I won't bother posting any links to media reports about the Australian governments recent announcement regarding its submarine policy and related purchase agreements, so as to not taint the discussion with one media slant vs another.
My view - I with Paul Keating on this and think that this is a really bad decision on any number of fronts.
The costs are huge. I know we are talking decades away, but that just means we are only really guessing what the actual costs will be. As well as somehow finding the money for this, it likely means that funding for other things is likely to be detrimentally impacted (e.g. social housing, health, education, environment, etc.)
Do we actually need submarines? Most dialogue is around the "threat" from China, but I can't really think of any reason why China would engage in a war with Australia, or with our closest neighbours. I've seen reports that suggest China probably won't even push to take over Taiwan, given the perceived global effects of doing that.
As we wait decades for the submarines to be built and delivered, we are apparently to host US nuclear submarines as a stop-gap measure. I'm pretty sure that is against our nuclear-free Pacific treaty obligations and, if you believe China would be aggressive in the future, make us a nuclear target.
We will apparently need to deal with nuclear waste in the future.
and all the nuclear waste going fwd should be stored either under American Embassy, Parliament House, ALP or LNP HQ or Kirribili House.
As if America (poosibly UK) won't be topping up our spent waste with theirs.US and UK waste is piling up as we speak. We are a very scrumptious looking depository destination.
The routes for all the waste streams will not be made public, unless and until there's a major disaster (and maybe not then) AUKUS is a deal about nuclear waste forever, more than it is about 'jobs & growth'.