We can profit from this subs deal if we’re smart

Credit:Illustration: Andrew Dyson

To submit a letter to The Age, email [email protected]. Please include your home address and telephone number. No attachments, please include your letter in the body of the email. See here for our rules and tips on getting your letter published.

AUKUS alliance: Play it right and we can profit from this subs deal

It may be billed as $368 billion over the next 30 years, but the AUKUS deal is not what it seems. In a major deal like this, one benefit that is rarely mentioned is business “offsets”.

These offsets are a corresponding return from the seller in return for a favourable deal. For example, if you buy a supercomputer from a Japanese company worth over $10 million, you can expect some form of returns from the company, e.g. it hires your people for its company or offers to buy your software services in return.

As the base for construction of these submarines, South Australia will be built up for future business and can expect to generate revenue in the billions. In the banking/financial sector, Australia will gain prospective investments in our government bonds (the UK and the US will buy our bonds to help us pay for the submarines). This will generate a lot of “money” for Australia – it may be virtual but it will importantly keep our credit rating above AAA.

Correspondingly, we will have opened up business connections with the UK and the US. The trust that comes with the deal means they will reciprocate in trade as never before.
Australians will be increasingly prioritised for employment visas to these countries. Our reputation will be enhanced globally due to this favourable treatment.

As they say, “money makes money” and it will be perfectly true for this AUKUS investment. China will see us in a different light – not as enemies but as a worthy potential partner due to our connections.

Finally, our business image around the globe will rise. I think what we will invest in AUKUS will ultimately be balanced out by our ability to earn.
Bill Cheng, Ascot Vale

Baffling spending
I don’t think too many people, even ardent anti-war lefties like me, would begrudge the military having a few new toys to play with. But the astronomical amount of money being thrown at the new submarines is totally out of whack, when there are so many real problems to address.

Why Labor would squander money in such a profligate fashion on a Morrison government scheme is truly baffling.
Monty Arnhold, Port Melbourne

What has changed?
The Albanese government has refused to raise Medicare rebates (thus making doctor visits more affordable) and JobSeeker on the basis doing so would be too expensive. Yet it continues to support negative gearing, franking credits, the stage 3 tax cuts, private school funding and the private health insurance rebate. Now it decides it will also spend $368 billion on submarines. It’s as if the Coalition never left office.
Adele Homburg, Elsternwick

Lone voice of truth
Paul Keating reminds us there was once a time, long ago, when Australia had politicians with genuine vision, intellect, insight and ethics. He boldly dares to speak the truth about AUKUS, and it highlights what a lone voice his has become.
Geoffrey McNaughton, Glen Huntly

Backing the wrong sub
Paul Keating’s address to the National Press Club revealed he is 80 years behind the times as far as submarines are concerned. He says Australia can be protected by 45 Collins-class diesel submarines for far less cost than the nuclear subs deal.

In 1943, Britain and the US cracked the defences of diesel-powered subs, which have to surface at night to charge their batteries and get air for their crews. The Allies, using their code breakers and new long-range bombers, sank 40-plus German diesel subs in one month in 1943, causing Admiral Doenitz to state privately that the Battle of the Atlantic had been lost. One of the reasons it is difficult to crew the Collins is they are so dangerous in conflict. Nuclear-powered subs are faster, can generate air from seawater, don’t need to refuel and only surface when they want to.
Graham Keith, Warrnambool

THE FORUM

Smarter ways to respond
Australia would gain more from smart diplomacy than weaponry. It was obvious 10 years ago that the current antagonisms would arise. China had high growth and a sworn determination never again to be invaded or dominated. The US was determined to enforce its policy of “full-spectrum dominance”.

Australia was bound to be caught in the middle but would be much better served by diplomatic manoeuvring to play one against the other. This is an age old strategy by weaker middle and small powers. It was widely used during the Cold War and we are seeing it now in our own region in the Solomon Islands, which has manoeuvred assistance from China, Australia and the US. It’s a risky game. However, the other choice is to remain a minor vassal to one side and accept the exploitation that comes with that.

So, Australia has signed up to yet another price-taking defence deal on top of all the others, while many US energy and tech companies pay little or no tax. And we’ve locked ourselves into a potential disastrous war that would be contrary to our own interests. Which country is smarter?
Mark Freeman, Macleod

Small chance of protection
It seems an enormous waste of resources to spend anything up to $368 billion on nuclear-propelled submarines when there are far more pressing demands such as schools, hospitals, infrastructure and climate concerns. How can a small number of submarines protect us against a nation like China that possesses large numbers of nuclear-propelled and armed submarines?

Surely we must use diplomacy as we cannot win in a major confrontation.
Don Owen, Hawthorn

Charge for materials
Australians will need to accept hard financial decisions to fund this subs purchase. Let’s start by increasing taxes on the miners who are profiting from selling to China the raw materials it is using to increase its military capabilities and thus its potential threat to Australia.
Helen Moss, Croydon

Bait and switch
When this nuclear-powered submarine plan was first floated we were told that, at the end of their lives, the nuclear power units would be returned to their country of origin for dismantling and disposal of the remnant nuclear fuel. Now, all of a sudden, we find that Australia will be responsible for processing the no doubt high-level nuclear waste.

Given that we have, for years, struggled to dispose of the low-level waste from the Lucas Heights reactor, this is a major unknown being imposed on future Australians.
Reg Murray, Glen Iris

Timid approach
No doubt like many people, I thought before the federal election that Anthony Albanese was sitting back and giving Morrison, Frydenberg, Dutton, Tudge et al enough rope. And yes, they did lose the election. But afterwards, the Albanese who emerged was not cunning but timid. Every positive step since the election has been smaller than it could and should have been.

And now, hundreds of billions of dollars has been committed to secondhand submarines of doubtful robustness and nuclear submarines way off in the never-never.

It would appear that nobody in the entire Labor government has reviewed the Liberal war plans or checked the veracity of US propaganda.
Margaret Callinan, Hawthorn

Yes, we’re working
I agree with Ross Gittins in his celebration of Australia’s wider labour force participation (Comment, 17/3). However, in the Whitlam years couples could survive with one breadwinner. Now they can’t. Most couples on average incomes have to work and in many cases take on multiple jobs to survive. Don’t me get started on super and retirees. There are many who have to work way beyond their retirement age to make ends meet. The employment figures are a furphy.
Ian Anderson, Surrey Hills

Gig shift
The high employment numbers mentioned by Ross Gittins in his excellent article are welcome. But for once he has left me less than fully informed by not specifying the percentage of employed who are genuinely full-time. Increasingly we seem to live in a “gig economy” world of partial employment for many. Full-time work appears to be an aggregation of hours from two or more jobs and a struggle to bring in enough income to meet the rate of inflation and increased housing costs.
Hardly the sunny uplands of true full employment.
Brian Kidd, Mt Waverley

Don’t judge
Perhaps the dispute regarding a woman’s right to breastfeed in a courtroom should factor in a degree of empathy by everyone. The right to breastfeed must be supported by the community. Equally, perhaps those women demanding the right to breastfeed in a courtroom should look the person before the court in the eye and reflect on how their activism affects that person. Courts change people’s lives and that is a grave matter.

Even better, perhaps those women should look at their breastfeeding child and imagine them 20 years into the future and possibly in front of a judge. It’s a fair bet these women would demand the full focus of the court in dealing with their child’s legal matter.
Joanna Wriedt, Eaglemont

Passing the costs
The decision by the City of Yarra to increase rates through a “bin tax” (The Age, 15/3) has overshadowed the concerning plan to move to fortnightly waste collection. This would have numerous unintended consequences.

Many City of Yarra residents live in apartment buildings, which store their rubbish bins in underground garages. Fortnightly waste collection would lead to overfilling waste bins, generating a rodent issue. Owners will be forced to take on the extra cost of private rubbish collection.
Meanwhile, the private operators will make collections on different days, increasing noise pollution and air pollution from trucks. Ultimately the outcome will be worse for the planet.
Rosemarie Speidel, Clifton Hill

Waste solutions
I’m not sure why the “bin tax” protesters think that Yarra should be different from all other Victorian councils that have understood the need for a separate waste charge. As a resident of Yarra my primary concern in regard to waste is that council should be aiming to minimise waste going to landfill, and to maximise recycling and a circular approach to waste management. Waste, particularly food waste, going to landfill is a cause of greenhouse emissions, and Yarra needs to be able to manage this as effectively as possible.

This requires funds, and I note that the state government’s rate cap on councils makes financial management very difficult.
Kerry Echberg, Princes Hill

Protect the head
It’s patently obvious the AFL and the NRL should make the wearing of helmets mandatory. Helmets will not eradicate head injuries but they may lower the occurrence and severity.
Greg Bardin, Altona North

Glory in violence
Is there some hypocrisy at play when governments and football codes are spending millions on investigating and mitigating concussion in sport while many in the community celebrate the brutal images of boxers doing their darndest to inflict as much damage as possible to the heads of their opponents, and glory in the result when the loser is reduced to a pulp?
Frank Vagg, Torquay

Words matter
In 1948, American folk singer Woody Guthrie wrote the words to what would become his song Deportees. Migrant workers being forcibly sent back to Mexico by the US government died in a plane crash – but after their deaths they were referred to not by name but only by the label “deportees”.
This use of language by governments to attempt to dehumanise refugees continues today. The UK government has adopted Australia’s odious “Stop the Boats” slogan to try to deflect from the fact that it is actually desperate people they are turning away, individuals with names and families and life stories.

Guthrie’s haunting lyrics echo nearly 80 years later, damning governments that continue to promote fear and xenophobia rather than compassion for our fellow humans.
Bruce McClure, Middle Park

Offer solutions
From the comfort of faraway Australian sitting rooms, it’s easy for your correspondents to lambast UK minister Suella Braverman’s policy response to the ever-increasing number of people risking their lives and those of their families by travelling across the English Channel in small and frequently unseaworthy vessels.

However, before they continue to criticise, they should ask themselves, “What would I do to address this problem which wouldn’t make it even worse?”
Ivan Glynn, Vermont

Pricey cuppa
On Monday I paid $6.06 for a cappuccino at my local pub. The price included a 15 per cent public holiday surcharge and a 1 per cent credit card surcharge. To the cafe owners and baristi of Melbourne, at this price I will no longer tolerate coffee that has sloshed over the cup into the saucer, as it drips onto my clothes when the cup is lifted. Nor will I accept black coffee without the delicious “crema” on top, which indicates a well-made coffee and good machine maintenance. I’m sending it back and it will be made and served properly.

While I’m at it, for $6.06 learn the difference between a cappuccino and a cafe latte. A cafe latte is not a cappuccino served in a glass without chocolate on top. Hint: the difference is in the name – latte.
Geoffrey Conaghan, St Kilda

And another thing

Credit:Illustration: Matt Golding

US alliance
Shoring up America’s flagging pre-eminence comes at a huge cost. Let’s hope it’s
only monetary.
Bernd Rieve, Brighton

Anthony Albanese
The government can come up with a 30-year plan for defence, but when it comes to infrastructure, aged care and education, it can’t plan beyond the next election.
Peter Heffernan, Balaclava

Is this Albanese’s “Let them eat cake” moment?
Anne Wood, Birregurra

From what we’ve been seeing and reading lately, Albo has taken his place in world affairs with ease.
Hugh McCaig, Blackburn

Scott Morrison
Your correspondent’s lauding of Scott Morrison’s decision to scrap the deal for French submarines (Letters, 14/3) is misplaced – the decision was made in Washington.
Lucy Niu, Mount Waverley

George Brandis thinks AUKUS will be Morrison’s legacy? I would have thought that robo-debt, years of policy inertia and multiple secret ministries would far outweigh any submarine acquisition.
Frank Flynn, Cape Paterson

Submarines
Remember – they are nuclear-armed submarines, not nuclear-powered. Aren’t they?
Vivienne Fry, Beaumaris

Of all the dumb ideas our politicians and military have, the spending of more than $300,000,000,000 over 32 years on a few underwater targets, takes the cake.
Alan Williams, Port Melbourne

Hopefully, with the submarine project now a reality for the next 30 years, more politicians will come to understand that the word is nuclear, not “nucular”.
David Withington, Berwick

How can the purchase of weapons produce peace? Weapons are for war!
Suzanne Palmer-Holton, Seaford

Patrick Elligett sends an exclusive newsletter to subscribers each week. Sign up to receive his Note from the Editor.

Most Viewed in National

From our partners

Source: Read Full Article