Antinuclear

Australian nuclear news week to 20 June:

DFAT’s secret nuclear briefings
One “family”: weapons multinationals, Defence bureaucracy and the military top brass
AUKUS inquiry exposes proliferation risks
Future certain for Olympic Dam but not Traditional Owners
In praise of Pauline Hanson and One Nation
Where’s the money? Government and Israel lobby coy on big grants
Wong and Marles were left waiting in the wings in London – it’s further proof Aukus was never anything more than a political stunt.
Roxby Bill rides roughshod over environmental and Indigenous concerns
Concerns over Great Artesian Basin water impacts in new BHP agreement
Australia will now investigate Israel over Assault Claims | West Report Live.
3 July -MELBOURNE: Commemorating the legacy of nuclear detonations in the Pacific: 80 years on.
Downer: AUKUS is the anchor dragging SA deeper into debt

June 16, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

In praise of Pauline Hanson and One Nation

19 June 2026 Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.net/in-praise-of-pauline-hanson-and-one-nation/

You can laugh. You can sneer. But we will show you!

BUT… the time needs action, not just words.

FIRST ACTION. We must get rid of compulsory voting. That is the Nanny State in operation. That is the Elites infringing on our civil liberties. People should have every right not to participate in the bureaucratic mumbo jumbo of the electoral mess. With voluntary voting, citizens would have true freedom to choose their own government. What happens at present, is that every uninformed person is forced to vote, and so tends to just follow the tired old established parties. A mindless vote. That disadvantages our really visionary party, One Nation, which deservedly gets the votes of real thinkers.

SECOND ACTION – but perhaps for later on – get rid of the rorting of the voting system, as that uppity lot of inner-city over-educated middle class women take advantage of preferential voting to get themselves into Parliament, and distract progress with their wayout and ultra-feminist agendas. Preferential voting does have its uses, I admit, but only in the short term, in this period of our negotiations with the sad sick Liberal and Labor parties.

NOW – once the very unfortunate Australian electoral system is corrected – we’ll be off and away in our noble quest to correct Australia itself. Fortunately, we have some wise and well-informed people to support us. People like Gina Rinehart, people who understand the realities of this resource-rich land, and of the skills and values of those who’ve colonised and improved this land, over 200 years. And let’s face it, that’s basically the white people.

And who are we counting on to bring One Nation to power? Well, there are people like myself – country dwellers who don’t want to be pushed around, patronised or ignored by the privileged pampered inner-city dwellers with their university degrees, and their latte-sipping, theatre-snobby culture. They prioritise the causes of various minority groups – foreigners who don’t speak English, and people with every kind of sexual deviance, rather than the needs of the real true-blue Australians.

Then there are the hard-working people in the outer suburbs, struggling with the increasing cost of living. They will know that One Nation is dedicated to improving their lot – we will cut the red and green tape that stifle business, and so we’ll help businesses to grow and prosper, thus creating more and better jobs as the increased profits trickle down to the workers.

We are sick and tired of all the pontificating about that non-existent climate change, and about the non-sustainable folly of renewable energy, propped up as it is by the incompetent Labor government. We intend of course, to take care of indigenous people, but not to allow the remnants of their backwards culture to be used by troublemakers whose aim is to impede progress in developing industry.

Pauline Hanson has spoken a lot about immigration, but it’s not that she’s against immigration. Of course we want some migrants, but a limited number, and they should be carefully restricted to people that have adopted our English language and share our values.

You have to admire Pauline. She courageously speaks her mind, and challenges those biased lefties, especially in the media. Our taxes should not be going to the ABC and to the SBS – institutions with such a dangerously left-wing attitude. One Nation will deal with those nefarious influences.

Which brings me back to publications like The Australian Independent Media Network, Independent Australia, Crikey, and the positively dangerous Urban Wronski Writes. Something will have to be done about those. It is my hope to correct Australian Independent Media, for example, perhaps to bring it back to respectable, reliable journalism that will aid the Murdoch media in showing Australians the news in the correct way.

So, in conclusion – to all you Australians who feel aggrieved and hardly done by, we at One Nation offer you what you need: Change, and the promise of a better life.

Signed,

Noel Wauchope, proud rural dweller.

June 19, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Christina reviews | Leave a comment

Where’s the money? Government and Israel lobby coy on big grants

by Stephanie Tran | Jun 16, 2026 ,https://michaelwest.com.au/wheres-the-money-government-and-israel-lobby-coy-on-big-grants/

Australia’s Jewish community received 49 times more funding per capita for security than Muslim Australians but where does the money go?

Where’s the money? The latest $176m in government grants awarded to peak Zionist body and Israel lobby group the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, that is? It was allocated for ‘community security’ but what is community security? Questions were put to Home Affairs and ECAJ.

Home Affairs did not address specific questions. ECAJ did not respond.

“Are any funds received under the Enhancing Security for Jewish Communities Program being used, either directly or indirectly, to support ECAJ’s lobbying, advocacy, legal, media or public communications activities? If so, please provide details.”

Questions and responses are published below. The public interest question at stake is whether government grant money is being spent by the Israel lobby – or its associates – suing Australian citizens such as Mary Kostakidis, Nick Reimer and John Keane in antisemitism cases.

An obscure associate

An MWM investigation previously revealed that more than $176m in Commonwealth security grants awarded to the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) were paid to an obscure association incorporated in the ACT – rather than a charity registered with the ACNC regulator or ASIC.

A further security grant of $22 million to ECAJ has been “committed but not yet awarded” by the government, bringing the total security grants awarded to ECAJ to $198 million.

The arrangement has prompted questions about transparency because ACT incorporated associations are not required to publicly lodge audited financial statements, unlike registered charities, which are required to report to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC).

The issue was raised during Senate Estimates, where Greens senator David Shoebridge questioned why the Department of Home Affairs had chosen to award the funding to ECAJ’s ACT incorporated association rather than one of its charity entities.

“In terms of the community getting transparency on where the funding is going, there’s vastly less transparency given by ACT incorporated associations, which aren’t required to lodge audited financial statements and aren’t regulated by the ACNC registered charity.

“Why did Home Affairs provide it to an ACT-registered association rather than the ACNC-registered charity?” Shoebridge asked.

An obscure government response

Department official Amy Dyde replied that the incorporated association was the appropriate recipient because “that is the corporate entity that represents ECAJ as the peak body, and so that is the organisation that was eligible for funding”.

“It’s not charitable funding; it’s not tax-deductible funding; it’s operational security funding. So they were the appropriate entity to receive that funding to distribute it as the peak body,” Dyde said.

However, publicly available grant records indicate that the $27.5m Security Uplifts for Muslim Communities program was awarded to Australian National Imams Council Limited, which is an ACNC-registered charity that publicly discloses government grant income in its annual financial reports.

By contrast, ECAJ’s ACNC-registered charity, The Trustee for ECAJ Harm Prevention Fund, has reported receiving no government grant revenue in its ACNC filings over the past decade, despite the more than $176m in Commonwealth security funding being awarded to the ECAJ.

Funding disparity

Since October 2023, Muslim community organisations have received $27.5 million in Commonwealth security funding through the Security Uplifts for Muslim Communities program.

According to the 2021 Census, 813,392 Australians identified as Muslim. Based on those figures, the funding equates to approximately $33.80 per person.

By comparison, Commonwealth grants awarded to Jewish community organisations since October 2023 total approximately $198 million.

The 2021 Census recorded 99,956 Australians identifying Judaism as their religion. However, ECAJ co-chief executive Peter Wertheim estimated the Australian Jewish population is closer to 120,000 when accounting for those who did not identify their religion in the census.

Using Wertheim’s estimate, the funding allocated to Jewish community organisations equates to approximately $1,650 per person. On a per-capita basis, this represents

“around 49 times more security funding than that allocated to Muslim community organisations.“

The disparity was raised during Senate Estimates by Shoebridge, who noted that Muslim, Palestinian and Arab communities had also reported threats, harassment and attacks on community facilities since October 7.

“Of course, the Jewish community – recognising that the threats and security issues are real in that community – are not the only community that’s facing quite distinct threats,” Shoebridge said.

“I speak regularly with members of the Muslim community, the Palestinian community and the broader Arab community, and they are experiencing attacks on mosques, overt hostility on the street and attacks at their community gatherings.

?They have asked where the funding is for their security.”

Shoebridge questioned whether Home Affairs was undertaking a broader assessment to ensure security funding was being distributed proportionately across communities facing heightened threats.

Department secretary Stephanie Foster responded that Home Affairs was engaging with communities across Australia and said requests from Jewish organisations had been focused heavily on security measures, while requests from Muslim communities had been “more broadly based”.

“We are engaging with community groups, very consistently, to understand their needs and priorities,” Foster said.

“The focus from the Jewish community and Jewish community groups, for some time, has been very heavily focused on specific security-related funding. The requests from the Muslim community in particular have been more broadly based.”

The funding disparity comes amid reports of a sharp increase in anti-Islamic incidents since October 2023. According to the Islamophobia Register Australia, reports of Islamophobia increased by 636% in the period following 7 October 2023, with the organisation reporting an average of 18 incidents per week.

Funding on request

Shoebridge questioned Department of Home Affairs officials about how the government arrived at the figure of $124m announced in the federal budget.

“What was the assessment that landed with the figure?” Shoebridge asked. “Or is the answer, ‘That’s what was requested’?”

Department official Andrew Warnes replied, “That’s correct. That’s what was requested and identified, as required for security funding, by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.”

The exchange prompted further questioning from Shoebridge, who asked whether any independent needs assessment, infrastructure review or analysis had been undertaken to justify the amount.

Department officials did not identify

“any specific assessment that produced the funding figure.“

nstead, Warnes said ECAJ had submitted a request for $102m in funding after earlier funding arrangements were due to expire.

In response to questions by MWM, the Department of Home Affairs told us it had “no additional information to provide beyond statements made during estimates”.

The Department also did not provide a copy of the grant guidelines as requested.

We put detailed questions to the Department of Home Affairs and ECAJ regarding whether any grant funds could be used for lobbying, advocacy, legal or public communications activities.

They declined to comment.

June 19, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Roxby Bill rides roughshod over environmental and Indigenous concerns

17 June 26 https://www.conservationsa.org.au/protect_mound_springs

Conservation Council SA expresses deep concern at the proposed Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) (Amendment of Indenture) Amendment Bill 2026 (‘Roxby Bill’) currently before the South Australian Parliament. If passed, the Bill has a potential to irreversibly damage or destroy the Mound Springs of the Great Artesian Basin (GAB). These unique springs are in the far north of our state and are a South Australia environmental and cultural treasure.

Conservation SA has long called for the Mound Springs of the GAB to be permanently protected for the local Indigenous and South Australian communities.

As noted by The Nature Conservancy:

“Up to three kilometres deep and lying beneath 23% of the Australian continent, the Great Artesian Basin is the largest and deepest artesian basin in the world. The water it contains is under high pressure and in places like Arabana Country, South Australia this forces water to rise to the surface as freshwater springs. Along with the rising warm water comes sediment which can pile up several metres high hence the name – mound springs.

In the hot dry landscape, the springs create an oasis for local wildlife and migratory birds. They’ve also been extremely important to Indigenous people for many thousands of years.”

In December 2025, Conservation Council SA CEO Kirsty Bevan wrote to the South Australian Premier seeking the long-term protection of the Mound Springs (extract below):

Protect the Mound Springs and End Unsustainable Water Extraction from the Great Artesian Basin

Mound Springs are globally significant cultural, ecological and geological features, and are a listed EPBC Act “Endangered Ecological Community”. These unique and fragile little gems support rare species, deep cultural heritage and landscapes central to the identity of Traditional Owners. Community concern has escalated regarding BHP’s use of Great Artesian Basin water for mining and the cumulative impact on Springs.

 We call for:

1. Recognition of the Mound Springs of the GAB as a high-value ecosystem requiring elevated protection.
2. Closure as soon as possible of BHP Wellfield A water extraction operations that have directlyimpactedthe Springs.
3. Transition of industrial scale BHP Wellfield B water extraction operations toward alternative water sources, such as desalination or recycled water, to protect the Basin.
4. Transparenttimelyreporting of extraction volumes, groundwater pressures and spring health and monitoring information.
5. Co-governance with Traditional Owners, with investment in cultural heritage protection and Indigenous Rangers on country.

 Outcome Sought:

Long-term water security for communities, ecosystems of Great Artesian Basin—and a clear safeguard against irreversible damage.

The Bill is deeply problematic for several reasons. Firstly, given the complexity of the legislation and the lack of notice provided about the Bill has meant that interested parties have not been provided with a realistic opportunity to respond and raise the full suite of their concerns. Further, there are concerns that this rapid process may have been the deliberate intention of Government.

As noted by longtime campaigner Mr David Noonan in his submission to the Select Committee inquiry into the Bill, the key concern is that:

“…[the] Roxby Bill and new Indenture place an onus on the State to provide “commercial water” to BHP. If the State doesn’t deliver that water, the Roxby Bill and new Indenture provide for BHP Olympic Dam Wellfield / Borefield B to expand and extend operations for decades at an unacceptable environmental cost to the integrity of GAB water flows and the survival of the unique and fragile Mound Springs, little gems of our natural heritage and of ongoing fundamental cultural and spiritual importance to the Arabana People, the Native Title holders over the area. This is entirely unacceptable.”

The problems the Roxby Bill will create are further detailed in submissions to the short Select Committee into the legislation; attached below are the submissions to that Committee from Friends of Mound Springs and longtime campaigner, Mr David Noonan:

June 19, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | environment, South Australia | Leave a comment

Wong and Marles were left waiting in the wings in London – it’s further proof Aukus was never anything more than a political stunt

Allan Behm, 16 June 26, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/16/uk-defence-minister-john-healey-resignation-wong-marles-aukus-exposed-political-stunt

All the flimflam and palaver amount to nothing in the face of domestic realities. Perhaps the UK’s John Healey has done us all a good turn.

28

The resignation of the UK defence minister John Healey, along with the armed forces minister Al Carns, has driven another nail into the coffin of Keir Starmer’s prime ministership. This was no inadvertent injury to the prime minister but a signal on Healey’s part that he’s a leadership candidate – or at least a deserving member of any new prime minister’s cabinet. It’s very calculated: Healey is too smart to do anything by accident.

No less inadvertent is the damage he has inflicted on the prospects of the increasingly ill-fated Aukus nuclear submarine proposal. By leaving the Australian defence minister, Richard Marles, and the foreign affairs minister, Penny Wong, waiting in the wings while he got on with the business of domestic politicking, he demonstrated once again what had been clear from the outset: Aukus was never anything more than a political stunt, expendable once it had served its political purpose.

Let’s unpack that.

Conceived in secret and launched by the then prime minister Scott Morrison with maximum political fanfare in September 2021, Aukus was a hurried attempt to meet the quite divergent political objectives of three very distant countries.

For Australia, it was about creating yet another security blanket to wrap us in the arms of great and powerful friends. It was a sad attempt to address the pathological insecurity of occupiers of a vast and distant continent. At the same time, it had the added political benefit of wedging Labor on the grounds that it was perceived as “weak” on national security. Labor met that challenge head-on by accepting the idea lock, stock and barrel – a curious example of the reverse wedge.

For Britain, it was about restoring some of its strategic credibility after its feckless Brexit decision, parading its imagined role as a European player with a global footprint. It was also about grabbing a flow of cash from gormless antipodeans to pay for the Band-Aids needed to treat the gaping holes in its national submarine construction capacity, now so disabled that it will take tens of billions to restore the UK’s submarine deterrence capability – if that’s even possible.

And for the hapless former US president Joe Biden it was about demonstrating America’s ability to lock its allies into strategic dependency while retaining both the UK and Australia as critical logistic and support partners in its efforts to maintain its ability to intervene militarily on a global scale. It was cynical and self-serving and for that reason alone easily survived the transition to the Trump administration.

So when two closely allied ministers are left cooling their heels in London wondering why on earth they’re there, the political fragility and the policy inadequacy of Aukus is exposed once again. When the retention of national political power in the face of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party is at stake, flimsy international agreements are simply cast off. All the flimflam and palaver about shared values, enduring friendship and the international rules-based order amount to nothing in the face of hard domestic political realities. Just ask Donald Trump.

From the outset, the politics of Aukus have been totally unsupported by policy – an “emperor’s clothes” situation where a single event can expose the intrinsic flimsiness of the entire enterprise. Here we are, five years on, still waiting for the fundamental policy principles on which Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-propelled submarines might be justified. This is not to suggest that they can’t be justified: simply that they haven’t been.

Where are the answers to the basic questions? Why? What are the options? How? At what cost? Are there alternatives? Are there complementary actions? What are the downstream effects?

Australia has a long and dismal history of political initiatives that lacked robust policy structures to support them. Aukus is yet another symptom of a rush of blood to the head. We know that the US under secretary of war for policy, Elbridge Colby, entertains serious doubts about the policy viability of Aukus submarines. The Congressional Research Service clearly shares his concerns, noting as it does the inability of the US naval construction industry to meet the demands of the US Navy, not to mention the expansion needed to provide additional builds for the Royal Australian Navy. Fobbing Australia off with second-hand older Virginia-class submarines is hardly an advertisement for Marles’s vaunted “optimal pathway”.

So perhaps Healey has done us all a good turn by showing, once again, that Aukus is not about policy at all but just an act of large-scale political theatre. As all wise politicians know only too well, once the political purpose has disappeared, the show’s over.

Allan Behm advises on international and security affairs at the Australia Institute in Canberra

June 18, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Concerns over Great Artesian Basin water impacts in new BHP agreement

By Kathryn Bermingham, By Thomas Kelsall, 17 June 26

In short:

The South Australian government has been accused of rushing through a new mining agreement with BHP that does not do enough to end water extraction from the Great Artesian Basin.

Mining Minister Tom Koutsantonis says the updated indenture imposes stricter environmental regulation.

What’s next?

The bill is expected to pass parliament this week, ahead of a decision on the Northern Water project in the second half of 2027.

Environmentalists and First Nations groups say a new agreement between the South Australian government and BHP, set to be passed by state parliament this week, does not do enough to end water extraction from the Great Artesian Basin.

They also say their concerns have not been taken seriously and that they have been shut out of the consultation process.

The government announced last month it would introduce a bill to “modernise” the Olympic Dam indenture — a legislated contract with BHP that governs mining operation

The updated indenture broadens BHP’s mining lease and removes caps on copper production, paving the way for a potential major expansion. (Supplied: BHP Billiton)

The updated indenture broadens BHP’s mining lease and removes caps on copper production, paving the way for a potential major expansion.

It also addresses water access, stipulating that BHP must stop drawing water from its Great Artesian Basin Wellfield A by 2036.

But it allows continued access to BHP’s other wellfield, despite the concerns of traditional owners and environmentalists that extraction is damaging the local mound springs.

The Arabana people say mound springs at the Great Artesian Basin are culturally significant. (ABC News: Lincoln Rothall)

BHP extracts more than 4 million litres of water a day from Wellfield A and 29 million litres a day from Wellfield B.

The second wellfield has less impact on the pressure of the mound springs, according to officials from the Department for Environment and Water and BHP.

Bill could be ‘locking in’ BHP’s extraction rights, environmentalist says

To reduce reliance on the basin in the future, the state government has proposed the $5 billion Northern Water project — a desalination plant on the Spencer Gulf that would connect to a pipeline stretching into the mining region

A concept map shows the Northern Water project pipeline from the desalination plant site near Mullaquana Station to Olympic Dam. (northernwater.sa.gov.au)

The project is currently subject to a $200 million feasibility study.

If it goes ahead, BHP says it will “significantly reduce” extraction from Wellfield B and instead use desalinated water for its mining operations.

If Northern Water is scrapped, Wellfield B can remain a water source for BHP, although the government says this would be under stricter environmental conditions and require the company to build in water efficiencies over time.

Environmentalist David Noonan said he was concerned by the long-term implications of the bill.

“It’s locking in rights to BHP to extract water from the Great Artesian Basin, that’s having impact on the unique and fragile mound springs,” he said.

“Wellfield A … it should be closed down as soon as possible, and the bill is allowing BHP to continue that water extraction for another decade.

“Even if South Australia does provide commercial water to BHP, BHP are still allowed to extract water from the far larger Wellfield B potentially for decades to come, and that would be locking in a long-term adverse impact on the survival of the springs.”

David Noonan says the bill could allow BHP to extract water from the Great Artesian Basin for a longer term. (ABC News: Daniel Taylor)

Arabana woman Janette Milera said she was concerned about the bill’s impact on the culturally significant mound springs.

“For us as Arabana people, they hold stories, they hold ancestors,”

she said.

“We are very concerned about what is happening with the water and country and where this [bill] might lead to with our mound springs.”

She said she was not against the bill but would like to see “a better consultation process about how they manage extraction from the Artesian Basin”.

Arabana woman Janette Milera is concerned about how the BHP agreement would impact the mound springs. (ABC News: Ashlin Blieschke)

Energy and Mining Minister Tom Koutsantonis said that under the new indenture, the Department for Environment and Water and the Environment Protection Authority would need to sign off on BHP’s water licence renewals.

“BHP will be subject to the environmental health of the wellsprings … that is a fundamental difference to what was in there previously,” he said.

Mr Koutsantonis also said closing Wellfield A by 2036 would lead to recovery of mound springs and, if Northern Water goes ahead, Wellfield B would only be a “backup” for BHP.

“I am very confident this is a good environmental outcome, not only for Indigenous groups but the basin itself,” he said.

BHP said it remained committed to “constructive engagement” with traditional owners and has provided regular updates on the indenture.

The company also highlighted that it was not seeking to renew Wellfield A, and said future growth at Olympic Dam will require additional water sources beyond the basin.

Committee process criticised

The bill was introduced to parliament last month and a committee of MPs was appointed to undertake an inquiry, but the process has drawn criticism from some individuals and groups who tried to voice their concerns.

Water is under pressure in the Great Artesian Basin

The Great Artesian Basin covers a fifth of Australia and contains water that has been there for millions of years. Now, decades of extraction are taking their toll and traditional owners are fighting a mining giant for compensation.

The committee, chaired by Mr Koutsantonis, allowed a 10-day window for public submissions and received more than 20.

Submitters included Mr Noonan and several environmental groups, as well as the First Nations Voice to Parliament and traditional owners of the Great Artesian Basin and Olympic Dam mine site.

Among the issues raised were the long-term impact of the new indenture, protection of the environment, native title concerns and consultation that was viewed as inadequate.

But none of the concerns were directly addressed in the committee’s final report, which was tabled in parliament the morning after the public deadline.

Melanie Selwood has criticised the committee process. (ABC News)

“I think this committee’s a bit of a sham to be honest,” said Greens MLC Melanie Selwood, who was not a member of the committee.

“People rushed to get submissions in the two-week period that was given to them, but they weren’t given time to come before the committee and really have their questions answered and have their concerns raised.”

Mr Koutsantonis said the submissions received by the committee were considered but not included in the final report because “they weren’t relevant”.

“We get to a point, in this saga of BHP, where there are some people who will not be satisfied until all mining ends,” he said.

“The concerns that they were making, for example, about native title and agreements for Indigenous groups, weren’t part of the indenture.

“Native title is assigned by the Commonwealth parliament, not by the state parliament.”

Tom Koutsantonis rejected the suggestion that the bill had been rushed through parliament. (ABC News: Ashlin Blieschke)

He said native title holders had already given their approval for expansion of the mining lease, and the government expects BHP to do a “full negotiation” with native title holders “before any further steps go forward under the indenture”.

BHP said many of the matters raised in the submissions were already being addressed, or would be addressed, through agreement-making processes.

Mr Koutsantonis rejected that the bill had been rushed through parliament but acknowledged the government had treated it with urgency.

“We’re heading into the winter [parliamentary] recess and we are in a contest for capital,” he said.

BHP has fast-tracked early works on an Argentinian copper project, while a decision on Olympic Dam — and consequently the Northern Water project — has been delayed until the second half of 2027.

June 18, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | environment | Leave a comment

Australia will now investigate Israel over Assault Claims | West Report Live

Streamed live on 16 Jun 2026 The West Report

This is the biggest story most Australians have not yet grasped.

Today, in Canberra, Australian survivors of physical, psychological and sexual abuse by Israeli authorities met with Foreign Minister Penny Wong, the Hon Dr Anne Aly MP, a Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, and a senior DFAT official.

As a result, the Australian Government has committed to an independent investigation into the assaults, sexual assaults and torture of the Gaza Flotilla humanitarians. Read that again. Not an internal Israeli review. Not a department preparing a briefing note. Not a politician expressing concern.

June 17, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets and lies | Leave a comment

An area of sea ice as big as France is gone from Antarctica’s west coast, as temperatures rise

Bulletin, By Graham Readfearn || June 13, 2026

Antarctica’s west coast is missing an area of winter sea ice the size of France, sparking concerns for threatened penguins, other marine life, and global sea levels.

One expert said the loss of ice in the Bellingshausen Sea was “depressing” and the failure of ice to form could have intensified a heatwave over the continent’s peninsula last week that saw daytime temperatures peak at 15.4 degrees Celsius (about 59 degrees Fahrenheit) which is more than 20 degrees Celsius above average. (It is normally about 24 degrees Fahrenheit at this time of year.)

It’s winter in Antarctica, when sea ice expands rapidly around the continent peaking in September.

But satellite observations showed the Bellingshausen Sea—on the west side of the Antarctic peninsula and which by June would usually be covered by ice—was almost completely ice-free.

Scientists said the region was missing about 650,000 square kilometers (250,000 sq miles) of sea ice, compared with the average between 1991 and 2020. That is an area about the size of France, and almost 10 times the size of Tasmania.

“I’m concerned. It’s depressing,” said Will Hobbs, an Antarctic sea ice expert at the University of Tasmania with the Australian Antarctic Program Partnership. “It is remarkable that we are in June and there is no sea ice there.”

He said this was the third time in four years that sea ice had been very low in the region. “I don’t think we will see sea ice there any more. It’s done,” Hobbs said. The loss of sea ice was likely linked to changes in the ocean and scientists were trying to understand if global heating was a factor.

Hobbs said the region was important for krill—a critical part of the food web for species in the region. Krill would usually be hiding from predators under the ice in winter, where they graze on algae.

On June 10, there was about 11.4 million square kilometers of sea ice around the entire continent compared to a long-term average for that date of 12.6 million square kilometers.

Phil Reid, who monitors Antarctic conditions at Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, said the Bellingshausen Sea had seen “incredible coastal exposure” in winter and summer in recent years.

Reid said just to the area’s west were the Pine Island and Thwaites glaciers—the continent’s major contributors to ice loss and sea level rise.

Floating ice shelves in front of the glaciers could break up faster if protective sea ice is absent for longer periods, he said, and this could then speed up the loss of ice from the glaciers, pushing up global sea levels in the future………………………………………………………………………….https://thebulletin.org/2026/06/an-area-of-sea-ice-as-big-as-france-is-gone-from-antarcticas-west-coast-as-temperatures-rise/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Climate%20Change%3A%20New%20Data%2C%20New%20Debate&utm_campaign=20260611%20Thursday%20Newsletter%20%28Copy%29

June 17, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change - global warming | Leave a comment

3 July -MELBOURNE: Commemorating the legacy of nuclear detonations in the Pacific: 80 years on

Start: Friday, July 03, 2026•06:00 PM

Location: Balam Balam Place • 15 Phoenix St , Brunswick, 3056 AU

Host Contact Info: peaceworker@quakersaustralia.info

A gathering for nuclear justice in the Pacific – decolonised, demilitarised, denuclearised and decarbonised

1 July marks 80 years since the USA began exploding nuclear bombs in the Marshall Islands, and 2 July marks 60 years since France began dropping nuclear bombs in Mā’ohi Nui (French Occupied Polynesia).

The impacts of these detonations were catastrophic, and they continue a radioactive and toxic legacy in the bodies and lands of impacted communities.But the nuclear threat isn’t only historical. The continued existence of nuclear weapons, that are carried through continents and oceans continue a threat throughout the Pacific.

Join us to commemorate these significant anniversaries, and to hear from people fighting for nuclear justice in the Pacific, advocating for the need to dismantle the interconnected threats of nuclearisation, militarisation, colonisation and carbonisation.

6pm Candlelight vigil & commemoration – taking solidarity photo

6.30pm Shared dinner – more details to come!
7pm Slideshow and story sharing circle

We’ll be joined by special guests from the Pacific, on an Pacific Peace Pilgrimage to raise the profile of calls for nuclear justice in the Pacific and the role of the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons to strengthen the nuclear-free status in the region, and support survivors and communities affected by the bomb.

Special Guests include:

* Samuel Barton, President of the Marshall Islands Student Association
* Frances Namoumou, Pacific Conference of Churches.

Accessibility: Both the South Building and the House are wheelchair accessible via lift. Wide corridors and accessible toilets are situated on each level. The grounds are entirely accessible via flat concrete paths and ramps.

This event is organised by the Pacific Conference of Churches, The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, the Quakers and the Nuclear Truth Project. With thanks to our co-hosts for supporting!

June 16, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

While Britain’s defence strategy comes under fire, the nuclear arms race continues

The Healey resignation came just hours before he was supposed to stand up at Portsmouth to trumpet AUKUS with Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles, and Foreign Minister Penny Wong.

Like much of the British media, Marles chose to focus on the personnel change, rather than what might have driven it, in his comments.

AUKUS, he said, would continue, as it already had across changes of government in the UK, the US and Australia “because it fundamentally is in the national strategic interests of the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia, and all of that gives us a sense of confidence that we will be able to deliver this”.

The only question is over the value of delivering “this” at a time when the threats and means of warfare are changing by the day, in ways most of us can’t easily see.

By Laura Tingle, Sat 13 June, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-13/nuclear-weapons-spending-united-kingdom-defence-aukus/106737440

When British Defence Secretary John Healey resigned on Thursday night, Australian time, the implications of his move were largely judged by what it would mean for the future of his embattled Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer.

Healey was followed out the door hours later by the armed forces minister, Al Carns, and two ministerial aides.

The future shape of the British government is, of course, of great interest. And political battles are always a subject of public fascination.

But, in an increasingly rare event these days, Healey’s resignation was on a matter of principle.

That matter of principle helps shine a light on a much bigger story about the state of the world, geopolitics and war preparedness than the implications of resignations at Whitehall.

“You have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country at this time of rising threats,” Healey wrote, damning his leader for failing to provide what many people would regard as the most fundamental of protections for a country’s population: its defence.

Britain’s growing nuclear weapon spend

There has been a long and complicated brawl going on in the British Labour government about defence spending; much of its public face being about the fact that other parts of the government would have to cut spending to fund plans to significantly increase defence spending — by about 15 billion pounds.

The debate has dragged on for some time since a strategic review of Britain’s defence needs was completed last year.

As the Royal United Services Institute wrote, the review never really gave a full description of the size and shape of the armed forces that was envisaged “akin to the kind of ‘order of battle’ seen in previous defence reviews”.

In other words, while the overall size of the British defence budget has been fought over, there is little known about how exactly it will be spent. Questions linger — does the UK aim to have a land army to fight a war in Europe? (Answer: unlikely). Does it need more conventional missiles and drones for such a war? And what’s the role of manned and unmanned naval power?

But one capability that seems to just blunder on with little scrutiny and increasingly little strategy is Britain’s nuclear capacity.

Two reports released this week document a surge in the number of nuclear weapons around the world in the past year. And not just their growth in number but a seemingly growing reliance on them, in an environment where most of the deterrence and detente architecture which kept things manageable in the past has been eroded.

The nature of nuclear weapons is changing. Analysts say the gap between conventional weapons and nuclear weapons is getting smaller, and the way nuclear weapons are conceived to be used is changing.

What makes the UK’s role in this story so compelling is that the current fracas has highlighted the fact that nuclear weapons will soon represent 25 per cent of Britain’s defence spend.

Not only that, but the small island nation has overtaken Russia in the past year as the third biggest spender on nuclear weapons.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which tracks military spending, noted the UK also announced last year its intention to buy 12 nuclear-capable F-35A combat aircraft from the USA, and equip them with US nuclear bombs, in order to join NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements. The plan walks back the decision from the 1990s to denuclearise the Royal Air Force.

‘A worrying development’

The rationale for escalation in nuclear weaponry is strongly linked to the United States’ declared plan to reduce its commitment to European defence.

So it is hardly surprising that the UK might be seeking to compensate for this.

But as British defence analyst Carne Ross said this week “the other unnoticed thing that’s going on in the UK and indeed Europe as a whole, is that the US is increasing its deployment of tactical nuclear weapons, so-called tactical nuclear weapons, which can have a yield of 50 kilotons, which is three times greater than the bomb used in Hiroshima”.

“There appears to be a rapid increase in the deployment of these tactical weapons in Britain, but also on continental Europe, maybe Turkey and elsewhere — bizarrely in response to the fact that Trump is less committed to the conventional military defence of Europe,” he told Al Jazeera podcast The Inside Story.

Nine nuclear-armed countries spending more

Where the story of the UK’s nuclear spend goes even wider though is in another report released this week by the anti-proliferation group the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) which documents the last year’s spending on nuclear weapons by the nine nuclear-armed countries. (That’s the US, China, UK, Russia, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.)

ICAN says those nine states spent just under US$119 billion ($168 billion) on their nuclear arsenals in 2025, a staggering increase of 19 per cent from the previous year.

The US had the biggest increase (US$12.4 billion) and spent more than all the others combined — US$69.2 billion.

China remained in second place. But the UK came in third at US$12.6 billion, overtaking Russia.

While the US and Israel went to war to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons, they are both believed to have them — even though Israel has never confirmed it possesses them.

ICAN’s Susi Snyder told the same Al Jazeera podcast this week: “On average, we see an increase of about 10 per cent. Last year, it was almost double that. So it is by far one of the largest increases we have ever seen.”

Nuclear war and weapons have historically been seen as a threat of missiles exchange over continents in a showdown between the “great” powers.

But the sheer cost and difficulties of warfare in modern times gives too many countries some sense of relatively easy security in having a nuclear “deterrent”.

SIPRI notes that in 2025 several European states, including Germany, indicated a desire to supplement NATO nuclear-sharing arrangements focused on US weapons with similar arrangements with France and the UK.

A changing warfare landscape

There are two major confrontations going on in Europe and the Middle East at present. (The conflicts in Africa seem beyond the reach of nuclear stand-offs at present).

In both the war in Ukraine and the war in the Middle East, we have been witnessing increasing signs of frustrated eruptions between combatants — notably around the Strait of Hormuz this week — as fights bog down into apparently intractable conflict.

The risks of an accident have seemed all too clear.

The prospect of nuclear weapons being used in either Ukraine or the Middle East, rather than being fired between Moscow, Washington or Beijing has risen.

SIPRI Director Karim Haggag says that “influential voices, including some world leaders, are advocating nuclear weapons as a guarantee against attack by a hostile state. But making national defence and security strategies dependent, or more dependent, on nuclear weapons could significantly increase nuclear risks.”

Tariq Rauf, the former head of verification and security at the International International Atomic Energy Agency agrees.

“First of all, we have new types of delivery systems, supersonic delivery systems, hypersonic delivery systems,” Rauf told Al Jazeera.

“The gap between large conventional weapons and small-yield nuclear weapons is now largely disappearing. So, we can now have conventional weapons used with strategic effect to even try to take out nuclear bases and decision makers.”

The Healey resignation came just hours before he was supposed to stand up at Portsmouth to trumpet AUKUS with Australia’s Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles, and Foreign Minister Penny Wong.

Like much of the British media, Marles chose to focus on the personnel change, rather than what might have driven it, in his comments.

AUKUS, he said, would continue, as it already had across changes of government in the UK, the US and Australia “because it fundamentally is in the national strategic interests of the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia, and all of that gives us a sense of confidence that we will be able to deliver this”.

The only question is over the value of delivering “this” at a time when the threats and means of warfare are changing by the day, in ways most of us can’t easily see.

Laura Tingle is the ABC’s Global Affairs Editor.

June 16, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How Zionist Lobbying Has Reshaped Global Politics

Australia has its own history of Zionist lobbying and political interference – a history that remains largely unexamined in mainstream discourse.

The Australian example is particularly instructive because it reveals how the machinery of influence operates even in a country geographically distant from the Middle East, with no historical responsibility for the conflict, and no strategic interest that would justify the degree of alignment with Israeli policy.

The mechanisms are similar: campaign donations, community lobbying, and the weaponisation of antisemitism accusations to silence critics. Australian politicians who question Israeli policy face organised opposition from Zionist organisations. The media environment is shaped by the same dynamics of donor pressure and editorial alignment.

13 June 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, PhD, Australian Independent Media

The Branch That Reaches Across Oceans – How Zionist Lobbying Has Reshaped Global Politics

“The branch is not the tree. The tree is still standing. And the tree – the tree is justice.”

The Branch That Reaches Across Oceans

The “Greater Israel” project is not a secret. It is not a fringe fantasy. It is being marketed in London, in Montreal, in New York – real estate roadshows advertising properties in illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. The UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices warned in November 2025 that “Israel continues to expand its presence and control of territory in Palestine, Syria and Southern Lebanon,” and that Israel’s “constant claims to a borderless ‘Land of Israel’ are incompatible with a just and lasting peace.”

This is not merely a Middle Eastern conflict. It is a global project – one that relies not only on military force, but on an extensive apparatus of lobbying, financial influence, and the suppression of dissent in Western capitals.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman warned that the “Greater Israel” project poses dangers not only to neighbouring countries but also to Europeans: “Even the Europeans are not safe, because the Zionist regime does not hesitate to openly declare its colonial and racist ambitions in forms such as ‘greater Israel’.” Whether one accepts the Iranian framing, the fact that the project is cited by adversaries as a casus belli indicates that it is not a secret.

The scale of political interference is not unique in spirit – it is an extension of historically brutal colonial behaviours, morphed into a new scale in line with modern communication systems. The Roman Empire bribed Germanic chieftains. The British Empire divided and ruled India. But the contemporary Zionist project operates within a rules‑based international order that was supposed to prevent exactly this kind of extraction.

And it operates with the active complicity of Western governments – not because they are powerless, but because their political systems have been captured.

The Machinery of Influence: AIPAC and the American Political System

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the most visible node in a vast network of lobbying organisations that influence US Middle East policy. A 2024 academic study published in the Hasanuddin Journal of Strategic and International Studies found that “the AIPAC lobby is deeply rooted in US policymaking structures, ranging from vice‑president, and higher‑echelon staff, to parliament members.” The study noted that since 2021, AIPAC has expanded its activities to include direct participation in political campaign contributions, effectively buying access to the highest levels of American government.

The study’s conclusion is stark: “Such overly foreign influence on national policymaking has the potential to harm America’s long‑term relationships and interests in the Middle East if the US can’t make the barrier for foreign interference toward its national interests.”

This is not a fringe argument. Ilan Pappé’s comprehensive study, Lobbying for Zionism on Both Sides of the Atlantic, documents how “over a century of aggressive lobbying changed the map of the Middle East.” Pappé details how pro‑Israel lobbies convinced British and American policymakers “to condone Israel’s flagrant breaches of international law, grant Israel unprecedented military aid and deny Palestinians rights.” Anyone who questioned unconditional support for Israel, “even in the mildest terms, became the target of relentless smear campaigns.”

The mechanism is not subtle. It is the same mechanism that has always operated in systems where political survival depends on campaign contributions. The donor class – in this case, a network of Zionist organisations and aligned right‑wing groups – buys influence. Politicians who comply receive funding, electoral support, and protection from primary challenges. Those who dissent are targeted, smeared, and often defeated.

This is not a conspiracy. It is a system.

The Silencing of Dissent: Academic Freedom Under Attack

The suppression of criticism extends beyond electoral politics into the realm of ideas. A 2024 academic paper in the journal Milel ve Nihal examines how “political lobbying, financial influence, and allegations of antisemitism are strategically employed to establish a cultural hegemony that determines what discourse is acceptable” in US universities.

The paper, titled “Zionism and Academic Hegemony: The Intersection of Power, Knowledge, and Suppression in the United States Universities,” draws on Michel Foucault’s theory of power‑knowledge and Antonio Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony to analyse how “Zionist organisations influence higher education frameworks, research priorities, and public discourse.” This manipulation, the paper argues, “serves to marginalize, silence, or delegitimize critical perspectives that oppose or challenge Israeli policies and actions, especially those related to the occupation of Palestinian territories and human rights violations.”

The paper provides specific examples, including the rescinded job offer to Professor Steven Salaita at the University of Illinois following his criticism of Israel’s genocide in Gaza on social media. The case is not isolated. The paper documents “additional examples including the suppression of pro‑Palestinian viewpoints and the punishment of students and faculty who advocate for Palestinian rights at various prominent U.S. institutions.”

The paper concludes that “Zionism’s influence is not limited to isolated cases but creates a widespread atmosphere where academic freedom is restricted.” Universities, “meant to be pillars of free thought and critical inquiry, increasingly become arenas where dissent is suppressed and ideological conformity is imposed.”

The weaponisation of antisemitism accusations is central to this strategy. Criticism of Israeli government policy is routinely conflated with hatred of Jews. The effect is to chill debate, to intimidate critics, and to protect the settlement enterprise from scrutiny. As one reviewer of Pappé’s book noted, the strategy involves “cracked down on dissent in the Labour Party, and relentlessly smeared critics.”

The Australian Connection

The pattern is not confined to the United States and the United Kingdom. Australia has its own history of Zionist lobbying and political interference – a history that remains largely unexamined in mainstream discourse.

The Australian example is particularly instructive because it reveals how the machinery of influence operates even in a country geographically distant from the Middle East, with no historical responsibility for the conflict, and no strategic interest that would justify the degree of alignment with Israeli policy.

The mechanisms are similar: campaign donations, community lobbying, and the weaponisation of antisemitism accusations to silence critics. Australian politicians who question Israeli policy face organised opposition from Zionist organisations. The media environment is shaped by the same dynamics of donor pressure and editorial alignment.

The result is a foreign policy that is not in Australia’s national interest – AUKUS, the uncritical support for US Middle East policy, the silence on Israeli atrocities – but is dictated by a donor class whose primary loyalty is not to Australia.

This is not a fringe observation. It is the conclusion of the same structural analysis that applies to the United States and the United Kingdom. The only difference is scale.

The Geographic Safety Nets

The “Greater Israel” project is not merely ideological. It is infrastructural. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://theaimn.net/how-zionist-lobbying-has-reshaped-global-politics/

June 16, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

Roxby Bill impacting Aboriginal rights is rushed to a Vote on Tues 16 June

Alert: a bad Roxby Downs Bill and draconian new Indenture, impacting Aboriginal rights and interests, is being rushed to a Vote in SA Parliament expected on Tues 16 June to pass into Law by at least the end of the week. The SA State Labor Government has a lot to answer for.

see “BHP seek 50-year mining rights to expand Olympic Dam, as SA Labor Ministers indulge a farcical process and ignore public input”

Opinion by David Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St., Independent Environment Campaigner (2-p attached)

Inexplicably, Deputy Premier the Hon Kyam Maher MLC spoke glowingly to the Bill in a Legislative Council 2^nd Reading Speech on 3^rd June.

June 16, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

BHP seek 50-year mining rights to expand Olympic Dam, as SA Labor Ministers indulge a farcical process and ignore public input

By David Noonan, 15 June 26, https://au.spiritofeureka.org/2026/06/15/bhp-seek-50-year-mining-rights-to-expand-olympic-dam-sa-labor-ministers-indulge-a-farcical-process-and-ignore-public-input/

BHP and the State Government have agreed on a Roxby Downs Bill and new Indenture to govern
Olympic Dam and associated mining expansions for the next 50 years. This is a re-run of
precedence to big mining vested interests that has typified SA from back in 1982 and sets in
train up to a tripling of BHP demand for water in the dryest State.

State Labor decided to drop the highly complex Bill and new Indenture into Parliament without
prior notice, with the Minister for Mining Hon Tom Koutsantonis MP saying he wants the Bill
passed ‘unchanged and without delay’.

A short Select Committee was started up and “Parliamentary News” announced a six-working
day public consultation period – apologies to many interested parties if they didn’t get this news
in a timely way from such a well-read source.

For independent scrutiny, the proponent of the Bill the Minister for Mining was made the
Committee Chairperson and two non-public Hearings were held: first with the Department for
Mining and then with BHP and the Chamber of Mines as supportive compliant Witnesses.

To epitomise what a farce this process is, the Select Committee was set up to Report the day
after public input was to close at COB on Monday 1st June, and that is what they did. The ‘Report’
was Tabled and the Chairperson and Members of Committee all gave uncritical Speeches on
the Bill on the 2nd of June – the very morning after public input had closed.

This farce contradicts any claim by our SA State Labor Government to due process, to a fair
hearing and to integrity in public consultation.

The Report and Speeches inexplicably failed to discuss any of the important content of public
input across 22 Submissions received – they had left no time to even consider it properly. The
‘Report’ has a couple of pages on the non-public Hearings but provides no discussion or even a
summary of the public input. The public Submissions were not released until after the
Speeches and Parliamentary week had concluded.

People have a right to be heard in SA. Aboriginal Native title representative bodies and
individuals have sought to be heard on the Roxby Bill – including to give evidence in public
Hearings, as the Bill affects their rights and interests and their country and culture. However,
they have so far been denied that right and respect.

To be fair, the Department for Environment and Water was a Witness at second non-public
Hearing: with the CEO stating that closure of BHP Olympic Dam Wellfield A “will produce
significant benefits” to the unique and fragile Mound Springs that are dependent on natural
flows of Great Artesian Basin (GAB) ground water. However, the Bill intends to keep Wellfield A
operating for a further decade till 2036.

Asked about the benefits of replacing BHP’s far larger scale Wellfield B extraction of GAB water
for mining with an alternative desalinated marine water supply, the CEO said: “Yes definitely,
both the environment and cultural values”. However, the Bill grants rights to BHP to keep
pumping water from Wellfield B for decades.

A ‘Key Ask’ to the Premier by the State peak body Conservation SA (19 Dec) was conveyed to the
Roxby Committee in David Noonan and Friends of Mound Springs (see FOMS) public input:

Protect the Mound Springs and End Unsustainable Water Extraction from the Great
Artesian Basin
Mound Springs are globally significant cultural, ecological and geological features, and
are a listed EPBC Act “Endangered Ecological Community”. These unique and fragile
little gems support rare species, deep cultural heritage and landscapes central to the
identity of Traditional Owners. Community concern has escalated regarding BHP’s use
of Great Artesian Basin water for mining and the cumulative impact on Springs.

We call for:

a. Recognition of the Mound Springs of the GAB as a high-value ecosystem requiring
elevated protection.
b. Closure as soon as possible of BHP Wellfield A water extraction operations that have
directly impacted the Springs.
c. Transition of industrial scale BHP Wellfield B water extraction operations toward
alternative water sources, such as desalination or recycled water, to protect the Basin.
d. Transparent timely reporting of extraction volumes, groundwater pressures and
spring health and monitoring information.
e. Co-governance with Traditional Owners, with investment in cultural heritage
protection and Indigenous Rangers on country

Conservation SA has sought “a clear safeguard against irreversible damage” in needed closure
of Wellfield A and a phase out Wellfield B, but this Bill fails to do so.

Deputy Premier the Hon Kyam Maher MLC spoke glowingly to the Bill in a Legislative Council 2nd
Reading Speech on 3rd June. Surely, he would have first read the public input from Aboriginal
Native Title bodies, objections from the State Local Voice, and others calling to be heard on the
Bill. As Min for Aboriginal Affairs Mr Maher must hold this Bill off and respect and deliver on the
right to be heard in Public Hearings (e-mail at AttorneyGeneral@sa.gov.au Ph: (08) 7322 7050).

As Treasurer the Hon Tom Koutsantonis MP has finally put monies in the SA Budget for ‘Truth-
Telling’ – this bad Roxby Bill and draconian new Indenture means there is a lot more truth to tell.

Integrity in public office depends a lot on what the State Labor does next on the Roxby Downs
Bill and new Indenture. This bad Bill must not be rushed unchanged through Parliament by the
end of this June sitting. Public Hearings are necessary so people can be heard and respected in
our society and precious water and Springs must now be protected in this the dryest State.

Further info, see “Roxby Bill rides roughshod over environmental and Indigenous concerns”

at https://www.conservationsa.org.au/protect_mound_springs

Public Submissions to the Roxby Downs Select Committee were belatedly released, see at:

parliament.sa.gov.au/en/Committees/Committees -Detail and scroll to:

Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification) (Amendment of Ratification) Amendment Bill SELECT

June 16, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

BHP seek 50-year mining rights to expand Olympic Dam, as SA Labor Ministersindulge a farcical process and ignore public input.

by David Noonan, 14 June 26, https://nuclear.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Noonan-BHP-bad-Roxby-Bill-as-Ministers-ignore-public-input-2026.pdf