David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this Public Works Joint Committee report on the Submarine Rotational Force-West priority works on HMAS Stirling, which is just off the coast of Fremantle, in WA.

I'll start by noting the comments from Senator Fawcett, and I note the extraordinary optimism that Senator Fawcett has that, under any part of AUKUS, the United States would not pay for anything in Australia. In his position, I think it's an incredibly optimistic suggestion that the United States might actually pay anything at all to Australia for AUKUS, not least because the most recent AUKUS 2.0 agreement doesn't actually have a facilitation provision that would permit any money to come from the United States to Australia. It only permits and envisages payments from Australia to the United States. I think the likelihood of the United States paying a red cent for any facility in Australia is, at least if you take them at their word from their most recent AUKUS 2.0 agreement, very modest.

I wish to both speak from my perspective as the defence spokesperson for the Greens and acknowledge the work of so many people in civil society who have been opposed to the nuclear waste facility that is proposed to be constructed at HMAS Stirling, on Garden Island, just a few kilometres off the coast from Fremantle. The report makes it clear that the government is proposing to spend three-quarters of a billion dollars in building a nuclear waste facility on Garden Island. It's not entirely clear from the report what the government intends to do with that nuclear waste facility. It's not entirely clear from the report—in fact, the report is silent on it—what the next stage of nuclear waste handling and storage at HMAS Stirling will be. But we do know, from other commentary, that the government has something like a $7 billion to $8 billion plan for the expansion of HMAS Stirling so that it can accommodate some five US or UK nuclear submarines on a rotational basis in an Australian port.

We do know that it's their ambition to turn what is currently an Australian military facility largely into a US military facility for the forward deployment of US attack class, Virginia class, nuclear submarines. It's notionally also for UK submarines, but the UK submarines can barely get out of the dock or port. It's highly unlikely there will be any UK nuclear submarines, and, if they are there, it will be once in a blue moon. It's largely to turn HMAS Stirling into a very significant US nuclear submarine base for the forward deployment of US nuclear submarines largely so that they can head towards the Malacca straits and seek to be part of the US's containment strategy against China. That's what we're spending three-quarters of a billion dollars for under these public works. It's part of a $7 billion to $8 billion spend from the Australian taxpayer to facilitate a US submarine base.

Obviously, the Greens have significant issues with such a huge amount of public money being spent to create a US nuclear submarine base on our territory. Some might say it's a criminal surrender of our sovereignty as a nation. Indeed, it's also an incredibly dangerous further deployment of US military force in the region. As many even US defence hawks have made clear, if it gets to the point in 2027 or 2028 where there are five nuclear attack class submarines of the US based out of HMAS Stirling, it will make Perth a high-priority target if there is even a limited nuclear exchange involving the United States. It's an incredibly reckless decision by the Australian government without any strategic plan behind it that's public and without any consultation with the people of Perth and Fremantle on whether they want to become a nuclear target to satisfy both Labor's and the coalition's plans to embed ourselves with the US military. I haven't heard that said. Maybe there has been consultation. Maybe the people of Perth have said they're quite happy to become a nuclear target, but I kind of think not.

When you read this report, it's also remarkable that, despite the committee being told that the waste facility is for low-level nuclear waste, the ARPANSA licence that has been granted for the facility also, indeed, permits intermediate-level waste—intermediate-level waste is extremely harmful for human health. It has to be buried metres and metres below the ground and kept away from any interaction with humans for decades and decades. It is remarkable that, although the committee was told that both Defence and ARPANSA have acknowledged that the licence for the facility will permit the storage—perhaps for a short period or perhaps for a long period; we don't know—of intermediate-level nuclear waste, there's no mention in the report about that. The committee were taken to the evidence that Defence and ARPANSA gave in budget estimates about this facility and the licence permitting intermediate-level nuclear waste, and for some reason they don't mention it. The committee notes in its report the significant community unrest about this facility and the concerns about the storage of nuclear waste on First Nations land and on a facility that is so close to Fremantle, in the beautiful Cockburn Sound, but there's no mention of it.

I can't comprehend how the committee failed to reference one of the most significant concerns that came from the community—a concern that is grounded in the evidence given by ARPANSA and Defence. How is it not mentioned? This facility costing three-quarters of a billion dollars is only going to handle nuclear waste coming from UK and US nuclear submarines—it's only going to handle nuclear waste generated by foreign nations' nuclear submarines; that's its only purpose. The committee were told that Defence had acknowledged that, if there was some intermediate, significant servicing required to be done of UK and US submarines, it may entail intermediate-level nuclear waste—things like shielding and other material that's close to the reactor.

They were told that, and yet they didn't mention it. Is it because it's embarrassing to the government that it wasn't mentioned in the public communication that came from ARPANSA when they consulted with the community on the licence? Is it because Defence has failed to mention that in any of its publications? Is it because of this committee, which is dominated by Labor and the coalition, being a part of that collective silence about the real cost and the real risks of AUKUS? Well, I think it is. It's awkward, isn't it? It's awkward pointing out that actually this facility costing Australian taxpayers three-quarters of a billion dollars is only designed to service US and UK nuclear submarines. It's part of a plan to build a substantial US and UK—largely US—nuclear submarine base on Australian soil. It's part of a $7 billion plan to expand that base on Australian soil. It will be part of making Perth a nuclear target. And, in the meantime, it will also be storing intermediate-level nuclear waste, which has a wholly different risk profile to the low-level nuclear waste. All of that is inconvenient, and that's probably why none of it was mentioned in this report.

So we have very real concerns with the recommendations. We have incredible concerns with the decision by the Albanese Labor government, backed in by the coalition, to spend public money to make us less safe. To be quite honest, we're astounded that none of these critical features, none of these critical facts, were included in this committee report.

Question agreed to.