Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry – AUKUS a poorly-conceived, massively-costly and hugely-risky agreement

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

No. 257

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

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

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

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

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

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

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will very likely make the acquisition of outdated submarines a total waste of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

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

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