When AUKUS was first announced by then Prime Minister Scott Morisson, simultaneously kicking sand in the face of the French after withdrawing an $80billion submarine contract, it was greeted with a wide range of reactions in Australia.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
For some, it would give us a capability that would project our power and influence forward in a troubled time for our region.
For others, it was a reinforcement of traditional alliances with the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
For yet others it represented a turning point from which we could never retreat both in terms of dependence on the US technology and systems and also in terms of a nuclear future.
For all the years of digging up and exporting uranium, despite much community opposition, Australia had, until now rejected a nuclear pathway in all its forms.
This rejection was hard won after years of community action and pressure on politicians.
That it was, at one time accepted across the political divide was evidenced by the fact that it was John Howard, not a noted progressive, who introduced the moratorium on nuclear power in Australia.
Successive federal governments have maintained that position. Until recently support for that position was constant across the political spectrum.
What AUKUS has done is to put wind in the sails of those, particularly in the National Party and more recently the Liberal Party, who would have us adopt nuclear power.
Various National Party people are running round telling anyone who will listen that we should build nuclear power stations, both small modular reactors and traditional nuclear power stations. This is despite an almost unanimous outpouring of opinion against this course of action from communities across Australia, the business community and scientists.
They point out that nuclear is the most expensive and slowest available option for addressing carbon emissions or global warming.
It would take so long that we are more likely to see the AUKUS submarines deployed in Australia before even the first nuclear power plant was in operation.
There is also no plan for what to do with the significant amounts of nuclear waste in their grand vision.
The fine print in the AUKUS agreement is revealing the implications for Australia and Australians, turning it from defence pact into Trojan horse.
Not only do we need to get technicians trained up to work on the submarines, we have to transfer billions of dollars to support the production capabilities in both the US and the UK. In fact, Australia recently began transferring over $7billion dollars (three to one and four to the other) to manufacturers in those countries.
Don't tell me Australia is broke and that the Federal Government can't find money do something about the rental crisis, homelessness, Medicare, rural health and many other issues.
It is not a matter of can't. It is a matter of won't!
It also emerged this week that, as part of the AUKUS agreement, Australia may be required to accept nuclear waste from the US and the UK.
Several previous federal governments, of both persuasions, have tried unsuccessfully to develop nuclear waste storage facilities in various parts of the country. Local communities would not accept them then and I can pretty much guarantee that they will not accept them now.
During the nuclear disarmament campaign years, many local councils declared themselves "Nuclear Free Zones". I think it is time to revisit this strategy, especially in areas represented by the pro-nuclear zealots.
