic ambiguity – where by any threat does not understand which side we would
take in a conflict, may be a better deterrent, as it gives parties options and does not actively signal a
threat.
AUKUS removes this opportunity.
likelihood of getting into conflict. Switzerland is an excellent example here – across their history from
the late 1200s, they have managed to achieve this ambiguity, which has provided them with options
in alliances and support, in different scenarios across history.
China has never in its long history shown a track record of external aggressiveness. On the contrary,
despite them being very assertive in their economic position, often crossing the line, the latest
example from 2020/21 economic stoush with Australia highlights to us that this can be managed and
resolved, by using soft power – diplomacy, patience and dialogue. In any conflict, showdown or
threat, we have already engaged by virtue of the posture that is in question built into AUKUS. We
have no option but to engage, regardless of the rhetoric of Minister Marles suggesting that this is
within our discretion. We effectively have a target on our back.
As Ray Dalio highlights in his essays regarding world power being reshaped, its highly likely that
rather than China, the US in fact may become more unstable and less trustworthy in the coming
decades, even sooner perhaps. If this happens, where does this leave Australias options around
independence, freedom of defence action and strategic ambiguity? If this world power shift continues and China continues its ascendency, why is it in Australias interest to maintain an
aggressive posture with the new world power? This makes no sense.
How
If one is to assume that based on a long history of alliance, collaboration and defence information
and knowledge sharing, Australia should join an AUKUS alliance, then the question is how this can be
achieved whilst maintaining a) as much of the above ambiguity as possible as its in our long term
interests, and b) a commercial strategy that sees Australia have an equitable commercial
relationship, grow its economy, not primarily its debt. It is in Australias interest to have a resilient
and multi faceted defence capability, whilst also managing a careful cost benefit of investing in these
assets. This means that we need to be extremely commercial, shrewd and strategic in the use of
multiple options to fend off potential threats and get the best long term value for money. This
classically is now termed ‘Asymmetric’ capabilities. Aside from the issue of how Australian Defence
experts and the Government choose to renew this capability, one thing is for certain, we need to
develop much better commercial capabilities in this space given the quantum were talking about,
this role would be similar in scale to a Deputy capability group within the ATO or home affairs for
example, dealing with the size of the spend. We should be extremely commercially aggressive on
clawing back spend where budgets have been over run, ultimately meaning that shared success is
the primary objective for all parties.
The deal that has been presented to Australians, with scant detail, suggests that none of the above
has been achieved. On the contrary, it seems like we have entered into an agreement MAXIMISING
our partners interests and not ours. The context that this deal is/has taken shape under is that for
the health and prosperity of the region, it is in many parties (US, Japan, Indo Pacific nations etc)
interests for Australia and other nations to have strategic defence capabilities. It is also important to
note, that in doing so, we are buttressing the US’s defence posture in the region and as such,
deserve special economic consideration, just like the defence consideration (being given access to
these tools). We are also an extension of the US defence capability, given the tools being selected. It
somehow flies in the face of economic reality and pragmatism, that Australia is the sole payer at
what appears a significant premium, where the bulk of the jobs, companies and profits will go
offshore.
This is an enormous let down to Australians. A let down for the significant work and taxpayer dollars
that taxpayers are burdened by. There is no question that a) we have enormous spending
commitments over the coming decades with an ageing population and at best c class infrastructure
across the country and b) declining tax revenues combined with c) an inability to reform the tax
system so that the wealthy, mining and other multinationals pay way too little tax. It is more that
arguable that Australia simply cannot afford this luxury capability, especially until one or many of
these aforementioned planks of our economic condition are improved measurably.
Ultimately, if we have no choice but to contribute to the AUKUS pact, we should do so judiciously,
economically, and carefully. However – its not too late to maintain some form of independence by
walking back commitments to acquire nuclear submarines, which will undoubtedly be well over
budget, technologically inferior and pin us down to be a multi decade minion of the US, as one
recently put it – ‘the 51 state of the United States’. Developing a more conservative stance within
these treaties is in all Australians interests. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Treaties/NuclearPropulsion/Submissions
Protecting the Merchants of Death: The Police Effort for Land Forces 2024
September 12, 2024, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/protecting-the-merchants-of-death-the-police-effort-for-land-forces-2024/—
September 11. Melbourne. The scene: the area between Spencer Street Bridge and the Batman Park–Spencer Street tram stop. Heavily armed police, with glinting face coverings and shields, had seized and blocked the bridge over the course of the morning, preventing all traffic from transiting through it. Behind them stood second tier personnel, lightly armed. Then, barricades, followed by horse mounted police. Holding up the rear: two fire trucks.
In the skies, unmanned drones hovered like black, stationary ravens of menace. But these were not deemed sufficient by Victoria Police. Helicopters kept them company. Surveillance cameras also stood prominently to the north end of the bridge.
Before this assortment of marshalled force was an eclectic gathering of individuals from keffiyeh-swaddled pro-Palestinian activists to drummers kitted out in the Palestinian colours, and any number of theatrical types dressed in the shades and costumery of death. At one point, a chilling Joker figure made an appearance, his outfit and suitcase covered in mock blood. The share stock of chants was readily deployed: “No justice, no peace, no racist police”; “We, the people, will not be silenced. Stop the bombing now, now, now.” Innumerable placards condemning the arms industry and Israel’s war on Gaza also make their appearance.
The purpose of this vast, costly exercise proved elementary and brutal: to defend Land Forces 2024, one of the largest arms fairs in the southern hemisphere, from Disrupt Land Forces, a collective demonised by the Victorian state government as the great unwashed, polluted rebel rousers and anarchists. Much had been made of the potential size of the gathering, with uncritical journalists consuming gobbets of information from police sources keen to justify an operation deemed the largest since the 2000 World Economic Forum. Police officers from regional centres in the state had been called up, and while Chief Commissioner Shane Patton proved tight–lipped on the exact number, an estimate exceeding 1,000 was not refuted. The total cost of the effort: somewhere between A$10 to A$15 million.
It all began as a healthy gathering at the dawn of day, with protestors moving to the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre to picket entry points for those attending Land Forces.
Over time, there was movement between the various entrances to prevent these modern merchants of death from spruiking their merchandise and touting for offers. As Green Left Online noted, “The Victorian Police barricaded the entrance of the Melbourne Convention Centre so protestors marched to the back entrance to disrupt Land Forces whilst attendees are going through security checks.”
In keeping with a variant of Anton Chekhov’s principle, if a loaded gun is placed upon the stage, it is bound to be used. Otherwise, leave it out of the script. A large police presence would hardly be worthwhile without a few cracked skulls, flesh wounds or arrests. Scuffles accordingly broke out with banal predictability. The mounted personnel were also brought out to add a snap of hostility and intimidation to the protestors as they sought to hamper access to the Convention. For all of this, it was the police who left complaining, worried about their safety.
Then came the broader push from the officers to create a zone of exclusion around the building, resulting in the closure of Clarendon Street to the south, up to Batman Park. Efforts were made to push the protests from the convention centre across the bridge towards the park. This was in keeping with the promise by the Chief Commissioner that the MCEC site and its surrounds would be deemed a designated area over the duration of the arms fair from September 11 to 13.
Such designated areas, enabled by the passage of a 2009 law, vests the police with powers to stop and search a person within the zone without a warrant. Anything perceived to be a weapon can be seized, with officers having powers to request that civilians reveal their identity.
Despite such exercisable powers, the relevant legislation imposes a time limit of 12 hours for such areas, something most conspicuously breached by the Commissioner. But as Melbourne Activist Legal Support (MALS) group remarks, the broader criteria outlined in the legislative regime are often not met and constitute a “method of protest control” that impairs “the rights to assembly, association, and political expression” protected by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.
The Victorian government had little time for the language of protest. In a stunningly grotesque twist, the Victorian Premier, Jacinta Allan, defended those at the Land Forces conference as legitimate representatives of business engaging in a peaceful enterprise. “Any industry deserves the right to have these sorts of events in a peaceful and respectful way.” If the manufacture, sale and distribution of weapons constitutes a “peaceful and respectful” pursuit, we have disappeared down the rabbit hole with Alice at great speed.
That theme continued with efforts by both Allan and the opposition leader, John Pesutto, to tarnish the efforts by fellow politicians to attend the protest. Both fumed indignantly at the efforts of Greens MP Gabrielle de Vietri to participate, with the premier calling the measure one designed for “divisive political purposes.” The Green MP had a pertinent response: “The community has spoken loud and clear, they don’t want weapons and war profiting to come to our doorstep, and the Victorian Labor government is sponsoring this.”
The absurd, morally inverted spectacle was duly affirmed: a taxpayer funded arms exposition, defended by the taxpayer funded police, used to repel the tax paying protestors keen to promote peace in the face of an industry that thrives on death, mutilation and misery.
Submission- Jennifer Lyons -re new agreement on Naval Nuclear Propulsion- reject AUKUS and its dangerous war games
Enough of the fat cat white men making decisions, that are more about a bunch of boys playing war games than the health and future of our country.
Submission no. 17
Why would Australia spend so much money (our money, the people’s money) on something that
would put us in a volatile position with China?
America and Britain are both crumbling sick societies with useless political leaders, and here we
are following their lead.
Wake up Australia before it is too late. You are killing us, our land and my grandchildren’s future
with stupidity.
Enough of the fat cat white men making decisions, that are more about a bunch of boys playing
war games than the health and future of our country.
I am a concerned citizen and I am begging you to change.
Jennifer Lyons
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 