Australian nuclear news week to 20 June:
Australian nuclear news week to 20 June:
- 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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
Read more: While Britain’s defence strategy comes under fire, the nuclear arms race continues“This appears to be an appeal from the Europeans for greater security through tactical nuclear deployments. This is a very bizarre and paradoxical and indeed worrying development.”
But more than the usual difficulty in knowing just how defence dollars are being spent, anything specifically related to nuclear weapons has a tradition of being particularly opaque.
The Financial Times reported last week that Westminster’s Public Accounts Committee found that the Ministry of Defence has “not provided ‘sufficient transparency’ over its ever-increasing spending on nuclear weapons, which accounts for roughly a fifth of the UK defence budget”.
“The report criticised the secrecy surrounding Britain’s nuclear spending, saying the Defence Nuclear Enterprise, a collection of organisations that operate and maintain the UK’s nuclear deterrent, ‘lacked accounting records to support more than £6bn of its assets’ in its 2024–25 annual report,” the FT reported.
Britain’s nuclear deterrent consists of submarines carrying US-made Trident nuclear missiles. Creating a new class of four Dreadnought nuclear submarines to take the place of the ageing Vanguard-class subs is expected to cost £41bn.
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.
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/
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 2nd Reading Speech on 3rd June.
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
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
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 ‘TruthTelling’ – 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
Technology unravels strategy and the weakness of AUKUS
Derek Woolner, David Glynne Jones, June 11, 2026, https://pearlsandirritations.com/post/2026/06/technology-unravels-strategy-and-the-weakness-of-aukus/
Developments in technology, their consequences for strategic policy and challenges in sustaining Australia’s submarine warfare capability are the ultimate challenges to AUKUS.
We argue elsewhere that advances in submarine battery technologies will have changed the prospects for regional undersea warfare at about the time that Australia’s first AUKUS nuclear powered submarines (SSN) become operational. The consequences should influence Australia’s national security policy and the ultimate usefulness of AUKUS.
The demise of submarines has been predicted regularly. Yet in the face of modern military systems they remain less vulnerable than surface warships. Nonetheless, traditional anti-submarine warfare (ASW) sensors are being enhanced by increasingly powerful digital analysis. More nations are deploying fixed submerged sensor systems and surveillance is being extended by autonomous underwater gliders, autonomous surface craft like BlueBottle and uncrewed underwater vessels (UUV). Together with intelligent mines, high performance light metal battery (LMB) powered small submarines and, before long, killer UUVs, submarine missions will become more difficult.
Just how, and to what degree, broadly depends on who’s searching, why they’re searching and what they can do about it. And the latter need not be overtly hostile.
When Indonesia eventually deploys its submarine detection system, covert passage between the Indian and Pacific Oceans will become problematic. Submerged transit is possible at only two points in the Indonesian archipelago, with Lombok Strait preferred for the large 10,000 tonne future Australian SSNs. Disseminating the data on such transits could compromise covert deployment and complicate RAN missions. Were Indonesia ever prompted to close the Strait, submarines based at HMAS Stirling would become an exclusively Indian Ocean flotilla.
The response of China is a completely different matter. With national security objectives that can be supported by a maritime strategy of sea denial, China continues to methodically improve its Yuan class conventional submarine force, projected to be 46 vessels by 2040. It has the technology and shipbuilding capacity to quickly add small all-electric SSE coastal submarines and a range of UUVs. At some time before 2040, China will have the capacity to close much of the South China Sea to hostile submarines (and hence other naval activity).
This situation effectively unravels a central element of Australia’s National Defence Strategy of 2026 (p.26) which postulates a strategy of denial but envisages a need for Australia to influence strategic developments in its region. However, with the strategy relying on a US-backed balance of power, with that country deeply divided on policy and declining in capacity, this is not a prospect of any certainty.
By the mid-2050s, with the full SSN fleet of eight enough to regularly deploy only two boats, the RAN will not be able to contest China’s naval dominance nor tangibly increase influence with regional partners. Consequently, the prime operational advantage of an SSN – speed of long distance passage – will be of lesser relevance. There will be fewer forward hostile deployments (such as in support of Taiwan) from which an RAN submarine could be expected to return. Australians don’t know if this is currently an objective of AUKUS, but there are no public operational objectives that would justify the specific choice of nuclear power for the nation’s submarine fleet.
Despite Chinese dominance of the seas north of Indonesia, the environment of Australia’s northern archipelagic approaches will continue as a basis for a strategy of denial. Australia has innovative companies producing the equipment needed to apply this strategy to undersea warfare. But geography and equipment do not make a strategy without a concept for their employment.
Previously the RAN’s concept of submarine operations (CONOPS) was to deploy forward to the approaches of an opponent’s ports to effectively engage targets. This CONOPS has been strong enough to disqualify off-the-shelf designs from RAN acquisition programs and thus justify expenditure on RAN ‘specified’ submarines.
Deemphasising forward deployment and developing a concept for defence of an archipelagic front stretching over 6,000 kilometres will be challenging. It will be possible by focusing on control of various choke points, which indicates a continuing role for subsea warfare. It is, however, unlikely to be based on one submarine in the Indian Ocean and another in the Coral Sea.
The most appropriate mix of crewed, automatic and autonomous systems needed to deny access to hostile naval forces will be identified over time. However, it would seem that the lower acquisition cost and higher availability of something like the SSE designs we anticipate being available by the 2040s would prove more appropriate than anything emerging from AUKUS, at the least allowing for a greater number of more deployable vessels.
Reaching an outcome on such deliberations will require research, trialing and experience. Much of this will have to be obtained on RAN submarines at sea. Despite government and public discourse focusing on AUKUS, in reality, the Navy’s existing Collins class submarines will remain the RAN’s most numerous crewed submarine into the 2040s. Sustaining the RAN’s future direction will depend largely on sea days onboard a Collins submarine.
To accommodate the ponderous acquisition programs for both the Virginia class ‘interim’ and the AUKUS class SSNs, each of the Collins will have a Life-of-Type-Extension (LOTE) to allow an extra 10 years of service, beginning from 2028. The LOTE will enable four of the Collins to serve into the 2040s, with the last retiring just before the end of that decade.
The LOTE has recently been reduced to little more than a maintenance and rectification program, abandoning plans for new diesel generators and propulsion motors. The boats will retain their existing lead acid battery (LAB) technology.
Consequently the first Collins LOTE will be barely survivable and later boats, faced by LMB-equipped opponents with up to four times the submerged performance, will be dangerously obsolete. If retention of the existing propulsion machinery allows inattention to critical machinery platforms, the critically important stealthiness of the Collins design could be compromised. Even in a training role, the limited capacity of the Collins LAB energy system will struggle to support the development of the increasingly complex digital systems associated with AUKUS Pillar II programs.
Conceiving AUKUS as the only option for RAN submarine acquisition appears to have made Australian policy makers uncurious about the future undersea warfare environment. Current policies, particularly those concerning the Collins LOTE, appear to offer no corrective. It is this weakness that could ultimately see AUKUS sidelined by the imperatives of technological change.
Australia’s Secret Embrace of U.S. Nuclear Planning
Australia’s subterfuge around its anti-nuclear commitments keeps Australians in the dark about American nuclear weapons on our territory.
DECLASSIFIED, By Jesse Boylan, ICAN Australia, Jun 12, 2026
n the morning of 15 February 2023, during a Senate Estimates hearing, Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Defence Secretary Greg Moriarty were asked to respond to a simple but loaded question by the Greens Senator, Jordon Steele-John:
“I’m seeking on behalf of the community to get a firm commitment from the government that the [US] B-52s [long-range bombers] cycling through Australia will be solely conventionally capable, not nuclear capable.”
Senator Steele-John was trying to establish whether Australia would be hosting nuclear-capable bombers, which would undermine Australia’s nuclear-free status and increase its exposure to nuclear‑armed conflict. Adversaries, namely China, as Declassified Australia has exposed, would treat these aircraft as potentially nuclear‑armed, increasing the risk Australia could be targeted in a nuclear escalation.
Senator Wong consulted with Defence officials on the questions before providing an answer. After the mid-morning break, Secretary Moriarty addressed the question. In their report, Performing Fealty in a Nuclear Alliance, Vince Scappatura and Richard Tanter – experts on US military and intelligence facilities in Australia – describe Moriarty’s response as a “boilerplate formulation”:
[S]tationing of nuclear weapons in Australia is prohibited by the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, to which Australia is fully committed…Successive Australian governments have understood and respected the longstanding US policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on particular platforms. Australia will continue to fully comply with our international obligations, and the United States understands and respects Australia’s international obligations with respect to nuclear weapons.
In other words, Australia has a nuclear weapons-free policy but would let the US circumvent it, which makes one wonder why the Foreign Minister felt she needed time to consult. Hansard documents prove that variations of this response have been used since at least 2006.
Liberals past ‘no nukes’ policy
Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, in an attempt to counter Soviet regional expansion, Washington asked Australia if the US might fly B-52 bombers over the north of Australia for training purposes. Australian Liberal Prime Minister Malcom Fraser agreed.
A year later, Fraser agreed to a second American request for Indian Ocean maritime surveillance flights staging through Darwin. This time he required that the B-52s be “unarmed and carry no bombs” – meaning no nuclear weapons. Fraser went even further and forced the US to make this public, which was an unprecedented request by an ally and contrary to the US practice of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on their aircraft or ships.
It’s clear Fraser held a deep distrust in America, says Tanter – who worked with Fraser on the second half of his 2014 book ‘Dangerous Allies’. This distrust had deepened after the Pentagon Papers revealed the US government had lied to the American and Australian public about the Vietnam War. Fraser also knew there could be situations where Australian and US interests would not align. US bombers flying operations from Australia raised questions of sovereignty.
While in opposition, Labor bitterly opposed and ridiculed Fraser’s protocol, but when Labor leader Bob Hawke took office in 1983, they kept it. By the end of the Cold War, in 1991, US B-52 missions wound down, and Fraser’s arrangements were essentially forgotten, rather than held onto as a model worth preserving. Every subsequent government has allowed the US military presence to expand without conditions placed on the carrying of nuclear weapons in Australian sovereign territory.
Australia’s nuclear posture has changed
Since the 1960s, secretive facilities at Northwest Cape, near Exmouth in Western Australia, and Pine Gap, near Alice Springs in the Northern Territory, have supported US early warning, communications and targeting operations – essential for nuclear war planning. These facilities on Australian soil, and our reliance on US extended nuclear deterrence, implicate us in US nuclear operations.
Under the Australia-US alliance, the US is preparing to deploy up to six B-52 bombers to RAAF Tindal airbase, near Katherine in the Northern Territory from this year. Will they be conventional-only bombers, nuclear-capable, or a mixture of both? And will the government be told?
Under AUKUS, the trilateral security partnership, US Virginia-class attack submarines will be regularly arriving at HMAS Stirling near Perth from 2027. Although this has not been specified, Vince Scappatura, a lecturer from the School of International Studies at Macquarie University, says it is possible that the submarines will be armed with nuclear weapons at some point. Although these and older attack submarines have been visiting Stirling for routine maintenance for a long time, they will become “de facto homeported at HMAS Stirling,” Scappatura says. In this way, it is conceivable that Australia might in the near future directly support nuclear combat missions from Australian soil.
Professor Gareth Evans, Labor’s Foreign Affairs Minister from 1988 to 1996, told me Australia has been “painting targets on our backs all over the place” on the assumption that the alliance is indispensable.
While upholding the Labor government policy on ‘neither confirm nor deny’ presence of nuclear weapons on visiting US aircraft, Evans was active on nuclear disarmament issues while in office, helping Prime Minister Paul Keating initiate the 1996 Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. Since leaving office Evans has continued his work on disarmament issues and led the 2009 International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament report Eliminating Nuclear Threats: A Practical Agenda for Global Policymakers.
Performing strategic ambiguity
Later in the 2023 Senate Estimates exchange, Greens Senator David Shoebridge tried to clarify if our obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (SPNFZT) – also known as the Treaty of Rarotonga – restrain Australia from permitting nuclear armed B-52 bombers in Australia.
Wong quickly jumped in, asserting:
“No. You’re reading more into it. The statement says, ‘There is no impediment under this treaty or the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to the visit of foreign aircraft to Australian airfields or transit of Australia’s airspace’.”
The responses of Wong and Moriarty – who is now serving as Australia’s Ambassador to the United States – used “strategic ambiguity” as a shield to deflect Greens’ questions. It’s what Scappatura and Tanter describe as “public performance by political leaders”, which often involves obfuscation, displaced logic, and the denial of reality.
Under the Treaty of Rarotonga, ‘stationing’ of nuclear weapons in Australia is prohibited, but ‘transits’ and ‘visits’ are permitted. Dr Monique Cormier, an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law at Monash University, told me that the line between ‘transiting’ and ‘stationing’ is “open to a lot of interpretation”. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Neither confirm nor deny: ‘love it or hate it’
Since 1948, Australia has accepted the US policy to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) if nuclear weapons are on visiting aircraft or ships……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
‘Full knowledge and concurrence‘
Where Australia allows the US to use its facilities for defence purposes, it is supposed to have “full knowledge and concurrence” of US activities on Australian soil. But this does not mean “Australia approves each individual activity or task undertaken”. Rather, Defence Minister Richard Marles said in 2023, it means that we “agree to the purpose of activities conducted in Australia, we are aware of the capabilities being used, and understand their expected outcomes.”
So, does Australia not know what the US does on its soil, or do we know, but look the other way?
Scappatura and Tanter believe Australia cannot have it both ways. It either does not know the nuclear status of visiting aircraft, ships and submarines – undermining its claims of sovereignty – or does know, but is unable (or unwilling) to share. (The Foreign Minister and Defence Minister did not respond to repeated requests for comment sent to them by Declassified Australia.) “To me,” says Scappatura, “that’s humiliating. It’s humiliating for Senator Wong; it’s humiliating for me as an Australian citizen.”
Extended Nuclear Deterrence
Associate Professor Tilman Ruff from the University of Melbourne is a co-founder and founding chair of the Nobel-prize winning organisation ICAN – the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. He understands the intergenerational trauma and legacy of war: his family were German immigrants in Palestine who lost many family members during both world wars. They were imprisoned as slave farm labour for the British and then interned in Australia till 1947.
Both of his grandmothers told him if war broke out again, “They wanted the first bomb to drop on their heads because they didn’t want to live through another one,” he says.
It wasn’t until after medical school, however, that Ruff learnt about the impacts of nuclear weapons and understood the responsibility on health professionals to campaign against their existence. Since then, he has dedicated his life to abolishing “the world’s worst weapons”………………………………………………………………….
Australia has formally stated it relies on the US for extended nuclear deterrence since the 1994 Defence White Paper “Defending Australia”. The expectation the US would use its nuclear weapons to protect Australia in case of attack, has never been formalised by Washington. This policy was only supposed to be an interim measure until a total ban on nuclear weapons could be achieved, says Evans, who was involved in drafting the white paper. “I don’t think anyone thought that nuclear weapons elimination was going to happen anytime soon,” he told me.
The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) – also known as the nuclear weapons ban treaty – seeks to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely. It entered into force in 2021 with global support, but Australia is not yet a signatory. Instead, Australia still relies on extended nuclear deterrence, which is embedded in defence policy.
The text in Australia’s 2026 National Defence Strategy warns of a “new nuclear arms race”. It reaffirms that relying on the US for nuclear deterrence and other arms control is Australia’s best protection against increasing nuclear risk.
But in his Press Club speech, Minister Marles neglected to mention the US is a key driver of nuclear weapons proliferation, with 5402 warheads in its military stockpile: 1,770 deployed; 1,930 in reserve; and 1,342 awaiting dismantlement. A recent Congressional Budget Office report projected the US will spend up to US$1.5 trillion over the next thirty years (roughly US$95 billion a year) to modernise and expand its nuclear arsenal.
Evans firmly believes that we don’t need to rely on US extended nuclear deterrence for security, telling me:
“It’s very doubtful whether it would ever mean anything in practice. The US is highly unlikely to sacrifice San Francisco for Sydney or, or Miami for Melbourne. And so, it is pretty illusory. And to the extent that we are still relying on it, that is still a real issue to debate.” …………………………….
The path to nuclear abolition
There is no doubt nuclear weapons pose an existential threat. A modern nuclear weapon is five to ten times more powerful than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Their use – whether deliberate or accidental – would cause indiscriminate destruction, long-term environmental harm, and unimaginable loss of life. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….
If Palau can sign the nuclear weapons ban treaty, Australia should too, says Ruff:
“What an extraordinary lack of courage and conviction for Australia to doubt it could do the same. There couldn’t be a better time for the government to really step up and become the first nuclear complicit state to join this treaty.”
In practice, signing the nuclear weapons ban treaty would present an opportunity to renegotiate with the US to decommission or change functions of bases like Pine Gap and Northwest Cape that directly aid with the possible use of nuclear weapons. It would mean shutting down the Relay Ground Station at Pine Gap, which is essential for US nuclear war fighting, and it would mean ending our reliance on extended nuclear deterrence. https://declassifiedaus.org/2026/06/01/australias-secret-embrace-of-u-s-nuclear-planning/
Non-corporate nuclear-related news – week to 14 June
Some bits of good news – How To End A War: Lessons from Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Juan Manuel SantosMangrove forests stage a comeback. French Polynesia Protects Biodiverse Ocean Area Twice the Size of Arizona Teeming with Life
TOP STORIES. Reactor reboot at world’s largest nuclear plant highlights flaws in Japan’s radioactive waste plans.Is America ready for a nuclear explosion in space?
‘Burn for us’: The real message of US-EU ‘nuclear sharing’.
FIFA, Eurovision expelled Russia but Israel has Impunity.
Chas Freeman: The Greater Israel Project Is Collapsing Under the Weight of Endless War.
AI to double data centre power and water consumption by 2030, UN researchers say.
Climate. Record winter temperatures in Antarctic raise fears over speed of climate breakdown
AUSTRALIA.
- Technology unravels strategy and the weakness of AUKUS
- AUSTRALIA’S SECRET EMBRACE OF U.S. NUCLEAR PLANNING
- SUBMISSION: Radiation protection for workers and members of the public under AUKUS.
- Freedom Of Information to die? Albanese’s nuclear strike on transparency.
- From the archives – Freedom Of Information win as Information Commissioner rebukes Defence secrecy.
- Resisting radioactive racism in Australia.
- Nuclear test survivor’s daughter calls on First Nations communities to speak up on AUKUS
- 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.
- More Australian news at https://antinuclear.net/2026/06/07/australian-nuclear-news-week-to-13-june/
NUCLEAR-RELATED ITEMS
| ATROCITIES. Visual data reveals extent of systematic Israeli white phosphorus attacks on south Lebanon: Report. More Palestinians killed by Israeli military and settlers across occupied West Bank in last 3 years since Gaza hostilities than previous 17 combined – Oxfam. Israel Has Engineered a Deadly Shortage of Medications and Health Care in Gaza. |
| CLIMATE. A nuclear war between India and Pakistan could destroy the ozone layer. |
| CIVIL LIBERTIES. Natasha Walter: Labour’s workaday repression of protest doesn’t alarm us – But it should. |
ECONOMICS.
- We economists have done the maths: ‘growth’ is a doomed strategy – there is a better way.
- Rolls-Royce strikes nuclear deal with Japan, likely to be tax-payer funded – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2026/06/14/6-b1-rolls-royce-strikes-nuclear-deal-with-japan-likely-to-be-tax-payer-funded/
- Campaigners demand answers over Sizewell C costs and completion date. Are the Sizewell C financing arrangements a model for other European countries? Sizewell C to move work offsite ‘as much as possible’ amid skills crisis. Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) defends Sizewell C funding which puts risk on taxpayer. – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2026/06/12/5-b1-department-for-energy-security-and-net-zero-desnz-defends-sizewell-c-funding-which-puts-risk-on-taxpayer/
- United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) commits £20M to UKI2S fund for fusion innovation .
- Screwed again: small investors to bail out billionaires from SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic.
| EMPLOYMENT. Planned strikes suspended at nuclear site. Industrial dispute on Hinkley C site sees large police presence. |
| ENVIRONMENT. Hinkley Nuclear plant could be delayed again by demands to protect fish – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2026/06/14/6-b1-hinkley-nuclear-plant-could-be-delayed-again-by-demands-to-protect-fish/ |
| EVENTS. 25 June- THE PUKE ON NUKES. 26 June – Radiation Trainwreck at the NRC / Join the Protect Better Campaign . Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family!. Protest to be held at Calderbridge nuclear waste meeting. |
| HISTORY. How Israel Planned The Gaza Genocide Decades Ago. How The CIA Conjured Ukrainian Nationalism. Tortured US history with Iran goes back 73 years, not 47. |
MEDIA.
- Western Media Normalize Ethnic Cleansing of Lebanon by Viewing It Through Israel’s Eyes.
- Media’s Ceasefire Fiction Masks Continuing War.
- Revealed: USAID, National Endowment for Democracy & Open Society Quietly Bankroll Cuba’s “Independent” Media In Push for Regime Change.
- Honorable Mention to “HIBAKUSHA – WANDERING SOUL“
| OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . Sizewell C: the Unanswered Questions. |
| PERSONAL STORIES. Stewart Lee: Quick – dangerous ideologies are storming the beaches – Has anyone reserved a sun-lounger? |
POLITICS.
ROSATOM report.
Trump’s Sedition Act for Israel.
Fusing the US Military and the Israeli Defense Force
POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY.
- The view from Moscow: The future of nuclear arms control exists, but the path is hard.
- IAEA board passes resolution demanding Iran report uranium stocks.
- Is the Ceasefire Dead? (w/ Alastair Crooke) -The Chris Hedges Report.
- The Gazafication of Lebanon: How Israel Exports Destruction and Washington Protects It.
- Trump news at a glance: president claims Iran ‘no longer want a nuclear weapon’ amid peace deal hopes.
- 𝐍𝐄𝐓𝐀𝐍𝐘𝐀𝐇𝐔’𝐒 𝐆𝐀𝐌𝐁𝐋𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇 𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐍 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐒 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐒𝐎𝐋𝐃𝐈𝐄𝐑𝐒 𝐈𝐍 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐈𝐃𝐃𝐋𝐄 𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐓.
- ‘The Humiliation Just Compounds’: Trump Tells Netanyahu Not to Bomb Iran, Then Israel Strikes Anyway. Trump and Netanyahu: The odd couple.
- Why Europe Embraced Authoritarianism For Israel.
- International People’s Tribunal (IPT) invites representatives of the United States Government and the Government of the Republic of Korea to participate in Proceedings on Korean Victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Atomic Bombings.
RADIATION. NUCLEAR HOTSEAT. Women, Children At Greatest Risk from Nuclear Radiation – UN Report by Mary Olson, Dr. Amanda M. Nichols
SAFETY.
- No electricity at Zaporizhia nuclear power plant after attack, IAEA says.
- Experts Warn Against Handing Impact Assessment of Nuclear Projects Over to Captured Regulator.
- Shipment of nuclear waste from Sellafield heads to Germany, raising safety concerns.
- UK to Extend Life of Sizewell B Nuclear Plant by 20 Years !
- The timeline for restoring operations at the Chornobyl nuclear waste storage facility following Russian shelling remains unknown – IAEA . Power returns to Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant after prolonged outage, IAEA says.
- Incidents. IAEA warning after drone hits used fuel facility near Chernobyl. Another deadly explosion casts shadow over Hanwha Aerospace’s cutting-edge image
| SPACE. EXPLORATION, WEAPONS. Space Force needs to prepare for an ‘in-person’ moon conflict with China, new report argues. United Nations Open-ended working group on the prevention of an arms race in outer space in all its aspects (“OEWG on PAROS”) |
| SPINBUSTER. The push to lift Ireland’s nuclear ban: Going nuclear or nowhere? Beyond the Propaganda: The French Uniqueness and the New Nuclear Dead End – Excerpts at https://nuclear-news.net/2026/06/14/6-b1-beyond-the-propaganda-the-french-uniqueness-and-the-new-nuclear-dead-end/ Hegseth Compares D-Day Troops to Europe’s Migrants. Israel Could Solve Its PR Problem By Simply Ceasing To Be Evil. |
| TECHNOLOGY. Can small nuclear reactors deliver for Europe? Nuclear-fusion firm says plant will deliver electricity to grid — but big questions remain. |
WAR and CONFLICT.
- US Begins Another Round of Attacks on Iran.
- War crime -US ‘precision strikes’ cut water access to 20,000 people in southern Iran.
- Putin Powerfully Rebuffed The Hawks Who Want Him To Attack NATO.
- Russian drone hits nuclear fuel site near Chernobyl – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2026/06/12/5-b1-russian-drone-hits-nuclear-fuel-site-near-chernobyl/
- Battle for Kiev 2022: The Battle That Never Was [i].
Nuclear weapons spending surges to record high of $119bn, report says .
Britain has become third-largest nuclear weapons spender – CND. UK overtakes Russia as Labour hike nuclear weapon spend by 17 per cent. UK Navy nuclear submarine fleet stuck in dock while awaiting maintenance.
North Korea will never give up its nuclear weapons, says Kim Jong-un’s sister. Kim Jong Un vows to build nuclear-armed navy with ‘secret underwater weapons‘ as he tours warship with his daughter.
| WOMEN. A Collective Call by the Women of the World. |
SUBMISSION: Radiation protection for workers and members of the public under AUKUS.
Submission to the national AUKUS inquiry by Dr Tony Webb, 11 June 25
About the author
I think the issues addressed in this submission should stand or fall on the relevance of the
concerns raised and the scientific evidence it highlights rather than who is raising them.
That said I do have some professional qualifications and a history of international
engagement with this issue. I hold an MSc in Energy Resources Management from the
Polytechnic of the Southbank, now Southbank University, London (1990) and a PhD from the
University of Western Sydney (2003). Retired from a senior lecturer position in the School
of Science and Health at the University of Western Sydney in 2013. Much of my work over
the past half century has been on the interface between the trade union / labour and
environment movements. In the UK in the 1970s I worked as national resources campaign
coordinator at Fiends of the Earth, coordinator of the Socialist Environment and Resources
Association Alternative Energy Campaign, founding director of the UK Radiation and Health
Information Service, and National Organiser of the UK national Anti-Nuclear Campaign. In
the 1980s I was director of the Radiation and Health Labor Project targeting US unions and
their members, worked as consultant to Canadian Labor Congress and Canadian unions
with members in uranium mining, nuclear power generation, and Health Services, and on
returning to the UK coordinated what became an international Food Irradiation campaign
through the London Food Commission and worked as senior researcher for Frank Cool MP
coordinating a Radiation Roundtable dialogue between unions environment and health
groups. I have continued aspects of this work in Australia most recently as an active
member of the South Australian Citizen’s Jury on the importing of nuclear wastes and lately
raising the concerns identified in this submission with environment, anti-nuclear, peace,
public health, political and trade union groups.
Summary of key issues covered in this submission
The key issues I wish to raise for consideration as part of this Inquiry into the AUKUS
submarine program are:
*That there is a potential risk to health of workers and the public from routine as well
as unpanned/accidental exposures to ionising radiation from many aspects of this
AUKUS program including: submarine construction, operation, maintenance,
decommissioning, and long-term management of radioactive waste materials.
*It has long been an established principle for radiation protection that there is no
threshold or safe level of exposure – that even small doses may result in stochastic
health effects where probability of effect rises with the level of exposure rather than
disease outcomes being determined by dose. As a result, it is expected that all
exposures need to be justified against some expected social benefit, be kept as low
as reasonably achievable (ALARA) and be kept below strict annual worker and public
exposure limits.
*These established principles are currently being challenged in the USA as a result of a
2025 Presidential directive that instructs the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
abandon the no threshold and ALARA principles and revise occupational and
exposure limits to reflect deterministic rather than stochastic health effects –
changes that, if implemented would significantly increase permissible exposures.
*It is unclear how such changes might be applied to nuclear submarine operations
under AUKUS particularly where US or Australian-US co-owned/operated boats use
Australian facilities. Pressure from the US to operate within US standards can be
anticipated. It should be noted that Australia has already established a Naval
Nuclear Protection Standards Regulator (ANNPSR) – separate from the current
Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) – that will regulate all
aspects of safety for the AUKUS program.
* The changes to US standards – already weaker than those applied under
international recommendations by most other countries, come at a time when
scientific evidence from large scale epidemiological health studies on workers
employed in, and communities living close to, nuclear facilities indicates that the
estimates used in setting current standards underestimate the risks to health and
need to be significantly tightened.
Details and evidence relating to these issues are outlined below. I will be happy to provide
further information and be questioned on matters arising if this would assist the Inquiry.
Impending changes to radiation protection standards
Changes for worse or better protection for workers and the public is on the international
and national political agenda in a number of countries. Trade Union, environment and
public health groups around the world are concerned that the USA is considering proposals
that would weaken radiation protection standards at a time when the scientific evidence
suggests these need to be significantly tightened. These need to be resisted with pressure
to provide better not worse protection for workers and the public.
In May 2025 US President Donald Trump issued a Directive (EO 14300) 1 requiring the US
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to review nuclear safety regulations with particular
reference to radiation protection of workers and the public. The Directive instructs the NRC
to abandon fundamental principles that have formed the basis for radiation protection for
much of the past century. These include: the internationally accepted position that there is
no threshold or safe level of exposure to ionising radiation; that, as a consequence, all
exposures should be kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA); and that exposures to
workers and the public be kept below strict annual limits in line with the best
Evidence for increased health risk from radiation exposure
The evidence used to set current standards is drawn mainly from the studies of cancer rates
among the Japanese A-bomb survivors who were exposed to relatively high doses over short
time periods. Since then, studies of workers in nuclear power facilities exposed to lower
doses over long time periods show higher rates of cancer than predicted by the Japanese
studies. Rather than indicating any threshold these studies suggest that at low doses the
cancer rates are proportionately higher than expected from the Linear No-Threshold (LNT)
model used to set current standards. 2 Worker studies also show elevated rates of cardio-
vascular diseases 3 , and increased rates of dementia 4 . In addition, studies on populations
around nuclear power plants are now showing higher cancer rates affecting the population
generally 5 and particularly children 6 and the elderly 7 with level of health damage correlated
with how close they lived to these facilities.
Despite this evidence, the US NRC is considering weakening protection standards
Despite this mounting evidence that exposure limits should be tightened the likely result of
changes in line with the Presidential directive would be to increase the permissible exposure
limit for workers and the public to five times the current internationally recommended level.
The US NRC is clearly faced with a dilemma. Adopting the changes demanded by the
President would require reversing its 2021 decision that specifically rejected these same
proposals 8 . The initial date for publication of the NRC’s draft response for public
consultation was 23 February 2026. This have been deferred several times – first to 30 April
then 24 June and now 2 July. Despite large scale resignations and lay-offs among NRC staff
perhaps there remain some with scientific integrity opposing the changes they believe are
unjustifiable. Further delays may occur but the final revision of standards is required by end
of December 2026. Given the President’s record for seeking retribution on government
representatives or officials who oppose his plans it is hard to see any outcome from the NRC
other than a change to weaken the US standards.
US pressure on global standards
If they go through there will also likely be pressure on international and national standards
agencies to align with changes in the USA. There is already some push-back. In June 2025
the heads of European standards agencies issued a statement supporting the LNT and
ALARA principles and insisting that exposure standards be set on the basis of the scientific
evidence without undue influence. 9 In May 2026 the World Health Organisation urged
national and international bodies to continue collaboration to “harmonise standards, share
data and strengthen coordination on radiation and health.” 10
The AUKUS connection
In Australia there are a number of joint ventures in uranium and radioactive rare earths and
mineral sands mining and the government has already established a separate Naval Nuclear
Power Safety Regulator (ANNPSR) to oversee all aspects of construction, operation,
maintenance, decommissioning and nuclear waste management under the Australia-UK-US
(AUKUS) nuclear submarine program. While these nuclear submarine standards are
expected to be consistent with those of the current Australian Radiation and Nuclear Safety
Agency (ARPANSA) it is unclear whether US or Australian standards will apply to US military
or joint US Australian assets operating from Australian facilities. Pressure for change is
inevitable. Hopefully the outcome of politically independent science-based pressure will be
not merely opposition to changes prompted by the US President’s directive but for
significantly better standards to protect health of workers and the public where they are
routinely exposed to ionising radiation.
What the AUKUS investigation might recommend
First: that Australian radiation protection should continue to be based on the established
principles that: there is no safe level of exposure to ionising radiation; that all exposures in
the workplace, and in community from whatever source need to be justified against some
recognizable benefit and where justified be kept as low as reasonably achievable and in any
case below strict exposure limits that are set on the basis of the best available evidence for
the level of risk of health damage.
Second: that all radiation protection safety standards operated under the AUKUS program
and regulated by the ANNPSR be consistent with those developed by ARPSANSA for
occupational and public exposures generally and that these apply to construction,
maintenance, decommissioning and waste management for all nuclear-powered
submarines whether these are owned by Australia or another country – Australian
standards rather than those of another country should apply in Australia.
Third: that ARPANSA be asked to provide a clear and unequivocal statement that Radiation
Protection standards in Australia will not be changed in line with the US Presidential
Directive
Fourth: that ARPANSA be asked to undertake a systematic review of the evidence suggesting
that the current occupational and public exposure limits need to be revised – and tightened
so as to lower permissible exposure limits.
References and Further Reading
1 Directive EO14300 Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 May 2025.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-14300-ordering-the-reform-the-nuclear-
regulatory-commission see Section 5 for directives relating to Radiation Protection
2 Richardson et al. 2023. Cancer mortality after low dose exposure to ionising radiation in workers in France,
the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS): cohort study. British Medical Journal 16 August 2023.
See https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj-2022-074520 The study concludes:
This major update to INWORKS provides a direct estimate of the association between protracted low-dose
exposure to ionizing radiation and solid cancer mortality based on some of the world’s most informative
cohorts of radiation workers. The summary estimate of excess relative rate solid cancer mortality per Gy is
larger than estimates currently informing radiation protection, and some evidence suggests a steeper slope for
the dose-response association in the low dose range than over the full dose range. These results can help to
strengthen radiation protection, especially for low dose exposures that are of primary interest in contemporary
medical, occupational and environmental settings.
3 Little et al, 2023. Ionising radiation and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ
March 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-072924
4 Frangione et al. Exposure to ionizing radiation and dementia mortality among nuclear power plant workers in
the Canadian national dose registry. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. November 5, Oral session:
Specific exposures: pesticides & Ionizing radiation.. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2024-EPICOHabstracts.61
5 Alwadi Y, et al (2026). A national analysis of the impact of proximity to nuclear power plants on lung, breast
and colon cancer moralities in the U.S., 2000-2020, Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-026-00922-2
6 Fairlie, I. 2021. Radiation and Cancer in Children. Report for the UK Charity Children with Cancer. See
https://www.ianfairlie.org/news/a-report-on-radiation-risks-and-on-cancer-in-children/
7 Alwasi Y. et al. 2026. National analysis of cancer mortality and proximity to nuclear power plants in the
United States. Nature Communications 17, 1560, 13 April 2026. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-
026-69285-4
8 Petition for Rulemaking; Denial: Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation
Posted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Aug 16, 2021 https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-
2015-0057-0671
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
Australians deserve the truth
about AUKUS
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 