Following the Australian Government wedging its political opposition (eg. the Greens) on AUKUS nuclear submarines - on January 28, 2022 Anonymous provided useful details and viewpoints:
"Thanks Pete. Appreciating the intention of this article, I will once again try to respond with counter arguments. In both cases I think we can demonstrate why support for AUKUS SSNs remains robust. AFAIK [As Far As I Know] opinion polls put support consistently around 60+%. That is better than most governments ever get.
Regarding Labor, I think you have miscategorised their factions slightly. You refer to “Wedging is going on between the Australian Labor Party (ALP) Left faction from the pro-Jobs, pro-Economic Growth ALP Center-Right faction.”
An important clarification is that the Labor Left is the pro-jobs bit that supports local manufacturing, whereas the Labor Right is the economic rationalist bit that supports economic growth. For example, manufacturing industry advocate Kim Carr is in the Labor Left faction. So is Labor’s Leader AnthonyAlbanese.
I live in Adelaide and the area around ASC near Port Adelaide is in Labor heartland. It would be incredibly hard for South Australian (SA) Labor identities like [Labor's Foreign Affairs Spokesperson] Pennie Wong to oppose AUKUS SSN jobs.
This is significant in getting support for AUKUS. The Labor Right is pro-defence (Kim Beazley [a former Defence Minister 1984-1990 amongst many other leadership positions] pushed for the Collins Class). The Labor Left is pro-local manufacturing jobs. Provided the AUKUS SSN build can be shown to have similar local content and jobs to the Attack Class, Labor has very little room to oppose the project. So I am optimistic that Labor, whether they like it or not, will not oppose AUKUS, even if they win government.
The Australian Greens Party are less likely to support the project, but also less of a threat. Realistically, most of their voters are to the left of Labor, making them unlikely to vote Liberal under any circumstances, especially given LNP climate change policy. The credibility of most of the Greens’ arguments against AUKUS can be easily challenged.
Leader of the Greens Adam Bandt’s line about “Floating Chernobyls” is easily disproven based on UK RN and USN safety records. I note it has not been repeated. Attacking AUKUS on the basis of increased risk of nuclear proliferation would have been a more credible line of attack, but the Greens have not taken this up. I think that that has been a tactical mistake and I do not think the Greens have gained support.
The Greens stated positions you have quoted are easily disproven. Their claim that AUKUS does not make Australia safer is contradicted by statements from Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, South Korea, India and Japan. The Greens can hardly claim AUKUS only benefits the Anglo-sphere when so many non-Anglo countries support AUKUS. Likewise suggestions that Australia can ignore defence spending ring hollow when the Greens themselves have expressed concern aboutauthoritarianism and militarism in China, and opposed Chinese treatment of Uighurs and Hong Kong citizens.
Stripped of those justifications, the Greens opposition boils down to an ideological opposition to nuclear power. I see the Greens as highly unlikely to depart from that position but, equally, I do not see that as a sellable position to mainstream Australia. Again, as long as AUKUS remains strictly about nuclear propelled submarines and any actors like Rolls Royce are stopped from trying to sell domestic nuclear power [plants in Australia] in parallel, I do not see how the opposition will amount to a majority. By that I mean, I expect AUKUS will retain majority support whether Labor or Liberals are in power.
For the record, I was involved in the SA inquiry into nuclear waste disposal in SA. [See this ABC article and Australian Radioactive Waste Agency] Technically it is easily feasible; SA geology is perfect. But it does not stack up as an economic proposition. That is even more the case for domestic nuclear power. The latest UK nuclear power reactor, Hinkley Point C, is costing over 20 billion pounds (over budget by >100%), which is more than the cost of the entire Astute Class submarine program (all 7 subs combined). By comparison, a 1GW coal station is $5 billion, 1GW of wind about $2 billion."
Pete Comment
Thanks Anonymous. I have changed my views on Labor Left and Centre-Right factional differences in line with your advice.
My views that nuclear power stations are uneconomical are also in line with yours. New build nuclear power stations might have been economical in the 1960s-70s, but Australia's economic future is better centred on renewables.