Australian nuclear news -week to 13 June:
Australian nuclear news week to 13 June:
- Freedom Of Information to die? Albanese’s nuclear strike on transparency
- From the archives – Freedom Of Information win as Information Commissioner rebukes Defence secrecy.
- Greens warn nuclear submarines deal risks war with China as Albanese says Aukus ‘full-steam ahead’ .
- Investigating the Foolish: The AUKUS Public Inquiry is Announced;
The Virginia-class submarine deal exposes the real purpose of AUKUS
June 4, 2026, Mike Gilligan, https://pearlsandirritations.com/post/2026/06/australias-submarine-betrayal/
Dr Mike Gilligan worked for 20 years in defence policy and evaluating military proposals for development, including time in the Pentagon on military balances in Asia.
The shift to second-hand Virginia-class submarines exposes the deeper flaw in AUKUS: Australia is committing vast public funds to a capability designed around US strategic priorities rather than Australia’s own defence needs.
Yet another twist in Australia’s submarine fiasco has been disclosed by Defence Minister Marles. The United States has decreed it will sell us only used nuclear submarines of the Virginia class. Marles reportedly said that could mean financial savings short term, but not long run. As if he has ever revealed an instinct for efficiency in defence. No doubt Australians will experience another wave of waffle from the media, all of which misses th
Despite its crippling cost Marles has never explained what the Virginia class submarine is meant to do. Why has such an obvious ministerial obligation been evaded? Because it would reveal a sell-out of Australia’s security. And a massive direct underwriting of US defence budgets by Australian taxpayers – of say half a trillion of our dollars.
The Virginia class submarine is not a general-purpose vessel such as our Collins class. It is designed for supreme acoustic invisibility for a specific purpose – to find, track and attack submarines seen as a nuclear threat to the US mainland. That is the job which the US expects Australia’s submarines to do – effectively embedded into US military command – against China’s growing capacity to annihilate continental US from under the sea, anytime.e issue. What matters most about the AUKUS submarines has been concealed by this Minister throughout his tenure.
Why this role is of utmost priority for the US requires some explanation. Nuclear armed submarines, such as China possesses, present a uniquely difficult threat to the US homeland. Unlike the readily discernible launch locations of hostile land-based missiles, or from aircraft or sea-surface vessels, the submarine’s habitat and mobility make it largely invisible and impregnable across the vast ocean approaches to the US.
The US attempts to deal with this risk using specialised attack submarines (ie the Virginia), which can locate, track and destroy China’s nuclear submarines as they move into and around Pacific waters. This is one critical part of a mosaic of US self-protection measures, the effectiveness of which is eroding as China’s submarine production expands.
So, the hefty sacrifice which Australia’s taxpayers make to acquire new submarines is not for Australia’s benefit, but for defending continental US. Australia’s submarine needs are quite specialised and different, but simply ignored by Minister Marles. Australia is heavily gifting US defence spending while ignoring its own vulnerabilities, just as the President added another $500 billion to a trillion dollar defence budget. Now that the full horror of Marles’ tenure is established a Prime Minister would act.
Can one optimal pathway have two lanes? When it comes to AUKUS submarines, apparently yes
“Was the optimal pathway of last week actually not “optimal”? And if so, why was it called the “optimal pathway”?
Was the optimal pathway of last week actually not “optimal”? And if so, why was it called the “optimal pathway”?
By acting defence and national security correspondent Tom Lowrey, ABC News, Wed 3 Jun, 26
For an arm of the government tasked with a fairly straightforward mission — that is, fighting — Defence is famous for wrapping itself in impenetrable language.
Ships and planes are “platforms”, weapons are “capabilities”, soldiers are “personnel” and Australia’s road to running a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines is a “constrained optimal pathway”.
That optimal pathway has come in for plenty of scrutiny in the past few days.
The plan, as of last week, was for Australia to buy two “in-service”, that is, second-hand, submarines in 2032 and 2035, and a third brand-new submarine in 2038.
As of this week the plan is for Australia to buy three used submarines which the government is now arguing has been its preferred option all along.
Defence officials fronting up to estimates hearings this week have been copping questions on the surprise shift.
Was the optimal pathway of last week actually not “optimal”? And if so, why was it called the “optimal pathway”?
“You can absolutely have two constrained optimal pathways,” new Defence Secretary Meghan Quinn told Greens Senator David Shoebridge.
The exchange led Senator Shoebridge to accuse AUKUS of “not only damaging the public purse, but destroying the English language”.
Any economist will tell you constrained optimisation is taught in first year uni. It’s basically finding the best option with the cards you’ve been dealt.
But the exchange highlights the trouble the government is having explaining the changes it’s made and the risk to public confidence in Australia’s biggest ever defence project.
Substituting subs
Back when the “optimal pathway” was first announced in 2023, questions about the complexity of the plans were already being asked……………………….
The new Virginia class submarine would have arrived in 2038, and while details of exactly what it would have looked like aren’t known, it would likely have had some significant differences to its 2020s counterparts.
And the first Australian-made AUKUS submarine would have hit the water in Australia by 2042.
Marles has since argued Australia always held concerns about that plan and our preference from the outset was to acquire three in-service Virginia class subs to try and simplify things……………………..
Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy addressed the shift on Radio National Breakfast.
“Submarine availability [and] maintenance has improved in the US system, which means that the US Navy feels comfortable releasing a third in-service submarine,” he said.
“That means it’ll be cheaper and simpler for us to run.”
…………………….. For some Australians it might look like the government is arguing a ten-year-old Toyota Corolla (with a responsible owner, of course) is actually a better option than a brand new model straight off the lot.
….It’s getting more real. It’s costing much more money, up to $96 billion between now and 2036, shipyards are being built, and sailors are being trained.
AUKUS is also going to attract much more scrutiny.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-03/two-optimal-pathways-aukus-submarines/106755658
‘Capability that matters’: submarine switch played down
June 3, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/capability-that-matters-submarine-switch-played-down/
Australia receiving only used nuclear submarines from the US will not change the government’s commitment to the AUKUS pact, the foreign minister says.
The $368 billion plan originally had Australia receiving three nuclear submarines from the US – two used and one new Virginia-Class vessels – before building its own in Adelaide.
But after changes to the deal, Australia will now get three used submarines from the US.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong said it did not matter whether the submarines were used or new.
“Whether it’s two (used) and one (new) or three, it’s the capability that matters,” she told ABC Radio on Wednesday.
“We want three submarines to deal with, from the United States, to deal with a capability gap before the AUKUS submarines are to be delivered … that is the plan.”
Defence officials revealed at a federal budget inquiry Australia preferred to receive second-hand vessels from the US.
Defence secretary Meghan Quinn told the inquiry on Tuesday night a reworking of the AUKUS deal was a joint idea between Australia and the US.
“Australia’s position is that we would have always … had a preference for three in-service (submarines),” she said.
“There are many reasons why three in-service (submarines) would be simpler, lower-cost through the training of staff, the sustainment arrangements, the maintenance requirements, and all of those considerations.”
Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy said the change in the AUKUS deal did not mean a fundamental altering of the security pact.
“It will be cheaper, simpler to manage, and it’s been confirmed by the Pentagon overnight,” he told ABC Radio.
“We’ll get submarines … about six years into their 33-year life cycle. They’ll be cheaper, they’ll be really effective at that stage, and we’ll be acquiring the most capable nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines in the world.”
Mr Conroy said Australia would save a “considerable” amount by not acquiring a new submarine, but did not disclose the cost.
He denied the used submarines would be more costly to maintain in the long term.
Ed Husic is casting doubt on the prospect of the submarines ever being delivered to Australia.
The comments come after Labor backbencher and former minister Ed Husic called for the government to rethink the multibillion-dollar plan.
Mr Husic said on Tuesday the deal also had to be rethought due to America becoming a more unreliable ally.
“You do wonder whether or not we will get the deal, even the reconfigured one that we have got,” the western Sydney MP told reporters at Parliament House.
Senator Wong said the backbencher was entitled to his view on AUKUS.
“It is in the best interests of our country for this project to continue to proceed. We believe it is necessary for Australian security and we believe chopping and changing will only set the country back,” she told ABC TV.
Hegseth Orders Pacific Allies To Arm For China War
This turns reality upside down. China is not surrounding the United States. The United States is surrounding China.
Australia is also building a submarine construction yard at Osborne in South Australia. Assembly of the first domestically built submarine is expected to begin in the early 2030s, with delivery projected in the early 2040s. The program binds Australia’s military future to U.S. war planning for decades.
June 5, 2026, Gary Wilson, Struggle – La Lucha. https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/05/hegseth-orders-pacific-allies-to-arm-for-china-war/
U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth went to Singapore on May 30 with an order for Washington’s allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific: spend more on war or face consequences.
Hegseth used China as the pretext to demand that U.S.-aligned governments spend more on war, buy more weapons and bind their militaries more tightly to Washington.
At the annual Shangri-La Dialogue, Hegseth told defense ministers, military chiefs and diplomats that U.S. military power had carried the region for too long. “The era of the United States subsidizing the defense of wealthy nations is over,” he said. “We need partners, not protectorates.”
That is the language of empire collecting rent.
Washington arms the region. It bases troops across it. It commands the alliance structure. Then it demands that every subordinate government reshape its budget to fit U.S. war plans.
Hegseth said the U.S. expects its allies and partners to raise military spending to 3.5% of gross domestic product — the same demand the Trump administration has pressed on NATO. Governments that comply will move to “the front of the line” for arms sales, intelligence sharing and military-industrial cooperation, he said. Those that refuse will face “a clear shift in how we do business.”
This is not “burden sharing.” It is a demand that governments turn more workers’ wages into missiles, submarines, drones, warships and bases. Every percentage point added to military spending means less for housing, health care, schools, pensions and disaster relief.
Hegseth claimed there was “rightful alarm” over China’s military buildup and warned against “a Pacific dominated by any hegemon.”
Hegseth said the U.S. expects its allies and partners to raise military spending to 3.5% of gross domestic product — the same demand the Trump administration has pressed on NATO. Governments that comply will move to “the front of the line” for arms sales, intelligence sharing and military-industrial cooperation, he said. Those that refuse will face “a clear shift in how we do business.”
This is not “burden sharing.” It is a demand that governments turn more workers’ wages into missiles, submarines, drones, warships and bases. Every percentage point added to military spending means less for housing, health care, schools, pensions and disaster relief.
Hegseth claimed there was “rightful alarm” over China’s military buildup and warned against “a Pacific dominated by any hegemon.”
This turns reality upside down. China is not surrounding the United States. The United States is surrounding China.
China again declined to send its defense minister to the Shangri-La Dialogue. Beijing was represented instead by a delegation led by PLA Major General Meng Xiangqing, who pointed to the concrete threats Washington and its allies are advancing in the region: Japan’s military expansion and AUKUS, the U.S.-British-Australian submarine pact.
Meng tied Japan’s buildup to history. He noted that 2026 marks the 80th anniversary of the opening of the Tokyo Trials, which condemned Japanese militarism after World War II. He questioned whether a country that has not fully reckoned with that legacy has any standing to lecture Asia about defense cooperation.
That was the point Washington wants covered up. U.S. imperialism now needs Japan — the former colonial and military oppressor of much of Asia — as a forward base for confrontation with China.
Japan’s cabinet has approved a record defense budget exceeding 9 trillion yen, roughly $58 billion, for fiscal 2026. The budget funds long-range strike missiles, drone systems and next-generation fighter development. The buildup marks a major break from Japan’s postwar “exclusive self-defense” doctrine, long understood as limiting Japan’s military to defensive operations.
Washington is not worried about the return of Japanese militarism. It is encouraging it, so long as that militarism is tied to U.S. strategy against China.
The military map Hegseth pointed to is the First Island Chain — the arc running from Japan past Taiwan to the Philippines along China’s eastern coastline. Washington calls this “deterrence by denial.” In plain language, it means using bases, fleets, missiles, war exercises and allied governments to hem China in, with Taiwan turned into a forward position in U.S. war plans.
On the sidelines, Hegseth met Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro and pledged stronger military cooperation along the First Island Chain. The two governments pointed to the latest Balikatan war exercise, which brought troops from Australia, Japan, Canada, France and New Zealand onto Philippine soil.
Hegseth praised South Korea for pledging to spend 3.5% of GDP on its military. He praised the Philippines for a 12% increase. He commended Japan for accelerating its “defense transformation.” He cited Australia for deeper integration with U.S. forces.
In every case, the praise was for governments moving their budgets, industries and armed forces closer to U.S. war planning.
Meng also targeted AUKUS, the military pact among the U.S., Britain and Australia formed in 2021. Its central project is equipping Australia with nuclear-powered attack submarines.
On the sidelines of the forum, the three AUKUS partners revised the submarine plan. Australia had been expected to buy at least two used Virginia-class submarines and one new one. Under the revised plan, it will buy three secondhand Virginia-class submarines from the U.S. instead.
Australia showed the pressure beneath Hegseth’s praise. Canberra has already announced that military spending will rise to 3% of GDP by 2033, with about $10 billion more over four years and $38 billion over the decade. But that still falls short of Hegseth’s 3.5% demand.
This is how the Pacific war buildup works in practice: Australian workers pay, U.S. shipyards and weapons firms collect, and the Pentagon tightens its grip on the region.
Australia is also building a submarine construction yard at Osborne in South Australia. Assembly of the first domestically built submarine is expected to begin in the early 2030s, with delivery projected in the early 2040s. The program binds Australia’s military future to U.S. war planning for decades.
China has condemned AUKUS as stoking bloc-to-bloc confrontation in the Pacific. Meng’s remarks made clear that Beijing sees it as part of the same encirclement strategy behind the First Island Chain buildup.
Washington’s direction is clear.
The Shangri-La Dialogue is not a peace conference. It is an annual assembly of military planners and arms buyers. Hegseth’s speech was its keynote sales pitch.
The U.S. ally getting nuclear submarines with no AUKUS deal
How South Korea’s plan for nuclear-powered submarines compares to AUKUS
ABC News, By Doug Dingwall, 6 June 26
The South Korean city of Gyeongju is famous for its uncanny, grass-covered burial mounds bearing the tombs of ancient kings.
It will also go down in history as the place where the United States finally agreed to South Korea’s long-held aspirations to acquire nuclear-powered submarines, ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders’ meeting last year.
Months later, South Korea’s government has announced its plan to build the submarines by the mid-2030s, but it did not reveal how many, nor the expected cost.
As with the AUKUS agreement, the United States will help a close ally gain a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.
But beyond that, South Korea and Australia are taking different paths to building their new vessels, and they’re acquiring them for different reasons.
So what is Seoul’s plan, and how does it compare to Australia’s AUKUS submarine endeavour?
Unknown unknowns
South Korea’s ambitions for nuclear-powered submarines go back 20 years, but it had been unable to secure approval from the US, which was concerned about nuclear proliferation.
However, US President Donald Trump broke with previous administrations and in October agreed to South Korea having nuclear-powered submarines, framing it as a win for American industry.
“South Korea will be building its Nuclear Powered Submarine in the Philadelphia Shipyards, right here in the good ol’ USA,” he posted on Truth Social.
Plans have changed since then, with South Korea’s Defence Minister Ahn Gyu-back announcing the submarines will be developed and built by his country.
The submarines would use low-enriched uranium fuel and the first would be launched in about a decade, he said.
Other than that, experts say the details are scant, maybe intentionally so.
“Most importantly, they haven’t put a dollar figure on it,” said Euan Graham, senior fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI).
In contrast, the AUKUS submarine program comes with a $368 billion price tag, one that Dr Graham expects won’t reflect the final cost.
“That ambiguity [in the South Korean plan] is, in a funny way, more honest because they don’t know what they don’t know,”
he said.
Observers agree the cost is one of the major risks in Seoul’s plan to build nuclear-powered submarines.
The vessels are expensive, not only to build, but also to operate, maintain and support over their entire life cycle, said Jihoon Yu, research fellow at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses.
“South Korea will need to balance this program with other defence priorities, including air and missile defence, conventional submarines, unmanned systems, cyber capabilities, and space-based surveillance,” Dr Yu said.
Why nuclear-powered submarines?
Unlike AUKUS, South Korea’s plan is not about replacing a fleet of aging submarines.
Dr Yu said it was already modernising its diesel-electric submarines, including the KSS-II and KSS-III class, which were expected to remain operational for decades.
Instead, South Korea wants nuclear-powered submarines because it believes they are better suited for deterring the changing threat posed by North Korea.
That’s because nuclear-powered submarines can stay underwater longer, experts said.
“North Korea has invested heavily in submarine-launched ballistic missile capabilities, and tracking those platforms requires prolonged underwater endurance and sustained speed,” said Seong-Hyon Lee, associate in research at Harvard University’s Asia Center………………………..
Dr Yu said nuclear-powered submarines could also cover vast distances, and this would let South Korea contribute more to security beyond its immediate coastal waters.
“Nuclear-powered submarines could contribute to sea lane protection, regional maritime stability and broader allied deterrence missions,” he said.
That might appeal to the Trump administration, which wants US allies to take on more responsibility for their defence and security, including in the Asia-Pacific region.
Will South Korea’s plan rely less on the US?
Australia’s pathway to nuclear-powered submarines relies deeply on the US and the United Kingdom for technology and training.
“AUKUS is not just a submarine acquisition program; it is also a long-term strategic, industrial and technological integration project among three countries,” Dr Yu said.
“South Korea would likely seek a more domestically driven model, although it would still need close cooperation with the United States, especially on nuclear fuel,, safeguards, regulatory arrangements and political approval.”…………………………………………………………………….
know-how in building diesel-electric submarines, and in civilian nuclear technology, will only take South Korea so far.
It would have to solve questions such as reactor miniaturisation, acoustic quieting, shock resistance and integrating complex propulsion systems, Dr Lee said.
“These are highly demanding technical areas where even established naval powers have faced considerable hurdles.”
Mr Trump and South Korean President Lee Jae Myung agreed last year the US would work with Seoul on the project, including on “avenues to source fuel”.
“The most important unresolved issue concerns the nuclear-fuel framework under which any future submarine program would operate,” Dr Lee said.
South Korea has an agreement with the US that restricts its uranium enrichment.
“More broadly, the political, legal and technical details of any US-South Korea cooperation in this area have yet to be fully defined,” Dr Lee said.
Different plan, different problems
Experts say there’s a risk that South Korea’s nuclear-powered submarines program could be misunderstood in the region………………………………. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-06/how-south-korea-submarine-plan-compares-to-aukus/106764594
A brief history of Australia eating shit on AUKUS.
Australia remains undeterred in ‘welcoming’ AUKUS setbacks left, right and centre.
Charlie Lewis, Jun 3, 2026,
https://www.crikey.com.au/2026/06/03/aukus-setbacks-submarines-defence-richard-marles/
Defence Minister Richard Marles met with US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth in Singapore over the weekend to announce a “streamlining” of the AUKUS deal, under which Australia will buy three used Virginia-class submarines rather than two used and one new, as was initially agreed.
Under questioning from the shadow defence minister James Paterson in Senate estimates on Tuesday, Defence Secretary Meghan Quinn said, actually, this was what Australia had wanted all along: “Australia’s position is that we would have always … had a preference for three in-service (submarines).”
Labor’s former industry minister Ed Husic, more able to speak his mind after his post-election ousting, didn’t agree with this take, telling the media: “This deal has changed.”
Husic may be waiting a while if he’s hoping for a rethink. As Australia’s history demonstrates, our government has been willing to swallow a lot without its loyalty to the alliance being the least bit shaken.
It started as it meant to go on. On September 15, 2021, Scott Morrison, Joe Biden and Boris is Johnson — the respective world leaders at the time of Australia, the US and the UK — announced the $368 billion trilateral AUKUS deal.
Morrison spoke of how the submarine pact represented the countries’ mutual “enduring ideals and shared commitment to the international rules-based order” (a commitment that somehow looks even shakier now than it did then). It would later be revealed that Morrison had preemptively caved on local construction, reducing the previous requirement that 60% of the submarines be built in Australia to 40%.
Biden responded by forgetting Morrison’s name. “Thank you, Boris. And I want to thank that fella Down Under. Thank you, pal. Appreciate it, Mr Prime Minister.”
A side note: Morrison’s now irreparable reputation as a habitual liar (something that only malcontents like us seemed to have previously cared about) was sealed by AUKUS. A month after the deal was announced, French President Emmanuel Macron, whose own submarine arrangements with Australia were torn up to make way for AUKUS, told a press pack that he knew Morrison had lied to him.
Adding to the general sense of humiliation, Biden hung Australia out to dry, claiming that he was “under the impression that France had been informed” of the changes.
The sense that its arrangements with Australia weren’t exactly front of mind for the US was reiterated in February 2025 when newly reelected president Donald Trump was asked about AUKUS and had to be reminded what the program was.
In August last year, Richard Marles’ office said in a statement that he would be travelling to the United States that week, where, in Washington, D.C., he would meet with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and other senior administration officials.
Except that wasn’t true: despite Marles’ posting of an illusory photo, the Pentagon made it very clear that “there was not a meeting” and that it was “a happenstance encounter”.
The next month, Anthony Albanese would do little better: during his visit to the US, unable to secure a proper meeting with Donald Trump, he was reduced to collaring the president for a selfie.
A meeting was eventually held between Trump and Albanese in October, but the Australian humiliation was not done. A Sky News Australia journalist made sure the topic of then US ambassador Kevin Rudd’s previous criticism of Trump came up, and the abiding memory of the meeting would be Trump, surrounded by nervous giggles, telling Rudd, “I don’t like you either, and I probably never will.”
In April 2025, the newly elected Labour government in the UK launched an AUKUS parliamentary inquiry. In June, the Trump government followed suit, with Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby appointed to conduct the review.
And that was FINE, said Marles: “Our engagement with the Trump administration and across the full political spectrum in the United States has shown clear and consistent support for AUKUS. We look forward to continuing our close cooperation with the Trump administration on this historic project.”
Marles hadn’t, we can only assume, read Colby’s actual views on AUKUS going into the review, which stated that “the benefits are questionable and the viability is also questionable”. In July, Colby announced that the initial deadline of 30 days would not be met.
When asked if this is cause for concern, Albanese insisted: “No, it’s not surprising that that would be the case, and it’s something we expected, something like that. We expected a review from an incoming government, just like the Keir Starmer government did. We expect that those things take longer than just 30 days.”
In September 2025, the review was still not done. Richard Marles told ABC’s RN Breakfast that the US review was a good thing, actually: “As I’ve said repeatedly, we welcome this. It’s an opportunity to look at how we can move forward with AUKUS, how we can improve and do it better.”
In April this year, the UK defence committee delivered its review, finding, among other things, serious issues with worker shortfall in key production areas and a timeframe of at least 20 years to make the necessary upgrades to the Royal Navy to sustain its current boats and the new AUKUS vessels.
The government insisted it was “really comfortable that AUKUS is on track”.
But among all of these moments of humiliation, our favourite is that which must have befallen the Department of Defence official who pitched the “nuclear-powered submarine propulsion challenge” for high schools.
It was a combination of propaganda and child labour that would have been remarkably tone deaf at the best of times, but it went a step further, launching on the worst possible week to try to make kids think about submarines: when the Titan submersible suffered a “catastrophic implosion” and instantly killed all five passengers on board.
Charlie Lewis is Crikey’s reporter-at-large, focusing on politics, culture, history and the US. Got a tip? Contact him securely on Signal @clewis.25.
Australian flotilla survivors describe ordeal after Gaza mission
By Jane Salmon | 4 June 2026. https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/australian-flotilla-survivors-describe-ordeal-after-gaza-mission,21133
A humanitarian mission may have ended at the border, but for some Australian participants, the ordeal was only just beginning, writes Jane Salmon.
WHEN ACTIVIST Neve O’Connor boarded a humanitarian flotilla bound for Gaza, she knew there was a possibility she might be stopped.
What O’Connor did not expect, she says, was that the most frightening moments would come after the mission was over.
“Just when we thought we were safe, the beatings started again,” the Melbourne student and community organiser recalls.
O’Connor is among a group of Australian participants in the Global Sumud Flotilla who have returned home alleging they were subjected to violence, intimidation and degrading treatment following the interception of their aid mission.
The flotilla was attempting to deliver food, medicine and baby formula to civilians in Gaza. Participants say they were detained after the vessel was intercepted and have since spoken publicly about what they describe as a pattern of physical, psychological and sexual abuse during their detention.
Now, as lawyers, medical professionals and human rights advocates gather testimony from those involved, participants are revealing details of what they say happened in the final hours before they were deported.
For O’Connor, those memories begin at the airport. After days in detention, she believed the ordeal was finally ending. Instead, she alleges the violence intensified.
O’Connor says:
“Before I could speak to Australian representatives, I was grabbed and dragged away.”
According to O’Connor, participants were prevented from communicating with consular officials and were physically forced through the airport toward their departing aircraft.
She describes a truly unsettling scene.
People were allegedly shoved, kicked and struck as they were moved through the terminal and across the tarmac. O’Connor says she witnessed punches and elbows to the backs of people’s heads, repeated hair-pulling and participants being tripped as they walked.
One woman, O’Connor alleges, was thrown into a wall with such force that her elbow split open.
O’Connor says she herself was thrown into a door before being tripped and stomped on:
“I fell and several men stomped on me while I was on the ground.”
The alleged assault, O’Connor claims, continued right up to the stairs of a waiting aircraft.
For participants, the airport experience has become one of the most troubling aspects of their journey, occurring at the point when many believed they would finally be leaving danger behind.
O’Connor said:
“This is how Israel said goodbye to people whose only crime was trying to deliver food, medicine and baby formula to starving civilians.”
Participants argue that what they experienced was not limited to one location or one group of officials.
Instead, they allege that abuse occurred throughout the detention and deportation process and involved multiple layers of authority, including soldiers, immigration officers, police, prison guards and airport personnel.
That consistency, they argue, raises broader questions about how humanitarian activists were treated after being detained.
The Australians are also asking questions about their home country’s response.
Some participants say they were unable to communicate freely with consular representatives before departure and are seeking clarification about what Australian officials knew of their treatment during the transfer to the airport.
The questions did not end when the flight landed.
Several participants report being detained and searched upon arrival in Australia. They say mobile phones were confiscated and that they were instructed to provide passwords under threat of legal consequences.
For some, the experience was deeply unsettling.
Fellow participant Juliet Lamont said:
After everything that happened overseas, to be treated like terrorists or extremists rather than humanitarians was shocking.
Australians deserve answers about what happened when survivors came home. Serious questions remain about the treatment of Australians both overseas and upon their return.
The allegations come at a time of intense international scrutiny of Gaza and growing public debate over the treatment of humanitarian activists attempting to challenge restrictions on aid deliveries.
For O’Connor, however, the issue is ultimately personal. Raised believing in fairness and the value of human life, she says the devastation in Gaza compelled her to act rather than remain a distant observer. She rejects the idea that courage is simply enduring hardship. Instead, she sees it in collective acts of solidarity.
O’Connor says:
“Strength and bravery don’t look like grim endurance. They look like people choosing to sail toward Gaza because they refuse to let despair win.”
The Global Sumud Flotilla is calling for accountability over the allegations and has requested a meeting with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
Whether that meeting eventuates remains unclear.
What is certain is that, for those who returned home carrying both physical injuries and difficult memories, the voyage did not end when the boat was stopped.
For many participants, the journey is now entering a new phase — one focused not on reaching Gaza, but on seeking answers about what happened after they tried.
Jane Salmon is a refugee advocate whose family has benefitted greatly from the NDIS. You can follow her on Twitter @jsalmonupst
Australian nuclear news – week to 6th June
- Hegseth Orders Pacific Allies To Arm For China War.
- The Virginia-class submarine deal exposes the real purpose of AUKUS.
- Ed Husic breaks rank on AUKUS, demands ‘plan B’ as deal changes
- Can one optimal pathway have two lanes? When it comes to AUKUS submarines, apparently yes.
- ‘Capability that matters’: submarine switch played down
- Australian flotilla survivors describe ordeal after Gaza mission.
- A brief history of Australia eating shit on AUKUS.
- This is how billionaires buy the news.
- The Hand-Me-Down Alliance: Australia, AUKUS and Op-Shop Submarines.
- Will AUKUS keep us safe – at what cost? AUKUS- From ‘best’ we’ll never get to second hand subs.
- Peter Garrett to head independent inquiry into the Aukus submarine pact.
- Husic breaks ranks to demand rethink of Labor’s support for AUKUS.
- Labor MP Ed Husic challenges Albanese to reconsider AUKUS submarine deal.
- Richard Marles accepts used submarines in AUKUS setback.
- US to send only used nuclear subs to Australia in amended defence deal.
- Former Ambassador Joe Hockey says he is nervous about AUKUS – and wants Albanese to cold-call Trump.
- AUKUS is falling apart before our eyes. The government and alliance shills are silent.
- Royal Commission under fire for excluding Palestinian perspectives.
The Hand-Me-Down Alliance: Australia, AUKUS and Op-Shop Submarines
3 June 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/the-hand-me-down-alliance-australia-aukus-and-op-shop-submarines/
One can never accuse the Australian political palette of being too demanding, let alone attentive. When it comes to matters of defence, that palette is happy to be deceived, remaining credulous to the notion it is sensitive to good taste and observant of flavours. When it comes to alliances, this especially so. As for the AUKUS agreement, it was clear that the Australian establishment was simply incapable of tasting anything in the way of the rancid or putrid. Of the three participating countries in this doomed ménage à trois – the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia – it was the last of the trio that has been left providing the most while receiving the least.
Centred on two pillars of poor understanding and unequal exchange, the AUKUS agreement is mouldering in unenviable disgrace. The first pillar envisages (dare on use the current tense?) the purchase of SSNs (nuclear-powered submarines) of the Virginia-Class from the United States that may run into three boats, possibly even two additional ones. According to the fatuous and vacuous Australian Submarine Agency’s assessment, the “acquisition will eliminate any capability gap and increase the 3 nations [sic] (Australia, UK and US) ability to deter aggression and contribute to peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific.” Eventually, the SSN-AUKUS, a hybrid of UK design, US technology and Australian gristle, will also be added to the fleet, a prospect bound to give few joy.
But the docile and the doltish in Canberra do not seem alert to the grumbling mood in Washington that any transfer of these hulks would only take place on exclusive American terms. Doubt about Australian worthiness in using such boats in a war with China if called upon (call it want of skill, call it reluctance); and doubts about the rate of production back home (the annual rate of two Virginia SSNs remains tardily elusive), has made the very idea of conveying such vessels to Canberra improbable.
The latest discussions by US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles and UK Defence Secretary John Healey, held on the sidelines of the International Institute of Strategic Studies Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, also confirms that the boats, should they ever arrive, will be of the optional, rather than optimal shop variety. They will be second hand goods with a shorter life span and less troubling to let go of by the US Navy. Give the Aussies the hand-me-downs. They’re worth it.
A May 30 joint statement from the ministers was a tedious, tortuous garble that did little to hide the fact that Australia has been degraded and sent packing to the cooler. “The Deputy Prime Minister and Secretaries welcomed the proposed approach to streamline Australia’s acquisition of Virginia-class submarines (VCS), simplifying chain management, operational and maintenance requirements and maximizing cost efficiencies. This approach would enable Australia to acquire three in-service VCs in lieu of a mixture of new and in-service VSs variants.” Without a smidgen to go on, the trio also claimed that “significant progress in the design and delivery of SSN-AUKUS, which will provide the UK and Australia with an advanced warfighting capability” had been made.
It is worth recounting the stages of cloddishness that culminated at this current pass. In 2023, the Australian government accepted the position that the US would sell it three Virginia-class boats in the early 2030s, with the following observation: “The first two will be used but refurbished Block 4 boats with 23 years of remaining life and the third will be a brand new stretched Block 6 boat fitted with the 84-foot-long payload of greatly increased weapons loads.”
Instead of expressing rage and disgust at this diminution of worth, the Australian defence minister has accepted the revised plans with beaming, coprophagic glee. Appended to the stained grin are explanations worthy of immediate sinking. Not having three second-hand SSNs would have seen a situation of one new Virginia-class SSN operating alongside in-service Collins-class submarines and the new SSN-AUKUS boats. This unpardonably dreamy nonsense, anticipating that all three boat varieties would be sharing the sea at the same time, at least allowed Marles to yearn for a simpler world of equipment. The word “simple,” it would seem, is his favourite word of the moment. In remarks to reporters, he observed that a “simpler pathway” had presented itself. “It will mean that the Virginia-class submarine that we are acquiring will be all of the same type of. And I cannot overstate the significance of that, both in terms of the submariners who are operating them, but also the people who are working on them to sustain those submarines.”
In Australia, the opposition defence minister, James Patterson, had least had the decency to demand “a proper explanation from the government – more than just a single sentence in a joint statement.” The Greens Senator David Shoebridge, was less accommodating to the servile capitulation from Marles. “We’re not just over a barrel with the United States – we have literally said to them they can name the price, they can give us the biggest lemon in the fleet – three of them – and Richard Marles will give that blank cheque to the US.”
All the signs of demented decay and facile strategic thinking are there in this pact. The need to extend the life of the Collins-class submarines. The likelihood that the United Kingdom will be unable to stomach its side of the bargain. The continued bleeding of the Australian purse for American and British submarine building. And the deeply troubling sense that, when the time comes, the United States will go to war with China, expecting Australia to muck in. Given that Canberra has contrived and connived to turn Australia into an increasingly attractive garrison for adversaries to target, the room for escaping the orbit of an avoidable catastrophe, be it financial or military, is rapidly shrinking. Marles is unabashed by it all. “Chasing simplicity is at the heart of why we have pursued this.” A simplicity that well qualifies for the “bloody fool” category, one soon to be explored by a public inquiry that promises to be a real hoot.
Will AUKUS keep us safe – at what cost?
AUKUS Public Inquiry, 2 June 2026, Canberra, https://newshub.medianet.com.au/2026/06/will-aukus-keep-us-safe-at-what-cost/155928/
For the first time, the Australian community will have the opportunity to investigate the controversial and secretive AUKUS defence pact. Today, five esteemed Australians will launch a nationwide Public Inquiry into AUKUS at Parliament House, Canberra. From diverse backgrounds and disciplines, but united in their commitment to transparency, democracy and the defence of Australia, Peter Garrett, Carmen Lawrence, Chris Barrie, Leanne Minshull and Karina Lester will head the public inquiry into AUKUS beginning today. Full Commissioner profiles can be viewed here.
There has never been a more critical time to get the truth about AUKUS and what it means for our nation. The Federal Government is planning to spend $368 billion-plus of our taxes on nuclear-powered submarines – the largest defence spend in our history — without answers to basic questions such as: will Australia receive the submarines we’re paying for on time and on budget; where will the high-level nuclear waste generated by the subs be stored; how many Australian jobs will be created and at what cost, and crucially, will this project keep us safe — or turn us into a nuclear target?
Lead Commissioner Peter Garrett said,
“AUKUS is by far the most expensive and complex undertaking ever entered into by any Australian Government and yet the opportunity to question, debate and decide has been taken out of the hands of the parliament and the people. A Public Inquiry into this massive spend of taxpayer’s money is long overdue.”
Commissioner Admiral (Retd) Chris Barrie AC said,
“As Chief of the Defence Force in the late 90s and early 2000s, I investigated the proposition of acquiring nuclear powered submarines for Australia but there was little interest in it then and we all need to know why suddenly, there is huge interest, secrecy and money available for the AUKUS submarines today. That’s what this Inquiry is for.”
Commissioner Dr Carmen Lawrence said,
“A basic requirement of any functioning democracy is transparency from our Government. It is simply not credible that the Federal Government can take nearly $400 billion from the Australian people, make private deals with US and UK technology companies and foreign governments to access the Australian mainland and our data, and then tell us not to ask questions. Australians would never accept that, and nor should we. That’s why this Inquiry is vital.”
Yankunytjatjara woman and Commissioner Karina Lester said.
“For decades Aboriginal people of this country have had nuclear weapons tested on our traditional lands, we have been pressured to be the solution to nuclear waste. Our traditional lands have been mined on and our communities continually pressured by an industry that has harmed us for generations. What is Australia’s plan to manage the nuclear waste under this AUKUS Agreement? Will Australia be taking in nuclear waste from the UK and the US under this agreement? We fear it will be our mobs and our countries that is expected to take it. And once again, no one has bothered to talk to us. We have the lived experience and that’s why First Nations voices are crucial to this Public Inquiry.”
Commissioner Leanne Minshull said,
“The projected cost of $368 billion for AUKUS is hard to conceptualise. Think about Australia’s biggest wealth fund, set up in 2006. After 20 years of squirreling away money and banking investment returns, the future fund is now worth $337 billion. The cost of AUKUS would wipe out these generational savings and then some.If we are to spend the equivalent of our national savings, on a single project, the benefit needs to be clear and overwhelming. What won’t we be able to fund? How many jobs will be created from this project? Where will those jobs be? In a tight labour market, how will those jobs be filled? Will they divert skills from other national priorities like building residential homes? Will these jobs be the worst targeted, most expensive in Australian history?”
This nation-wide inquiry into AUKUS will seek answers to a number of critical questions. The Terms of Reference can be found here and the website here. The Inquiry will be taking written submissions and conducting hearings across Australia.
AUKUS Public Inquiry media contacts:
Phil Davey 0414 867 188, phil@mountainmedia.com.au
Julie Macken 0400 925 217
Why Trump should be indicted
The details of the 2016 agreement that the Obama Administration and European allies made with Iran show why President Donald Trump should be indicted for the war crime of waging an aggressive war.
That agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action between the nuclear-armed US, UK, France, China, and Russia, and Germany and Iran, which Iran abided by for two years until Trump tore it up, made it impossible for Iran to make a nuclear bomb.
Last week, the US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent denied that the Obama-era agreement ever happened.
“This administration, President Trump, has done something that no other administration was able to do,” he said. “We have gotten the Iranians to talk about their nuclear program and perhaps commit to not having one. That has never happened before. It had been off the table.”
This is utterly untrue. Obama not only got Iranians to talk about their nuclear program but to agree to detailed restrictions on uranium and plutonium enrichment with verifiable inspections that would make construction of a bomb impossible.
In January 2016, under the headline, “The Historic Deal that Will Prevent Iran from Acquiring a Nuclear Weapon”, the White House stated: “On January 16, 2016, the International Atomic Energy Agency verified that Iran has completed the necessary steps under the Iran deal that will ensure Iran’s nuclear program is and remains exclusively peaceful.”
This is the verification of the International Atomic Energy Agency – the independent international body that has been doing nuclear verification since 1957.
Trump and his Cabinet toadies are in complete denial that it ever happened.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said, “Only one president was willing to lay it out on the line and ensure after 47 years that Iran is not capable of having a nuclear weapon.”
Again, not true.
There are a couple of reasons for the denial. One, they work on the basis that anything Obama did must be bad or if good, deny it happened. And, secondly, that if in the past the US had the security of a nuclear-bomb-incapable Iran it would not be possible to argue that Trump’s 2026 attack on Iran was justified as self-defence.
There are only two legally valid reasons to go to war: self-defence and UN authorisation. Trump’s attack on Iran met neither of the criteria. It was the criminal waging of an aggressive war, and he is responsible for all the death and destruction that followed. The International Criminal Court should start an investigation into Trump.
This does not excuse the violence, aggression, and human-rights breaches by the Iranian regime. But they in turn do not excuse illegal Trump’s and the US conduct either.
Iranian scepticism of US bona fides is, however, justified, given US engineering of the 1953 coup against a democratic Iranian Government; the US arming and empowerment of the Shah of Iran’s 26-year brutal repression, torture and murder; the US’s unapologetic 1988 shooting down of Iran Flight 655 killing 290 innocent people; and the US’s reneging on the 2016 nuclear agreement after Iran had verifiably abided by it for two years.
Yes, international law is difficult or near impossible to enforce, but if both sides in any international conflict resort to right-is-might the consequence is always unnecessary death and destruction. More importantly, if a great number of nations adhere to international law, it isolates and pressures those countries and their leaders who do not. With economic and physical consequences.
At least, European and other democratic allies realised Trump’s Iran illegality and refused to take part. Once burned by US President George W Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq, twice shy. At least Bush tried to get UN sanction for his invasion. Not Trump.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..And the lessons for Australia? Stick to the rule of law and keep appropriate distance from the US. And the lessons for Australian voters, who on current polls seem set to give One Nation more votes than any other party? Pay attention. Look at history.
Look at Hanson cosying up to Trump and their similarities – joining forces with billionaires; accepting gifts of aircraft in questionable circumstances; and more.
British voters surely wouldn’t vote to leave the EU and trash their economy? US voters surely would not vote for Trump – twice – likely handing over world economic and political leadership to China?
Australians surely would not vote to put One Nation’s Pauline Hanson in the Prime Minister’s Lodge with who knows what consequences.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.crispinhull.com.au/2026/06/01/why-trump-should-be-indicted/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_source_platform=mailpoet&utm_campaign=crispin-hull-column
Around the world, global solidarity and cooperation are remarkably popular
June 1, 2026, by Lawrence Wittner, https://peaceandhealthblog.com/2026/06/01/around-the-world-global-solidarity-and-cooperation-are-remarkably-popular/
One of the curious ironies of our time is that, although many politicians spout heated nationalist rhetoric, rail against foreign nations, and belittle international cooperation, this approach to international affairs is not at all what most people want.
The climate of aggressive nationalism is clear enough. In nations around the globe, demagogues (usually of a rightwing variety) whip up xenophobia, preach superpatriotism, demand vast military buildups, and―if holding public office―often launch invasions of other nations under the banner of restoring an allegedly glorious national past.
But what is often overlooked is that, across the planet, most people favor a very different way of engaging with the world.
In late 2025, Focaldata, a major research company commissioned by the Rockefeller Foundation, conducted a landmark survey of 36,405 people across 34 countries. The resulting report, Demanding Results: Global Views on International Cooperation, revealed that 55 percent of people worldwide “believe their country should cooperate on global challenges even if it means compromising on national interests.” If international cooperation was proven to solve global problems, public support jumped to 75 percent. Respondents viewed such cooperation as essential for food and water security, jobs, health, trade, and climate.
Other opinion surveys confirm the widespread nature of internationalist sentiment. An Ipsos poll conducted between February and April 2026 found a substantial increase over the previous year in support for global solidarity and cooperation, with net disagreement shifting to net agreement. Among the more than 22,000 adults in the 31 countries surveyed, nearly two-thirds now supported the claim that, “for certain problems, like environmental pollution, international bodies should have the right to enforce solutions.” Some 42 percent (a plurality) agreed with the idea that “my taxes should go towards solving global problems.” And nearly four out of ten respondents (a plurality) endorsed the statement: “I consider myself more a world citizen than a citizen of the country I live in.”
Another measure of the worldwide support for international cooperation is provided by polling on public attitudes toward international organizations. The Rockefeller Foundation-Focaldata study reported that public trust was strong for the United Nations (58 percent) and the World Health Organization (60 percent), although weaker for international financial institutions. The global popularity of the United Nations was also attested to by a Pew Research Center survey that appeared in September 2025. Covering 31,938 adults in 25 countries, it found that a median of 61 percent of adults had a favorable view of the world organization, while only 32 percent had an unfavorable one.
Even proposals for new, avant garde global institutions have attracted more public support than opposition. Commissioned by Democracy Without Borders, Nira Data conducted a global survey in September 2025 of public attitudes toward the election of a citizen-elected world parliament to handle global issues. The survey, released in January 2026, drew upon 117,000 people in 101 countries that held 90 percent of the world’s population. The finding was that 40 percent of respondents approved of the world parliament idea, while only 27 percent opposed it.
But what about the United States? Surely in this flag-waving nation, engulfed in the rabid “America First” rhetoric of the Trump administration and its MAGA acolytes, we might expect that the ideals of global solidarity and cooperation would be supported by no more than a small minority.
But that’s not the case at all.
One of the most striking findings of the Rockefeller Foundation-Focaldata survey is that 61 percent of U.S. respondents believed that the United States should cooperate on global challenges even it meant compromising on some national interests.
When it came to the United Nations, the Pew Research Center report revealed that 57 percent of Americans held a positive view of the world organization, as compared to 41 percent with a negative one. Moreover, it found that positive views of the United Nations had increased by 5 percent over the preceding year.
A study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, issued in September 2025, reported an even more favorable public attitude toward the United Nations. Two-thirds of the Americans surveyed, it noted, said that the United States should be more willing to make decisions within the framework of the United Nations, even if this meant that the country would sometimes have to go along with a policy that was not its first choice.
Admittedly, opinion surveys found that the level of support for international cooperation varied significantly from country to country. Thus, for example, the backing for international cooperation when that meant compromising on some national interests was greater in India (81 percent) and South Korea (73 percent), the countries highest on the scale, than in Argentina (41 percent) and Japan (34 percent), the countries at the bottom of the scale.
Furthermore, there was often a political dimension to worldwide public attitudes toward foreign affairs. According to the Pew Research Center, “people who place themselves on the left of the ideological spectrum are more likely than those on the right to have a positive view of the UN.”
This political division was particularly wide in the United States, where, as the Pew report maintained, “81% of liberals―versus 34% of conservatives―have a favorable opinion” of the United Nations. When it came to the issue of support for cooperation with other nations, the surveys by Rockefeller-Focaldata and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs both found substantial differences between the attitudes of Democrats (quite positive) and Republicans (far more negative).
Even so, in most countries, including the United States, support for international solidarity and cooperation is very substantial, and growing. Consequently, political activists and politicians shouldn’t be reluctant to speak out for them. Indeed, given the popularity of this internationalist approach to global affairs, it might even prove a winning political issue.
Lawrence S. Wittner (https://www.lawrenceswittner.com/ ) is Professor of History Emeritus at SUNY/Albany and the author of Confronting the Bomb (Stanford University Press).
Wildfires devastating richer areas but fewer hectares burned globally – study
Ajit Niranjan, June 26, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/01/wildfires-devastating-richer-areas-but-fewer-hectares-burned-globally-study
‘Megafires’ in California, Canada, South Korea and Europe in 2025, but changes to farming slowed spread in parts of Africa.
“Devastating” wildfires ripped across the wealthier parts of the world in 2025, a study has found, even as globally, the area ravaged by flames fell.
Catastrophic blazes claimed lives, homes and jobs last year in California, Canada, Europe and South Korea. But the 335m hectares burned was the second-lowest since 2002, the review found, largely owing to the expansion of African farms that have fragmented landscapes and hampered the spread of large savannah fires.
The disasters in 2025 included a Scottish “megafire” that torched more than 100,000 hectares – contributing to the UK breaking its record for burned area – and the Palisades and Eaton fires in Los Angeles, which were among the most destructive in US history.
Record-breaking blazes in Spain and Portugal burned more than half a million hectares, while South Korea had its biggest and deadliest wildfire season on record.
Fires accounted for more than 38% of insured losses from weather disasters in 2025, the study found.
“2025 shows that a ‘quiet’ fire year globally can still be devastating,” said Matthew Jones, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia and lead author of the study. “We are seeing a growing disconnect between total area burned and real-world impacts.”
Changes in land use mean wildfires burn less of the planet than they have historically done, but global heating is creating conditions allowing them to spread, increasing the danger at what researchers call the wildland-urban interface, where people are most at risk.
Adverse weather, inflamed by carbon pollution, turned some of last year’s fires into explosive infernos.
In southern California and South Korea, the researchers found, high winds and dry vegetation pushed fires through densely populated areas, causing “exceptional mortality, mass evacuations, and major infrastructure losses”. In the Mediterranean, meanwhile, drought and extreme heat drove severe blazes, from Portugal to Turkey.
“These conditions do not cause the fires, but in the event of a fire, we have material that is more flammable than usual – because it is drier – and wind conditions that fan the flames,” said David Garcia, an applied mathematician at the University of Alicante, who was not involved in the study. “This makes large fires more likely to occur.”
An attribution study Garcia co-authored last year found the extreme weather fuelling the flames in Portugal and Spain last year was made 39 times more likely by climate breakdown. “If we continue to warm the planet, large-scale fires will continue to increase,” he said.
The overall reduction in global burned area led to a drop in carbon dioxide emissions to their third-lowest level on record.
In Canada, though, extreme wildfire emissions were recorded for the third year in a row. Since 2023, boreal forests in North America have emitted close to 4bn tonnes of CO2, exceeding the total emissions of the preceding 15-year period.
As well as heating the planet, the pollutants in wildfire smoke lead to huge numbers of people dying from breathing dirty air. The toxic particles spewed by Canadian wildfires in 2023 killed 82,000 people, according to a study published in September, with smoke even choking cities in the US, Europe and Africa.
Adrián Regos, a landscape ecologist at the Biological Mission of Galicia, Spain, who was not involved in the study, said last year’s events illustrated how a relatively small number of extreme fires could dominate the ecological, social and economic consequences of an entire fire season.
“The broader pattern highlighted by this study is consistent with what we are observing across southern Europe: while total burned area may fluctuate from year to year, climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme fire-weather conditions, and fuel accumulation associated with rural abandonment is making many landscapes more vulnerable to large, fast-moving fires,” he said.
“The challenge is therefore not only reducing the number of fires, but increasing the resilience of landscapes and communities to extreme events.”
AUKUS. From ‘best’ we’ll never get to second hand subs
Meanwhile, Defence Minister Richard Mares maintains the facade. He’s either dishonest or dumb. Time will tell which one it is.
by Rex Patrick | Jun 1, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/aukus-from-best-well-never-get-to-second-hand-subs/
Defence Minister Marles announced a change to the AUKUS submarine program: second-hand subs! What’s the scam?
The scam is, at an enormous cost of (at least) $368B, we now only get second-hand subs from the US while we wait for the promised nuclear subs on the never-never.
In May 2023, Admiral Mead, the head of the Australian Submarine Agency, told the Senate that the first two Virginia-class subs that would be transferred to Australia would be second-hand, and the remaining subs would be brand new. He repeated it a year later.
But the reality is and always has been different. The US is only building about 1.2 subs per annum and needs to get to a built rate of 2.0 to meet US needs, and 2.3 to meet theirs and ours. They have no way of getting there.
We’ve sent $2.8B non-refundable taxpayers’ dollars to the US over the past two years to try to shift the build rate dial, and it’s done nothing, other than drain our Treasury.
Anyone who bothers to read the US Congressional Research Service’s advice to Congress on AUKUS knows we will not get subs from the US. Anyone who has bothered to read the recently released UK Parliamentary report on AUKUS knows we will not get subs from the UK.
The Albanese Government has embarked on an all-eggs-in-one-basket program where,
“the US hens are not laying enough eggs, and the UK chooks are headless?.
Meanwhile, Defence Minister Richard Mares maintains the facade. He’s either dishonest or dumb. Time will tell which one it is.
Rex Patrick is a former Senator for South Australia and, earlier, a submariner in the armed forces. Best known as an anti-corruption and transparency crusader, Rex is also known as the “Transparency Warrior.”
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
Australians deserve the truth
about AUKUS
7 June – WEBINAR- Get Inspired by Protests Against Military Bases!
Jun 7, 2026 12:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 