nuclear-news

SUBMISSION: AUKUS PUBLIC INQUIRY – Friends of Port River

Many in our community feel that too much is being asked of our small Peninsula and that local residents will bear the costs with few benefits. I’d encourage you to highlight the current
environmental harms and further risks, with these heightened by the declaration of the
Osborne SDA.

Friends of Port River (FPR), and its predecessor the Estuary Care Foundation (ECF), have been
concerned about the fate of the Port River and Barker Inlet Estuary and advocating for its care
for ten years. Our concerns have included the surrounding area and community, given

• The significant demands on land, the River and services, from industrial development
  especially the AUKUS development
• The Estuary is home to the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary, is the southern end of the Adelaide
  International Bird Sanctuary, is crucial as breeding grounds for prawns and fish, contributes
  carbon abatement via blue carbon and provides numerous other ecosystem services.
• The nature of the SA planning system which deals individually with each new project,
  without due regard for the cumulative impact.
• The well documented risks of sea level rise, storm surges and flooding commencing with
  the 2005 Port Adelaide Seawater Stormwater Flooding Study1
• The low levels of stormwater protection on the Peninsula, including vulnerable areas east
  of Victoria Road opposite AdBri, and heavy reliance on pumping stormwater to the Port
  River, which could be more challenging as we experience more ‘unprecedented’ weather
  events
• The lack of open space in many areas of the Peninsula, which limits community amenity
  and the potential to divert stormwater
• State Government’s urban infill strategy which seems to pay no regard to risks such as
  stormwater protection and exposure to AdBri’s emissions, nor to the quality of life for new
  and existing residents. The most recent residential developments facilitated by Renewal SA
  around the Port River have very limited open space and almost no community facilities for
  thousands of new residents.

Current environmental harm
Over the last ten years ECF/FPR have witnessed significant environmental harm, and/or failure
to minimise harm in the Estuary and Peninsula, by the SA Government including

• Poor regulation of the Dry Creek Saltfields and failure to prevent the operator pumping
  hypersaline brine into some cracked ponds, leading to the loss of over 24 hectares of vegetation (mangroves and saltmarsh) and with the catastrophic impact continuing
• unchecked.
• Failure to maintain the seawall at Mutton Cove, (now situated within the AUKUS footprint),
  which led to the seawall failing in May 2016 and the banks progressively eroding. Mutton
  Cove abuts the northern end of the ASC, Mersey Road, and the southern end of the
  extended AUKUS development. Despite ANI, Flinders Ports, the City of Port Adelaide
  Enfield, and the Department of Environment, contributing $20K each towards an analysis of
  coastal risks and identification of adaptation options, the 2021 report of that study has not
  been provided to the funding partners and the State Government has continued to allow
  the seawall and banks to fail.
• Failure to remove from the Peninsula, on both sides of the Port River, extensive areas of
  Penrice waste, which the State Government allowed Penrice to dump on Government land
  prior to the company’s liquidation in 2014.
• Failure to develop strategies to protect the community from harm from sea level rise, storm
  surges and flooding, despite numerous studies and apparently ongoing work, by the City of
  Port Adelaide Enfield and the Coast Protection Board.
• Loss of TEC saltmarsh and risks to wetlands at Gillman from a recent State Government
  development at Gillman. Compounding the risks Renewal SA has faulty tidal gates, that
  cannot be shut to limit high tide impacts from the Estuary to the wetlands, or impede
  stormwater discharges.
• Trucks will take spoil 24×7 from the Torrens to Darlington road works to Gillman from Q3,
  2026 to 2031 and while this is currently impacting local roads there’s been no known notice
  to local residents.
• Contact with Commonwealth and State agencies
• About eight years ago ANI reached out to Port Adelaide Residents Environment Protection
• Group (PAREPG) and FPR, as part of their efforts to secure their social licence in the
• community, and we met regularly with them around their infrastructure plans, the future of
• Mutton Cove etc.
• From December 2023, we met with ASA representatives and from May 2024 those meetings
• became monthly with ANI and ASA reps.
• In February 2025, representatives of the Office of AUKUS, Department of Premier and Cabinet
• joined the meetings, and we were advised of State Government planned to develop a Lefevre
• Masterplan, with consultants engaged to develop the Plan. So that the community could be
• consulted we arranged for the consultants to address a Port Adelaide Environment Forum
• meeting and feedback was submitted from the Forum to the DP&C. We understood that the
• draft Lefevre Masterplan would be presented at another Forum meeting this year, but that has
• now been superseded by the Osborne State Development Area process (see below).

Some of the key themes that were raised at the Forum consultation included:

• Locals’ aspirations for the Peninsula including holistic approach, greening, restoration of
  and access to the River, fostering social connections
• Opposition to AUKUS and/or reservations about its impact on our community
• Negative impacts already on environment and community including Harmful Algal Bloom,
  poor canopy cover, AdBri and traffic emissions,
• How the local community might benefit since for example only a small proportion of
  residents (17.2%) both live and work2
  locally
• Lack of infrastructure including water, stormwater, electricity
• Major problems currently with transport and lack of infrastructure to deal with the
  proposed workforce growth and other demands
• Suggestions for social infrastructure and housing developments
• Suggestions for environmental improvements including protection of Biodiversity Park and
  implementation of the ECF Vision for the Estuary.

Assessment of the AUKUS development
The Friends of Port River was able to directly compare the application of Commonwealth and
State development assessment processes when ANI submitted an EIS to the State
Government for the AUKUS development and ASA provided a Strategic Impact Assessment
Report (SIAR) to the Commonwealth Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment
and Water (DCCEEW). (Radiation matters were separate to this process).
As outlined in this blog FPR made written submissions to both. The experience confirmed
FPR’s perception of the many weaknesses in State development assessment processes,
including the failure to include mitigation or best practice measures, proposed by
environmental consultants, to address identified potential risks and the lack of public
reporting e.g. as to whether environmental monitoring has occurred, whether any required
safeguards are applied.

Commonwealth approvals confirm that the community will lose public access to Mutton
Cove, which after losing Falie Reserve, means “a reduction of approximately 50 percent of
accessible public open space within the northern end of the Lefevre Peninsula”. Three and a
half (3.5) hectares of seagrass will be removed.
FPR acknowledges that the Commonwealth approval processes (unlike the State) set
Environmental Outcomes that are to be met throughout the life of the Sub Yard.
There is also much greater visibility and accountability through Commonwealth requirements.
ASA must, within 3 months, develop an Assurance Plan (including as to how the Outcomes will
be met). Biennial reports to DCEEW and independent audits are to be conducted, and
submitted, to DCEEW every six years. Importantly the Assurance Plan, biennial reports and
independent audits are to be made publicly available.

State use of special legislation
Community concern about the State Government’s lack of regard for the natural world, and
our environmental assets, has been heightened by its recent actions in the Adelaide Parklands
and by the declaration of the State’s first State Development Area (SDA) across the Peninsula
and Gillman. In both instances, special legislation has been passed to expedite development.
In the Adelaide Parklands this has meant hundreds of trees being removed, for LIV golf, with
more at risk for a motorcycle grand prix circuit, the State Government ignoring its own
‘significant tree’ safeguards and not referring its proposed actions to the Commonwealth re
EPBC provisions. Adelaide City Council and community concerns have been ignored, despite
more than 50,00 signatures on a public petition.
The Osborne SDA is the first SDA in SA under the State Development Coordination and
Facilitation Act 2025 (SDCF Act). While the Coordinator General explained at a recent
workshop for City of Port Adelaide Enfield Councillors, that his office wouldn’t necessarily step
into the decision making-role of other agencies, the threat is clearly there that he could do so if
presumably time frames for decisions, or the decisions themselves, do not meet political
imperatives. This could be disastrous for the Estuary in relation to the roles of the EPA, the
Coast Protection Board and the Department of Environment (as landowner and guardian of the
Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary).
While community consultation is ‘open’ about the proposed boundaries for the Osborne SDA,
the Coordinator-General (CG) advised that the SDA would look at all the State’s existing land
holdings and seek their most productive use.
Since the proposed boundaries include Mutton Cove, Biodiversity Park, the local golf club, the
Royal SA Yacht Squadron, the Port Adelaide Rowing Club, the Girl Guides etc the CG’s
statements are naturally alarming community members about the fate of Biodiversity Park and
Mutton Cove and troubling organisations that lease State land.

Given the State’s focus is on “Shaping the future of one of South Australia’s premier industrial
regions” and there are no stated Objectives for the SDA, the community want to know what
regard will be given to public safety (e.g. access to and from the Peninsula) and quality of life
and health and well-being of residents (e.g. traffic pollution, loss of further open space) and
the prevention of further degradation of the natural environment.
Many in our community feel that too much is being asked of our small Peninsula and that local
residents will bear the costs with few benefits. I’d encourage you to highlight the current
environmental harms and further risks, with these heightened by the declaration of the
Osborne SDA.

Catherine McMahon
Convenor
Friends of Port River

September 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment

Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry – Eileen Whitehead

When we look in detail at the Pillar II advanced capabilities involved with AUKUS, however, it becomes clear that these will have profound consequences not only for the Australian military, but for the whole of the Australian people in their everyday lives.

698 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zp9kXdUp0AV2B8U5sIhNKFROKGRnr_dG/view

Originally we were searching for submarines whose primary role was to protect Australia’s
coastline, which had been the Collins’ role. A tender process between German, Japanese and
French contenders resulted in the French Attack class (renamed from Barracuda class) submarine
being chosen. The original design of this class was for it to be nuclear powered, but the design
allowed for it to be conventionally powered by diesel-electric – but convertible to nuclear power
should future owners so desire. At A$50 billion, this was Australia’s biggest ever defence
contract

When we look in detail at the Pillar II advanced capabilities involved with AUKUS, however, it
becomes clear that these will have profound consequences not only for the Australian military,
but for the whole of the Australian people in their everyday lives.

These consequences include the privatisation (by stealth) of the Australian Defence Forces, the
growth of a significant local military industrial complex in Australia, to add to the domination of
the Australian economy by US and European arms manufacturers, giving away Australian
research, data and capital to the US and UK military forces, a further integration of the
Australian military into United States military operations around the globe, and the diversion of
Australian know-how, research and creativity to assist the continued growth of the US military –
industrial complex, rather than in the service of useful and sustainable industries in Australia.
Detail of plans for the development of AUKUS Pillar II is sketchy and hidden from public gaze.

Expansion of the military-industrial complex into Australia
The “military industrial complex” was identified as a real threat to democratic control of
government decisions by US President Eisenhower in 1961 – “This conjunction of an immense
military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we
must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must
guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and
will persist.” This threat is even more serious in the US today.
1
In Australia, researchers such as Michelle Fahy have identified the same process growing here – with a “revolving door” of people swapping between weapons corporations, Defence Department positions and political positions. AUKUS development will make this threat of undue influence far worse in Australia.

. AUKUS emphasis is on “dual use technology development” – in other words companies that develop commercially useful applications that also are useful in defence industry. For example,
Australian national security information will be stored in Amazon’s “High Security” cloud.3
In spite of huge private capital needed, significant government investment is also projected to
develop PII industries. For example the $3.6 billion earmarked for the new Advanced Strategic
Capabilities Accelerator.

4 Australian capital and research will be given to US military

4 Australian capital and research will be given to US military
The Pillar II focus on sharing technologies between partners means in practice a mostly one-way
sharing towards the US – that Australian research and IP and Australian government capital will
be provided to build up the US defence industry. AI training of algorithms requires vast amounts
of data sourced from the high tech corporations such as Google and Amazon. Data from
Australians will be swept up in these data collections without any consent – effectively ceding
sovereignty to US tech and military firms.

5 Australian defence industry will continue to be dominated by US defence corporations,
Comments by Richard Marles show that “Our ultimate goal is to supplement and strengthen U.S.
industry and supply chains, not compete with them.”
6. Australian Defence Force will become a US defence contractor
“Interchangeability” means that weapons can be used interchangeably – in practice that means
Australian weapons will be an adjunct to the US weapons arsenal, except that their enormous
price tag will be paid for by Australian taxpayers!
7. Australian people and data they generate will be used to train AI algorithms to help US
become dominant in AI – instead of building AI as a useful tool at the service of all countries.
8. Australian industry is in effect integrated into the US military industrial complex –
serving needs of US government and US military rather than Australia.

AUKUS involves:
● Increased porting, involving servicing and maintenance, of US and UK nuclear
submarines at HMAS Stirling.
● Australia’s purchase of 3-5 second hand Virginia class nuclear subs from the US in the
2030s.
● Building of up to 5 AUKUS nuclear submarines of UK design but eventual construction
at Osborne Shipyard, deliverable from the 2040s.
● The above at a projected cost of A$ 368 billion, (which is already at least double that).

● AUKUS pillar II involving advanced technologies in electronic and maritime warfare.

● AUKUS pillar II involving advanced technologies in electronic and maritime warfare.

September 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment

SUBMISSION to AUKUS Public Inquiry – Slava Volin

Were the public told the truth? Is Australia getting what was promised? Should any
government commit this country to a nominal cost approaching AU$900 billion,
including a multi-generational nuclear waste liability that it refuses to disclose, without a
single independent public audit?

30 June 2026
RE: AUKUS: Moving Beyond Procurement Accountability to the Structural Case for
Contractual Renegotiation or Cancellation

THE DECISION WINDOW: BEYOND THE PROCUREMENT TRAP
Mainstream public analysis regarding AUKUS has focused systematically on delivery
timelines, transparency lapses, and the recent transition to an exclusively second-hand
Virginia-class fleet [1.1].
Other than a hot war, AUKUS is the single most important strategic, fiscal, and
welfare issue in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The underlying metrics and statutory frameworks reveal a deeper structural failure.
AUKUS is not a delayed procurement; it is a fundamentally flawed, legally asymmetrical
pact that subordinates Australian fiscal and operational sovereignty to the statutory
vetoes of United States domestic law [1.1, 1.4]. The fundamental architecture of the
deal compromises Australia’s national independence, cannibalises existing naval
capability, invites strategic aggression, and permanently erodes the tax base and
essential public services of our citizens, completely independent of the final delivery
schedule [1.4].

This submission provides this independent Public Inquiry with the specific financial and
statutory metrics required to expand the terms of national debate. It demonstrates that
the current framework leaves the Commonwealth exposed to absolute foreign vetoes,
multi-generational uncosted liabilities, and a permanent reduction in independent
strategic decision-making [1.4].

THE FRAMING THAT MUST CHANGE: ELEVATING THE CRITIQUE

Focusing civic and parliamentary scrutiny strictly on delivery schedules and cost
updates risks engaging in a narrow project management debate that the Executive can
easily neutralise with revised timelines or minor disclosures. To establish an
unassailable framework for the final Inquiry report, the critique must shift from
procurement tracking to structural capture, targeting how the legal and financial terms of
the pact compromise Australian independence regardless of the physical delivery date.

THE MULTI-FACETED CASE: STRUCTURAL ENTRAPMENT

1. FISCAL REALITY: Uncosted liabilities push the true nominal cost past AU$917
   billion……………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. WELFARE IMPLICATIONS: Structural Opportunity Costs and Public Service
   Erosion…………………………………………………………………………………………
3. 3. LEGAL ASYMMETRY: Structural Vetoes Under United States Law……………………………………………………………………………………….
4. STRATEGIC DISPLACEMENT: The Wrong Weapon for the Wrong War………………………………………
5. OPERATIONAL HOLLOWING: The Maritime Workforce Crisis……………………………………………….
6. SOVEREIGN EXPOSURE: Industrial and Engineering Dependence…………………………………………
7. INDUSTRIAL FRAGILITY: The Vulnerable British Supply Pipeline……………………………………………..

ACTIONABLE STRATEGY FOR THE INQUIRY FINAL REPORT

Based on the statutory asymmetries, fiscal overruns, and industrial constraints compiled
in this evidence baseline, the Inquiry is urged to adopt the following three-tiered
framework as primary recommendations in its final report on 30 October 2026 [P3]:

Recommendation 1: Order an Immediate Forensic Audit and Formal Suspension……….

Recommendation 2: Execute the 12-Month Notice Provision to Cancel the
Submarine Component………………………………………………………………………

Recommendation 3: Brief the Executive on Preliminary Findings to Facilitate a
Managed Strategic Off-Ramp

The Inquiry Commissioners should formally engage the Prime Minister and the Minister
for Defence with a confidential briefing of these evidence-backed preliminary findings
prior to the publication of the final report on 30 October 2026 [P1, P3]. This private
briefing should be executed as a collaborative intervention to assist the government in
managing a rational strategic pivot, utilizing a distinct three-part psychological and
political framing:………………………………………………………………………………….

CROSS-EXAMINATION TRIGGERS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

THE 2028 QUESTION

Were the public told the truth? Is Australia getting what was promised? Should any
government commit this country to a nominal cost approaching AU$900 billion,
including a multi-generational nuclear waste liability that it refuses to disclose, without a
single independent public audit?

This Independent Public Inquiry possesses the unique civic mandate and strategic
separation from major-party factional consensus to ask these questions plainly,
providing an unassailable, evidence-backed reference framework for the future of the
nation.

THE AUKUS MASTER CITATION INDEX (74 VERIFIED SOURCES)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BLukBDqSKjRkp3YNaneLAM8rSG9B3Nus/view

September 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics | Leave a comment