- by Yvonne Doley and Ron Hall (CPA Port Adelaide Branch)
- The Guardian
- Issue #2124
Photo: Fernando M. Gonçalves
Alarming revelations about the dubious background to the one-sided AUKUS deal emerged at a packed public information forum organised by PACOA (Port Adelaide Citizens Opposing AUKUS). A panel of expert and well-informed speakers detailed the welter of shortcomings overlooked by our politicians.
At the opening of the meeting former Western Australia senator, Jo Valentine, noted peace activist and environmentalist, greeted the gathering with a forthright video presentation wishing for a successful overall outcome.
A surprise guest was Senator Jacqui Lambie whose visit to South Australia included a trip to Whyalla with one of the key speakers, Rex Patrick who is recontesting his former position as a South Australian senator. He made a telling critique of AUKUS.
Apart from the surrender of Australian foreign policy to the UK and US, our federal governments have had little internal discussion, not even caucus scrutiny, about the full ramifications of the AUKUS deal. A virtual duopoly of the major parties forced the necessary legislation through parliament without debate. Rex Patrick explained that Jacqui Lambie had unsuccessfully attempted to move amendments, for example, to allow notification to premiers in related situations crucial to their states’ interests.
Patrick, a former submariner, predicted the AUKUS submarines “won’t happen.” It seems that many Labor politicians believe this too. He also issued a warning that “if we don’t get the submarines, there is no refund.” The US needs to build at least 2.4 subs per year to meet demand whereas currently it is only managing about 1.5. The alternative will be US subs operating out of Australian ports as part of a potential war with China, which would be against our national interest, China being our most important trading partner.
Nuclear radiation also looms as a potential threat especially since the site of Osborne close to Port Adelaide has become a “designated nuclear hub,” similar to Garden Island, near Rockingham in Western Australia. The possible disposal of nuclear waste in South Australia coupled with the ultimate danger of weapons manufacturing facilities becoming nuclear targets, threatens not only Aboriginal land but also has a high level of risk, especially to children. The resultant toxicity lasts for thousands of years, warned registered nurse Amanda Ruler, one of the founders of PACOA. Now specialising in health science research, Ruler said that any level of ionising radiation can cause cancer.
Talking about how AUKUS would affect Port Adelaide, Adjunct Professor Al Rainnie, an industrial sociologist from the University of South Australia, drew attention to Barrow in the UK which has had 60 years of experience in submarine manufacture. The county of Cumbria in which it is located still remains among the poorest in that nation. Professor Rainnie who had just returned from a visit to Whyalla, emphasised from the environmental point of view, the need for scrap steel in order to produce “green steel,” scrap that could readily come from decommissioned oil rigs.
Professor Rainnie reminded everyone that Port Adelaide was declared a nuclear free zone 30 years ago. Now, ‘ironically’ it’s a defence hub. No community consultation has taken place. In his view we must use participatory democracy!
As a politician, Greens MLC Tammy Franks was critical of the lack of scrutiny that AUKUS had received. In affirming that Aboriginal people had never ceded their sovereignty she urged Australians to stop ceding theirs. She cited Boris Johnson’s autobiography. In reference to the AUKUS deal he boasted how in great secrecy he had “pulled it off” in order to be a positive nuisance to President Macron. At the same time, Australia spent $4 billion breaking its submarine deal with the French.
A Q&A session after the speakers bought up more revelations – notably that a local high school was offered a special $4 million grant but only on the condition that a “defence stream” was offered to students.
A former local mayor with years of “nuclear experience” stressed that waste is the biggest issue with involvement in this industry. It is clear that Australia simply lacks enough qualified technicians and that our officials generally possess little knowledge of project risk or risk management, vital in a project like AUKUS.
Past failures like the nuclear tests at Woomera, a disaster for Aboriginal people, offer little comfort in any proposed joint venture arrangements, particularly with the UK. Suggestions that defence will be a driver of our economy for the next 20 years seem questionable at the very least.
An expert member of the PACOA committee, David Noonan, explained that Finland stands out as the only nation to have so far developed an effective nuclear waste management strategy. The Finns are not in the business of accepting other countries’ waste.
Apparently it would be possible to purchase 20 conventional submarines on the international market for around $30 billion, vessels that would better serve Australia’s true needs. According to PACOA’s advice, “they are quieter, lighter and better in shallow operations.”
PACOA has performed a fine community service in enlightening people about the dangers of our Australian governments’ cringing acceptance of such a potentially disastrous deal as AUKUS, especially for future generations.
