AUKUS Is a Radioactive Waste Nightmare: Interview with AUKUS Inquiry Commissioner Karina Lester

The AUKUS public inquiry released its final report last week. The five inquiry commissioners have presented some stark realities around the defence pact between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, that at its heart is supposed to deliver eight Australian-owned nuclear-powered submarines (SSN). And a key issue the inquiry has brought to the fore is radioactive waste storage.

The AUKUS commissioners have identified a massive figure that this nation’s taxpayers will have to front for the storage of radioactive waste. This is on top of the $368 billion cost for the eight SSN, which the inquiry further explains are not guaranteed to ever turn up. So, in terms of management of radioactive waste on this continent, this country is looking at an estimated $180 billion.

The AUKUS public inquiry report further sets out that not only does this additional and never-referred-to $180 billion outlay bring the total cost of the AUKUS deal to around half a trillion dollars, but it also advised that Australia has already gifted $3 billion to US and UK submarine shipbuilding yards with no guarantee of a refund if the deal collapses.

AUKUS Public Inquiry commissioner Karina Lester is warning that First Nations communities are concerned about what the radioactive waste management plan is going to involve, as there is yet-to-be any indication of where a site to bury what will likely be the waste caused by highly-enriched uranium. And such waste remains highly volatile for hundreds of thousands of years.

Pillar I of the AUKUS deal not only involves Australia acquiring eight SSN over the coming decades, but it also sees the establishment of Submarine Rotational Force – West, which involves US and UK SSN rotating out of HMAS Stirling off the coast of Perth from 2027 onwards. So, even if the Australian-owned SSN don’t appear, the Americans will have their own docked here on the ready.

The AUKUS commissioners recommend scrapping the AUKUS submarine deal, which, as it is, appears to involve US and UK submarines being stationed here, with further potential for a second Submarine Rotational Force – East. And while Australia is expected to store its own waste, it further turns out that the US and UK have a decadeslong issue of not being able to store their own waste.

Sydney Criminal Lawyers spoke to AUKUS commissioner Karina Lester, who is a second-generation survivor of the British nuclear testing at Emu Field in South Australia. The Yankunytjatjara Anangu woman explained that a lot of First Nations communities are concerned about how and where the radioactive waste is going to be buried on Country, along with the fears over a base in Port Kembla.

The Surrendering Australia: The AUKUS Deception report is an important community-driven appraisal of the AUKUS deal, because it clarifies many of the concerns about AUKUS that critics have been raising and presents them to the general public. This includes serious doubts around whether the eight fabled nuclear-powered submarines will ever show up.

Your fellow commissioner Peter Garrett told the National Press Club that the $368 billion first flagged to the Australian public as the cost of the AUKUS agreement, works out to a $33 million a day spend for the nation for the next 30 years. However, he too noted that there is an additional estimated $180 billion spend that will go towards radioactive waste management and burial.

This largely unaddressed aspect of the AUKUS deal is of particular significance to First Nations peoples, as we are talking about First Nations land.

So, Karina, what did the inquiry uncover in regard to the storage of radioactive waste on this continent?

The AUKUS Public Inquiry found that it will be Australia’s responsibility to store the nuclear waste produced by these nuclear-powered submarines. The detail is yet to be defined or worked through.

Currently, Australia is going through a consultation process run by the Australian Radioactive Waste Management Framework. Last week, it was having consultations, which will provide feedback and clarity around waste management. But this was not about site selection.

From a First Nations perspective, if the AUKUS agreement says it is Australia’s responsibility to store this nuclear waste, we are concerned it will be stored somewhere in the outback, as we heard from former minister Kim Beazley.

Beazley said that it will be somewhere out there in the outback. This, of course, will be First Nations traditional lands. So, we are concerned about this.

At this stage, there is no site for the waste. But we’ve heard from defence minister Richard Marles that it will be somewhere on Defence land, or future Defence land. But there are no guidelines around where that future Defence land will be.

At this stage in the inquiry, we know that we are responsible for the nuclear waste. This will be weapons grade nuclear waste, which will be concerning, as the waste will be high level and out on First Nations traditional lands.

So, there are unknowns coming out of the public inquiry and one of those is the site for nuclear waste.

When Richard Marles refers to “future Defence land”, does this will mean that they could choose anywhere that is not Defence land for the site and then simply turn it into Defence land? 

Yes. And there are no guidelines or criteria around how that selection process is going to be done, or where the future Defence land could be.

As Traditional Owners in South Australia, we have what is known as the Woomera Prohibited Area. That area is south of where my traditional lands are.

So, I’m up on the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands. The bottom end of those lands touch into the Woomera Prohibited Area.

This is a fairly large area that is used for rocket launching. It is from the mid-north of the South Australian state. So, around Pimba and Woomera. And it goes off into a north-westerly direction, which is currently Defence land.

The site could also be on future Defence land. So, there are some unknowns around this. This includes site location, number of sites and whether it is low- or high-level nuclear waste.

The public inquiry was unable to find out the answers to these questions.

There is a significant amount of money to be spent on the managing of radioactive waste related to the AUKUS agreement. This foresees burial of such waste but no specific site for it. And further, the US and the UK, who have had these types of submarines for decades, haven’t developed any permanent sites to dispose of their own nuclear waste, which is only temporarily stored.

So, what does this mean for this country in terms of what needs to be disposed of here? What will it mean for Traditional Custodians to have such matter buried on Country?

The United Kingdom hasn’t dealt with its waste. We know there are nuclear-powered submarines docked in their shipping yards containing this waste that have been sitting there for quite some time.

We know that the US has also struggled with issues around safety and management of its nuclear waste.

So, this raises concerns from a First Nations perspective, in that because no location has been identified, we don’t know where the waste is going to go and we also don’t know whose waste it is going to be.

The AUKUS agreement says it will be Australia’s nuclear waste. But there is a real fear from mob in South Australia, that it will be opened up to bringing in UK and US nuclear waste.

So, these are the fears and concerns we have as First Nations mob. And again, it would be highly enriched uranium, the weapons grade uranium, which is of real concern.

When you do have highly enriched uranium, it does put a complex layer over the top around keeping the waste secure and managing the facility. As Peter Garrett, our lead commissioner pointed out, there is an additional question around who is going to pay for managing this waste facility.

This is in addition to the $368 billion for the submarines. The cost of waste will be around $180 billion. That is an estimate that involves identifying a location, building the facility, additional infrastructure that is needed, and potentially, having security there as well.

These are all the unknowns looking down the AUKUS pathway, in terms of how we need to manage the nuclear waste that will be produced by these nuclear-powered submarines.

The AUKUS deal involves the establishment of Submarine Rotational Force – West at HMAS Stirling on Noongar land off the coast of Perth in Western Australia. The AUKUS inquiry notes that despite the denials, this appears to be shaping up to be a US submarine base on local soil, involving submarines that might be carrying nuclear warheads.

Further, despite SRF-West being slated to commence next year, USS Colorado is a US submarine parked their now.

So, in your understanding, will HMAS Stirling be a US base? Is it already operating as one?

When you know that a US submarine is currently docked there, it certainly looks like it is.

There is a real concern, which was echoed by fellow Australians throughout the public inquiry, that Australia itself, as a nation, will potentially be a US base.

We know there are already locations of US operations currently here in Australia, such as Pine Gap. There is Tindall up there in the Northern Territory, and there is a potential eastern base location at Port Kembla, and there is HMAS Stirling off the west coast.

So, there is real fear that Australia is turning into a US base. That was loud and clear from locals in WA, the Northern Territory and also, on the east coast in Port Kembla. They have a real fear about a nuclear base being established, and it now looks like that for HMAS Stirling.

The inquiry heard from people living on Dharawal land in the NSW town of Port Kembla. There are fears that another US base might be established there.

So, what is happening with these plans that have been rumoured for years now? And how are the local people of Port Kembla preparing for what is ahead?

The Port Kembla community is very concerned about being threatened to become a US base. This was a strong message from that community.

Many women were concerned about their safety and that of the children. So, there is an uneasy feeling in the Port Kembla community, because it is not yet defined and no decision has yet been made around whether it will become a US nuclear base.

This has been around for a while as you mentioned. People have been talking about identifying a location on the east coast, where submarines could rotate.

Port Kembla is a busy port currently. Some of the commissioners considered how busy the port is, to get an idea of how a US base with nuclear-powered submarines could be located there.

This is going to be an ongoing conversation.

And lastly, Karina, the AUKUS Public Inquiry recommends ending the Australian acquisition of the eight nuclear powered submarines and that the nation further halts ongoing moves towards making HMAS Stirling a US base. This follows an assessment that the eight nuclear powered submarines are unlikely to ever eventuate.

The US, the UK and Australia obviously hadn’t properly planned for the AUKUS deal, when it was thrust upon the Australian public.

So, after hearing more than 150 testimonies during the inquiry, in your opinion, what is the AUKUS deal all about?

One of the strong messages that was coming out of the AUKUS inquiry was that the AUKUS agreement was formed out of a concern that China is a real threat to Australia.

But this is concerning as many who addressed the commissioners during the hearings pointed out that this risk wasn’t there.

We as Australians need to know where the intelligence that China is a threat is coming from. China is one of our biggest trading partners, and Australians need to know whether there is a threat.

The AUKUS agreement looks to be taking Australia towards some conflict in the near future with China. We heard from former defence minister Linda Reynolds, who said that Australia was already under threat from China. This was worrying and concerning for the commissioners to hear.

But we don’t know what that threat is and how real it is. We also don’t know where this intelligence is coming from.

As you go through the agreement, and in hearing people from Australia during the inquiry hearings, there is a real concern that the AUKUS agreement is taking us towards a conflict with the US dictating and telling the country when this will take place, and the UK is also coming on board.

There are still a lot of unknowns around how the AUKUS agreement is going to roll out across Australia. This country also looks to be carrying the weight of the US and the UK in this agreement.

Australia has already invested billions into the UK and US submarine building shipyards. Taxpayers should be concerned that $368 billion is being used to take us to this defence agreement with the US and the UK.

This is real. This is something all Australians should be concerned about. In particular, if your taxpayers’ money is being used to bring in these nuclear-powered submarines that could potentially be submarines that are managed and controlled by the US on Australian soil.

This was one of those areas where we looked into Australia’s sovereignty as well. So, there are real concerns and Australians need to be asking a lot of questions to their local members of parliament and getting some clarity and understanding around what AUKUS is getting us into.

We created a space with this AUKUS public inquiry to hear the voices of Australians on this matter, as our own government didn’t allow us to have a say. They did not run a parliamentary inquiry.

So, there are concerns for all Australians. It is not just a First Nations issue because of the waste problem. It is local communities that are going to be impacted if US bases are going to be put on local soil.

Main image: Aboriginal flag in public domain. AUKUS, submarine and radioactive waste symbol from Shutterstock