Labor is pitching AUKUS as an opportunity for “high tech” jobs. The is conducting a survey which, among other questions, asks if respondents approve of a missile factory adjacent the Newcastle Airport/Williamtown Air Force base.
While the survey is packaged as a “have your say” and “engagement activity”, the old adage that inquiries only go ahead once the outcome has been determined seems to be borne out by the .
The airport is jointly owned by Newcastle and Port Stephens councils.
The survey only arose because Greens councillor Charlotte McCabe correctly questioned why the airport could not follow City of Newcastle’s own and reject the proposed factory.
However, we have been told the consultation “won’t decide whether Astra Aerolab goes ahead” as this decision is “already in progress”.
Furthermore, we are being told how a “new industrial park attracting advanced defence manufacturing and aerospace industries” which is adjacent to a “brand-new international terminal” will be part of a “”.
Apparently this, in turn, will “transform the precinct, diversify income streams and bring new industries to the Hunter”.
More enthusiasm comes with the survey’s entreat to help the weapons developers: “To kick us off, what major industrial or manufacturing sites can you think of in the Newcastle/Hunter/Port Stephens area?”
Posing the question in this way positions Astra Aerolab, the newcomer, as if it is already a major industry.
The last question is the clincher. It asks if “this survey, or the engagement activity today, changed your feelings about Astra Aerolab?”
I always thought a survey should hear my view, not attempt to influence or change it.
It is significant that City of Newcastle says it wants to “develop an informed community position” to address the “potential social, environmental, and economic impacts”.
In other words, it appears to want to figure out how to sell the idea of a missiles factory on Newcastle’s doorstep and, presumably, silence the naysayers.
Astra Aerolab and the other companies waiting for defence hand-outs have a publicly funded advantage over the rest of the region’s manufacturing sector.
Is the council just going along with Labor’s ambitions for Australia to be a big player in the manufacture and export arms? At least we get a chance, thanks to McCabe, to have a say.
Many issues, however, remain unclear.
If skilled workers are obliged to use their expertise in building weapons of mass destruction also be obliged to ignore their impact on workers in other countries?
What impact does the push to manufacture weapons or component parts have on our education system?
The defence lobby is already seeking to spread its influence in the all-too-willing university, TAFE and school sectors, all of which are desperate for funds.
The arms sector not only has an unfair disadvantage in attracting resources and talent, it diverts investment away from peaceful and productive manufacturing, such as the construction and servicing of offshore wind turbines and the development of public transport and housing infrastructure.
What will happen to community values of peace and solidarity if missile manufacture becomes normalised and we are expected to justify and become indifferent to their use?
I’m not against defence jobs, workers have to live, but signing up to get a trade is different to joining up to find yourself travelling to exotic places, meeting exciting people and then killing them.
Despite its pre-determined outcome and its failure to observe the basics of what a survey should be (did the designers ever study Research Methods 101?) I completed each of the questions, including the silly ones.
One of my responses draws on another old adage: “Hammer your swords into ploughshares”.
In other words, redirect weapons’ manufacturing towards social investment in housing, public transport, climate mitigation, renewable energy, soft diplomacy and learn war no more.
[Steve O’Brien is an anti-war/peace activist and a member of . This is adapted from a piece published by the on June 25.]
paddock_sob.jpg
