High Technology Industry Williamtown

1. Not in the Public Interest.
The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that the public interest must be considered as part of the assessment (Part 4, Division 4.3, Section 4.15).

This development for defence related manufacturing and software development is clearly not in the public interest.

Weapons manufacturing contributes to an arms race between nations and too often takes the lives of innocent civilians.

Investing in this facility will divert skilled workers away from the critical transition to low carbon industries and renewable energy generation. Time is running out to meet our climate targets, and we are simultaneously experiencing a skills shortage in the Hunter. We cannot afford to invest in the defence industry when our collective priority must be ensuring a rapid and well planned transition.

2. Councils must act ethically.
The Local Government Act states that councils must act ethically in the interests of the local community (Section 8Ah)

Newcastle Council should collect revenue from sources that are in line with its own policies. With Astra Aerolab, it is directly contravening its own Investment and Borrowing Policy which includes Environmental and Social Investment Guidelines (7.1.4) that specifically identify ‘production or supply of armaments’ as investment that should be avoided as it is considered a socially harmful activity.

Collecting revenue from an undisclosed aerospace contractor is not in line with the ethical standards that the community expects from Newcastle Council and Port Stephens Council.



3. Increasing ties between universities and weapons manufacturers is unethical.
The Environmental Impact Statement highlights the benefits of the ‘High Technology Williamtown’ proposal as including ‘increasing research capabilities’ with the University of Newcastle. Increasing ties between the University and weapons manufacturers is raising serious concerns amongst students, staff and the broader community. Student movements across Australia are revealing ties between weapons manufacturers and research facilities and will continue to protest against these agreements.

4. This project is on PFAS contaminated lands within the Tomago Sandbeds Catchment Area.
The independent review into PFAS contamination must be completed before this DA can be finalised. There is insufficient information for managing PFAS contaminants and protecting the Tomago Sandbeds.

I strongly object to this development ‘High Technology Industry Williamtown', and appeal to the planning authority to refuse this application. This project makes us less safe as we become more of a target and I don’t want Council to be enriched by the industries of war and weaponry. I want Council to remain focused on encouraging green energy industries and rapid decarbonisation and the industries of a healthy environment and future for our children.

1. Not in the Public Interest.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that the public interest must be considered as part of the assessment (Part 4, Division 4.3, Section 4.15).

This development for defence related manufacturing and software development is clearly not in the public interest.

Weapons manufacturing contributes to an arms race between nations and too often takes the lives of innocent civilians.

Investing in this facility will divert skilled workers away from the critical transition to low carbon industries and renewable energy generation. Time is running out to meet our climate targets, and we are simultaneously experiencing a skills shortage in the Hunter. We cannot afford to invest in the defence industry when our collective priority must be ensuring a rapid and well planned transition.



2. Councils must act ethically.

The Local Government Act states that councils must act ethically in the interests of the local community (Section 8Ah)

Newcastle Council should collect revenue from sources that are in line with its own policies. With Astra Aerolab, it is directly contravening its own Investment and Borrowing Policy which includes Environmental and Social Investment Guidelines (7.1.4) that specifically identify ‘production or supply of armaments’ as investment that should be avoided as it is considered a socially harmful activity.

Collecting revenue from an undisclosed aerospace contractor is not in line with the ethical standards that the community expects from Newcastle Council and Port Stephens Council.



3. Increasing ties between universities and weapons manufacturers is unethical.

The Environmental Impact Statement highlights the benefits of the ‘High Technology Williamtown’ proposal as including ‘increasing research capabilities’ with the University of Newcastle. Increasing ties between the University and weapons manufacturers is raising serious concerns amongst students, staff and the broader community. Student movements across Australia are revealing ties between weapons manufacturers and research facilities and will continue to protest against these agreements.

4. This project is on PFAS contaminated lands within the Tomago Sandbeds Catchment Area.

The independent review into PFAS contamination must be completed before this DA can be finalised. There is insufficient information for managing PFAS contaminants and protecting the Tomago Sandbeds.

I object to this development ‘High Technology Industry Williamtown', and appeal to the planning authority to refuse this application on the below grounds:

1. Not in the Public Interest.

The Enviromental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that the public interest must be considered as part of the assessment (Part 4, Division 4.3, Section 4.15).
This development for defence related manufacturing and software development is clearly not in the public interest.
Weapons manufacturing contributes to an arms race between nations and too often takes the lives of innocent civilians.
Investing in this facility will divert skilled workers away from the critical transition to low carbon industries and renewable energy generation. Time is running out to meet our climate targets, and we are simultaneously experiencing a skills shortage in the Hunter. We cannot afford to invest in the defence industry when our collective priority must be ensuring a rapid and well planned transition. Morality should prevail over economic gains. As our current economic system relies on continuous growth it is unsustainable and is causing harm to the public in various ways. We must ALWAYS place the health and safety of the public over economic gains to pave the way to a peaceful world.

2. Councils must act ethically.

The Local Government Act states that councils must act ethically in the interests of the local community (Section 8Ah).
Newcastle Council should collect revenue from sources that are in line with its own policies. With Astra Aerolab, it is directly contravening its own Investment and Borrowing Policy which includes Environmental and Social Investment Guidelines (7.1.4) that specifically identify ‘production or supply of armaments’ as investment that should be avoided as it is considered a socially harmful activity.
Collecting revenue from an undisclosed aerospace contractor is not in line with the ethical standards that the community expects from Newcastle Council and Port Stephens Council.

3. Increasing ties between universities and weapons manufacturers is unethical.

The Environmental Impact Statement highlights the benefits of the ‘High Technology Williamtown’ proposal as including ‘increasing research capabilities’ with the University of Newcastle. Increasing ties between the University and weapons manufacturers is raising serious concerns amongst students, staff and the broader community. Student movements across Australia are revealing ties between weapons manufacturers and research facilities and will continue to protest against these agreements.

4. This project is on PFAS contaminated lands within the Tomago Sandbeds Catchment Area.

The independent review into PFAS contamination must be completed before this DA can be finalised. There is insufficient information for managing PFAS contaminants and protecting the Tomago Sandbeds.

As a member of the public within Newcastle Council I do not want weapons manufacturing in my community. I do not support war or violence, and I don't care who is going to be missing out on millions of dollars in profit if this project does no go ahead.

I object to this project as I believe it is not in the best interests of the community of Newcastle and the surrounding areas… I believe there is undisclosed information regarding development investors and the possible links to multinational arms manufacturers that are complicit in war crimes and genocide… the applicants for the DA are not of sufficient moral character and this rings alarm to the very real possibility of corruption of the processes of legal requirement

I object to the proposal of weapons facility outside my town. Newcastle and it's citizen's deserves a future that is ethical and clean, steering away from coal and into weapons is not that fair or just future. I do not want to be assosciated with a city that brings death and destruction to people across the globe. We have witnessed directly what inhumane and deadly impacts new weapons technology can wreak on innocent people. I refuse for Newcastle to become complicit in manufacturing/managing weapons and fuelling the war machine. Newcastle deserve a say in the future of their city!

1.Ethical Concerns: Profiting from Weapons manufacturing is unethical, as it contributes to global arms races and conflicts. This can be particularly troubling for communities that value peace and ethical governance.

2.Environmental Impact: Weapons manufacturing has significant environmental consequences, including pollution and habitat destruction. This can negatively affect local ecosystems and the health of residents.

3. Public Safety: The presence of weapons manufacturing facilities poses safety risks to the local community, including the potential for accidents and increased security threats.

4. Economic Diversion: Investing in weapons manufacturing will divert resources and skilled labour away from other critical industries, such as renewable energy and technology, which are essential for sustainable economic growth.

5. Community Opposition: The Local communities, including students and staff at nearby institutions, strongly oppose the presence of weapons manufacturers due to ethical and safety concerns. This leads to social unrest and lack of community support for local government decisions.

Thank you for your time.

As a community group based in the Newcastle, Maitland, Port Stephens and Lake Macquarie are, we object to this development application on the basis of the following:
1. We do not believe this is a permissible development under Port Stephens LEP 2013 and that it has been inadequately described in order to appear to be a "light industrial" development. The presence of B-double trucks and the floor space outlined indicates this is a more significant facility. Furthermore, the level of secrecy concerning the known intended occupant is concerning and the community should know who this is, because if they have a record for example of environmental harm or illegal actions, we need to know this.

2. We reject the expansion of weapons production in our communities and demand that we transition to a low carbon economy. This facility puts us at greater risk of military attack and is a threat to peace and security.

3. We object to Council's deriving income from defense-related industries and this is in breach of Newcastle Council's own policy which explicitly excludes arms and armaments. We also assert that weapons components and raw material inputs constitute armaments as outlined in International Humanitarian Law.

4. Social and environmental impacts - this area is significantly contaminated with PFAS and studies on the health and ecological impacts have not been progressed significantly enough to enable effective management. This area is zoned as bushfire and flood prone, is a biodiversity offset area and koala habitat. The development is inconsistent with Port Stephens Strategic Plan particularly (a) Conservation of biodiversity, (b) Improving resilience to hazards and climate change, and (c) Protecting and preserving land for agriculture. The EIS only engaged two community groups, both associated with the Defense industry and completely failed to engage any other environmental or community groups. Hunter Jobs Alliance, Hunter Community Alliance and Hunter Renewal, amongst others, should be consulted.

5. We are already facing a serious skills shortage and increased weapons manufacturing will divert this workforce further. This is an issue particularly in manufacturing and in the field of STEM, where we vitally need this workforce for local and regional industry and most importantly for renewable energy.

6. International Humanitarian Law experts assert that University ties with weapons manufacturers are a breach of IHL, including the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide.

I object to this development ‘High Technology Industry Williamtown', and appeal to the planning authority to refuse this application.

1. Not in the Public Interest.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that the public interest must be considered as part of the assessment (Part 4, Division 4.3, Section 4.15).

This development for defence-related manufacturing and software development is clearly not in the public interest.

Weapons manufacturing contributes to an arms race between nations and too often takes the lives of innocent civilians.

Investing in this facility will divert skilled workers away from the critical transition to low-carbon industries and renewable energy generation. Time is running out to meet our climate targets, and we are simultaneously experiencing a skills shortage in the Hunter. We cannot afford to invest in the defence industry when our collective priority must be ensuring a rapid and well-planned transition.



2. Councils must act ethically.

The Local Government Act states that councils must act ethically in the interests of the local community (Section 8Ah)

Newcastle Council should collect revenue from sources that align with its policies. With Astra Aerolab, it is directly contravening its own Investment and Borrowing Policy which includes Environmental and Social Investment Guidelines (7.1.4) that specifically identify ‘production or supply of armaments’ as an investment that should be avoided as it is considered a socially harmful activity.

Collecting revenue from an undisclosed aerospace contractor does not align with the ethical standards that the community expects from Newcastle Council and Port Stephens Council.



3. Increasing ties between universities and weapons manufacturers is unethical.

The Environmental Impact Statement highlights the benefits of the ‘High Technology Williamtown’ proposal including ‘increasing research capabilities’ with the University of Newcastle. Increasing ties between the University and weapons manufacturers are raising serious concerns amongst students, staff and the broader community. Student movements across Australia are revealing ties between weapons manufacturers and research facilities and will continue to protest against these agreements.

4. This project is on PFAS-contaminated lands within the Tomago Sandbeds Catchment Area.

The independent review into PFAS contamination must be completed before this DA can be finalised. There is insufficient information for managing PFAS contaminants and protecting the Tomago Sandbeds.

The proposed development states that "The facility is to be used for hardware manufacture, assembly, integration, testing, verification of defence related components and maintenance, software development and administration to assist in the delivery of defence acquisition programs."

We cannot confirm what these " defence related components" are, how these " defence related components" will be used, who these " defence related components" will be used by or who these " defence related components" will be used upon.

This is especially relevant as we see

Australian "defence related components" being used in a plausible genocide as defined by the ICJ.

In West Papua, shocking abuses against indigenous Papuans have been taking place by security forces, with which Australia provides "defence related components", according to UN-appointed rights experts.

These cannot be considered socially and environmentally responsible outcomes of this development.

The Newcastle LEP 2012 states in Section 1.2 Aims of Plan (2) The particular aims of this Plan are as follows (c) to contribute to the economic well being of the community in a socially and environmentally responsible manner.......

The Newcastle DCP 2023 states in Section 5.0 Purpose The purpose of this planning instrument is to:
1. Give effect to the aims, objectives and other provisions of LEP 2012.

We cannot confirm that this development will contribute to the "economic well being of the community in a socially and environmentally responsible manner" due to the nature of what will be manufactured and how the product of manufacture will be used and as such it cannot be shown that the development meets the criteria of the Newcastle LEP 2012 or Newcastle DCP 2023.

I object to the development and suggest that it should not be approved.

I object to the proposed development ‘High Technology Industry Williamtown', and appeal to the planning authority to refuse this application.
1. Not in the Public Interest.
The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that the public interest must be considered as part of the assessment (Part 4, Division 4.3, Section 4.15). This development for defence related manufacturing and software development is clearly not in the public interest. Weapons manufacturing contributes to an arms race between nations and too often takes the lives of innocent civilians.

Investing in this facility will divert skilled workers away from the critical transition to low carbon industries and renewable energy generation. Time is running out to meet our climate targets, and we are simultaneously experiencing a skills shortage in the Hunter. We cannot afford to invest in the defence industry when our collective priority must be ensuring a rapid and well planned transition.

2. Councils must act ethically.
The Local Government Act states that councils must act ethically in the interests of the local community (Section 8Ah). Newcastle Council should collect revenue from sources that are in line with its own policies. With Astra Aerolab, it is directly contravening its own Investment and Borrowing Policy which includes Environmental and Social Investment Guidelines (7.1.4) that specifically identify ‘production or supply of armaments’ as investment that should be avoided as it is considered a socially harmful activity.

Collecting revenue from an undisclosed aerospace contractor is not in line with the ethical standards that the community expects from Newcastle Council and Port Stephens Council.

3. Increasing ties between universities and weapons manufacturers is unethical.
The Environmental Impact Statement highlights the benefits of the ‘High Technology Williamtown’ proposal as including ‘increasing research capabilities’ with the University of Newcastle. Increasing ties between the University and weapons manufacturers is raising serious concerns amongst students, staff and the broader community. Student movements across Australia are revealing ties between weapons manufacturers and research facilities and will continue to protest against these agreements.

4. This project is on PFAS contaminated lands within the Tomago Sandbeds Catchment Area.
The independent review into PFAS contamination must be completed before this DA can be finalised. There is insufficient information for managing PFAS contaminants and protecting the Tomago Sandbeds.

Free Palestine Newcastle objects to this development on the basis that:
- It will contribute to the production of weapons and harm to communities and the environment globally. At a time of escalating conflict, several concurrent genocides (Palestine and Sudan), and some of the worst crimes against humanity being tried in international courts, industry and the agencies which regulate it should be making decisions that advance and protect life. This development will profit a few people and harm an untold number more.
- Government entities, including local councils and universities, have ethical and legal conflicts with the production of arms and armaments and should not have ties or revenue streams associated with defense.
- This development will impact the landscape, biodiversity and social fabric of our communities. People in the area have already suffered serious health and psychological impacts as a result of Defense's negligent PFAS contamination. The area had been reserved as a biodiversity offset, is flood and bushfire prone and is dangerously close to the already climate affected Stockton Beach.
- Community and environmental groups have not been consulted which is a failure to meet the requirements of planning legislation (noting that two defense family groups were consulted, however given the issues outlined above this falls well short of what is reasonable).

See Attachment.

I just want to add to my submission because I am really concerned by this development proposal for ‘High Technology Industry’ at Williamtown.

Necastle City Council is in direct contradiction to the Investment and Borrowing Policy that it has developed for itself! There are guidelines within this policy which identify ‘production or supply of armaments’ as things which should not occurr - they are socially harmful activities. What happened to NCC’s endorsment of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015? There should be an alignment with Goal 16 which is to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development - this proposal is in clear violation to that.

I also note that in the EIS for this proposal "The eastern area, covering the highest priority area for
development, has been the area assessed for impact and mitigation as part of this updated ACHA
and the accompanying Archaeological Technical Report (ATR). Further assessment of the western
area is required to be incorporated into a separate or updated ACHA, subsequent to the proponent
considering ways to minimize harm to the Aboriginal archaeological sites within the western area
from the proposed development”

IT is unfathomable to me that a proposal can go ahead when a whole section, namely the ‘western area’ of the site has not been considered within this EIS! Nothing further should occur until there has been a full investigation into the cultural and heritage significance of this land and concrete harm minimisation strategies in place and assessments conducted, to protect Aboriginal archaelogical sites in the proposed development areas.

there will be siginifcant loss and disturbance of Aboriginal archaelogical sites and the ‘mitigation’ is just to surface collect!

Aboriginal people do not need another display case in a museum or company foyer - there is no compensation for the loss of history and connection!

I object to this development ‘High Technology Industry Williamtown', and appeal to the planning authority to refuse this application.

1. Not in the Public Interest.

The Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, states that the public interest must be considered as part of the assessment (Part 4, Division 4.3, Section 4.15).

This development for defence related manufacturing and software development is clearly not in the public interest.

Weapons manufacturing contributes to an arms race between nations and too often takes the lives of innocent civilians.

Investing in this facility will divert skilled workers away from the critical transition to low carbon industries and renewable energy generation. Time is running out to meet our climate targets, and we are simultaneously experiencing a skills shortage in the Hunter. We cannot afford to invest in the defence industry when our collective priority must be ensuring a rapid and well planned transition.



2. Councils must act ethically.

The Local Government Act states that councils must act ethically in the interests of the local community (Section 8Ah)

Newcastle Council should collect revenue from sources that are in line with its own policies. With Astra Aerolab, it is directly contravening its own Investment and Borrowing Policy which includes Environmental and Social Investment Guidelines (7.1.4) that specifically identify ‘production or supply of armaments’ as investment that should be avoided as it is considered a socially harmful activity.

Collecting revenue from an undisclosed aerospace contractor is not in line with the ethical standards that the community expects from Newcastle Council and Port Stephens Council.



3. Increasing ties between universities and weapons manufacturers is unethical.

The Environmental Impact Statement highlights the benefits of the ‘High Technology Williamtown’ proposal as including ‘increasing research capabilities’ with the University of Newcastle. Increasing ties between the University and weapons manufacturers is raising serious concerns amongst students, staff and the broader community. Student movements across Australia are revealing ties between weapons manufacturers and research facilities and will continue to protest against these agreements.

4. This project is on PFAS contaminated lands within the Tomago Sandbeds Catchment Area.

The independent review into PFAS contamination must be completed before this DA can be finalised. There is insufficient information for managing PFAS contaminants and protecting the Tomago Sandbeds.

Hi, I object to this project being built in my home city. This project is not in the public interest nor my own. According to Section 8Ah of the Local Government Act, the council must act ethically in the interests of the local community. How can you say a weapons manufacturer is in any world remotely ethical?

I object to the development of High Technology Industry at Williamtown ( Astra Aerolab ) on the grounds that it is not in the public interest. Newcastle Council should be focusing on the critical transition to low carbon industries and renewable energies .WAR IS DEVASTATING FOR OUR PLANET. 
Newcastle Council's own Investment and Borrowing Policy includes Environmental and Social Investment guidelines (7.1.4)  that specifically identify 'production or supply of armaments' as investment that should be avoided as it is considered a socially harmful activity .
As a teacher I am disturbed about  ties between Newcastle University and weapons manufacturers  and believe universities should be places for the betterment of mankind , not its destruction. 

As a life long resident of the Port Stephens and Newcastle area I’m concerned by the lack of transparency surrounding this development and call for a much clearer and honest dialogue with the communities it affects.
Without going into the bigger moral and ethical arguments against this development, I state for the record that the PFAS contamination of surrounding areas from previous activities at the site (and subsequent devastation of the lives and livelihoods of a number of local families) gives me little faith that councils will or are acting in the best interests of the communities they are supposed to advocate for.
More open and clear dialogue with constituents is necessary to address myriad concerns held by the people who vote for you.

Please do your job and listen/take these concerns seriously.

There are many reasons why I object to this project however, the primary reason for my objection is both the environmental and also undue harm that a project such as this could bring to the people of the Hunter Region. To have a major weapons manufacturing facility int he Hunter Region, near a densley populated area is not only irresponsible but highly disrepectuful to the people of the Hunter Region. To lock the local economy into becoming a weapons manufacturing hub as a replacement for coal mining completley disregards the harm that can be done to local workers due to their NEED to work and often times not having other choices to ensure that their families are taken care of, to have this kind of industry in the local community is irresponsible and disregards local needs for sustainable jobs. This project would pose a serious threat to peace and security in our region. The ethics and legality of such a development is somethign that all councillors shoudl consider - what kind of future are they building for their families?
The local community has not been engaged with in regard to this development and I am sure that if there was open and transparent discussions that more int he Hunter Region woudl object.
In all paperwork submitted thus far it seems that the 'intended occupier' has not been named, again, a lack of transparencey in regard to this, has in many ways obscured from the general public what is proposed.
The local Aboriginal community have voiced that there are many artefacts of cultural significance near the proposed site and to completely disregard this is to disregard the needs of the Worimi Traditional owners and prioritise the development over the conservation of culturally significant sites.
There are so many inconsistencies with local govt and economic plans mostly in part with environmental goals for said plans.

I write to you to express my objection to the development application titled ‘High Technology Industry Williamtown’ (Application No. SSD-68721962).

Firstly, this development is not appropriate to the ‘light industry’ zoning of the site. While the proposal has been titled ‘High Technology Industry Williamtown’, it does not meet the definition of ‘high technology industry’ for the purposes of zoning criteria.

Simply incorporating electronics and software does not alone determine the character of a manufacturing facility to be ‘light industry’. The significant size of the manufacturing area of the building, as well as truck and van movements indicate this activity does not fit within the category. The amenity of the area will be affected beyond acceptability for its zoning through the activities relating to weapons manufacturing, and also by making the vicinity a potential target for attack by foreign militaries.

Secondly, this development is not in the public interest - globally or locally.

Expansion of the weapons industry contributes to a dangerous arms race and to the death and misery of people the world over.

Locally, expansion of the weapons industry in the Hunter region paints a target on our back in the event of conflict, and makes our workers less safe. I also believe it is against the interests of the Hunter region, and NSW as a whole, to gain a reputation for our heavy involvement in an industry of death.

Furthermore, skilled workers are desperately needed at this time for the transition to a carbon-neutral economy, and workers, given the choice, prefer jobs in industries that are not morally abhorrent. As a software developer myself, I can assure you I would much prefer to work in peaceful, life-affirming industries such as renewable energy, and to see development of those industries in the Hunter region.

The Newcastle and Port Stephens councils, who co-own the site and would profit from this development, must take the above into account when considering their obligations under the Local Government Act (section 8A(1)(h)) to act ethically in the interests of the local community.

The above ethical objections are underscored by the efforts of the applicant to make less-obvious the nature of the proposal. Titling the proposal as ‘high technology industry’, and referring only to ‘defence related components’ at the very end of their proposal description are clear attempts to reduce the eye-catching factor of a proposal for a weapons manufacturing facility, and an implicit acknowledgement of the moral objectionability of such to the public.

In addition, by not disclosing the identity of the intended operator, the applicant has attempted to circumvent public objections to that manufacturer, including those relating to:

• The nature of their products
• The customers to which they choose to sell their products and, ultimately, where and on whom those products will be used
• Their environmental, labour relations, and corporate governance record

Such a lack of transparency, characterisable even as deceit, across-the-board, does not meet the standards of the public and alone should form sufficient basis for rejection of this application.

I am submitting a submission in support of my objection to the project based on four aspects being 1. Not in the Public Interest 2. Councils must act ethically 3. Increasing ties between universities and weapons manufacturers is unethical and 4. This project is on PFAS contaminated lands within the Tomago Sandbeds Catchment Area.