Israelis mislead Royal Commission into Antisemitism
by Wendy Bacon | Oct 19, 2026 , https://michaelwest.com.au/israelis-mislead-royal-commission-into-antisemitism/
investigates the Israel lobbyists, PR people and astroturfers behind the Combat Antisemitism Movement targeting local councils and the Royal Commission.
The Commonwealth and NSW governments are supporting a national local government conference organised by the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), whose Israel-based CEO was head of the IDF’s social media unit.
The IDF is widely accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide by international bodies such as the United Nations, human rights organisations, and legal investigators.
The key goal of CAM, which operates in 40 countries, is to enforce the IHRA definition of antisemitism across all fields and levels of government;
“a definition which restricts criticism of Israel.”
CAM’s global headquarters are in Kansas, with CEO Sacha Roytman running the show from Tel Aviv. Chairman of its Board of Advisors, Natan Sharansky, was Deputy Prime Minister of Israel.
In a submission to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, Roytman accused this publication of attacks on the CAM Summit and its organisers, among other unsubstantiated claims and imputations of antisemitism.
The submission went on to claim that “the publications that attacked the event” did not contact CAM beforehand.
This is false. In line with standard journalistic procedure, MWM tried to contact CAM on multiple occasions and sent questions prior to publication of the story to its chief executive, Sacha Roytman, which received no response. Here are the questions:
MWM also tried to contact CAM organiser Justine Williams by LinkedIn and another organiser by phone on more than one occasion.
Further, we also endeavoured to contact chairman of the board of advisers, David Gonski, who is co-chairing this year’s conference. Having been directed to UNSW Media for a response, we sent questions to UNSW Media and UNSW Media did not respond.
The lead author of CAM’s submission to the Royal Commission is Sacha Roytman – a Belgian communications expert who made Aliyah to Israel in 2004.
The second author is Israeli Yigal Nissel, who is currently CAM’s executive director in Australia. In 2015, he was sent to Australia as an ’emissary’ for the Jewish National Fund (JNF Australia). He returned to Israel and has been working for the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs and Antisemitism’s Mosaic Project until he returned to Australia to work for CAM.
Planning for the last Australian CAM conference became public in January 2025 when the then Deputy CEO of CAM, Yigal Nissel, published a story, “From Paradise to Peril,” in the Jerusalem Post, stating,
“Thousands of [Australian] extremists, spanning the radical left, the far right, and parts of the Muslim community, seized on the conflict in the Middle East as a pretext to unleash their latent antisemitism.”
As reported here last year, Nissel, who was based in Israel, announced that a CAM conference of hundreds of Mayors would address the problem. Previously, Nissel was the Israeli ‘emissary’ to the Australian branch of the Jewish National Fund (JNF).
Envoy Jillian Segal to co-host
The conference will kick off with messages of support from the Commonwealth and NSW governments. The first speaker is Alex Ryvchin, Co-CEO of the Executive Council of Australia Jewry (ECAJ), who labelled thousands of Australians who marched for Palestine last weekend as “obsessive, extreme and hateful”.
The conference follows the initial CAM Local Mayors’ Summit held on the Gold Coast last September. This year’s event will be held in Sydney on November 26 and 27 at a location that has not been publicised.
It will be co-hosted by the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism Jillian Segal and delivered in partnership with Waverley Council.
This week Segal addressed a meeting of the global network of Special Envoys supported by the World Jewish Congress calling for the enforcement of her National Plan at an international legal. CAM is a “trusted US State Department partner” within the Special Envoy network.
Pro-Israel conference sponsors include ECAJ, the Dor Foundation and the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, which last week received a grant of $100,000 from the NSW government to contribute to the conference.
Sheina Gutnick, whose father died in the Bondi massacre, was appointed CAM’s public affairs officer in March and since then has been the public face of CAM. She told the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion that she has been the victim of many antisemitic attacks since then.
Labor backing council campaign
Recently, she has been collecting supportive videos from Councillors and MPs, including the federal Minister for Local Government Kirsty McBain, who urged CAM to “take back Bondi”. McBain is not attending the conference.
Two Labor Mayors, the Inner West’s Darcy Byrne and Bayside’s Christina Curry, are speaking at the conference. Lord Mayor Clover Moore will not attend, which is scarcely surprising given that CAM organised a rally at which Moore was attacked as a terrorist sympathiser because she joined last year’s March for Humanity.
The City of Sydney told MWM that the Labor Deputy Mayor Ollie Arkins will attend. While it presents a bipartisan image, CAM is being driven, both internationally and in Australia, by some influential conservative Zionists with a right wing agenda.
The players behind CAM
CAM Australia claims that its activities are funded by its Australian partners but MWM has been unable to find any business name, company or charity which accounts for its finances. There is a Board of CAM Australia which is chaired by the hugely influential businessman David Gonski.
We sent questions to CAM including asking which entity the Board governed but got no acknowledgement or reply.
Gonski is close to Jillian Segal and heads the Special Envoy’s Education task-force. He was recruited to CAM by Yigal Nissel who was moved to CAM from his job at the Israeli Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Antisemitism and sent to Australia to help organise CAM’s first conference. He was dispatched back to Australia this year to head CAM in Australia.
Alex Polson is CAM’s senior advisor. He was originally a national officer of the Australasian Union of Jewish students. After that for eight years he was an advisor to Liberal Ministers and MPs.
PRs, astroturfers and lobbyists
In early 2024, Polson established his boutique advisory and investment company DBK. DBK registered the name Better Councils and Polson was the key Liberal organiser of the major parties’ ‘Put the Greens’ Last’ astroturfing campaign for ‘Better Councils’, and its successor for the Federal election ‘Better Australia’. (ALP member Sophie Calland was the Labor end of Better Australia.)
Bipartisan Better Australia raised at least $1.3 million (with no donors disclosed) much of which must have been spent on its slick electoral materials. For this, Better Australia partnered with strategic communications company Agenda C.
Agenda C was established by strategist Carrington Brigham in 2019. Earlier, Brigham developed his skills working under Yaron Finkelstein at Crosby Textor, known for its role in conservative electoral wins in Australia and the United Kingdom.
Finkelstein was a founding member of NSW Liberal friends of Israel and played a powerful role in the Morrison government as the PM’s personal private secretary. After the Coalition defeat in 2024, Finkelstein worked for NSW Premier Dominic Perrotet and then founded Society Advisory Pty Ltd, which has been granted a $200,000 contract to advise Special Envoy Jillilan Segal until April 2027.
Trickery claims
Polson and Brigham worked together on the Better Australia campaign. Finkelstein attended a meeting where campaign materials and a detailed campaign strategy were discussed with Labor party members of Better Australia. Everyone listed as present was a committed pro-Israel Zionist – but the campaign messages were
‘Don’t be Tricked by Teals’ and ‘Put the Greens Last’.
Agenda C claimed its campaign successfully defended four major seats and won back another four.
Brigham celebrated when his friend Tim Wilson narrowly defeated Teal Zoe Daniel in Goldstein after his campaign branded her as untrustworthy.
With the success of Better Australia behind them, Alex Polson and his DBK consultancy again linked up with Brigham and Agenda C for the CAM’s first conference. Polson and Brigham both signed the media release for the conference, along with a PR person in the US.
Agenda C aimed to deliver a “fully integrated, multi-channel strategy that positioned the summit as a credible, necessary platform for national leadership.”
Agenda C and CAM continue to work together, partnering on exclusive polling for The Sunday Telegraph about levels of fear in Australia, which was featured in a piece promoting the CAM conference.
CAM’s political agenda
The 2026 conference program promotes CAM as being all about interfaith, inclusive and sharing cultural approaches. Everyone is expected to commit to goals in the final session.
There are no speakers from Jewish, Palestinian or other human rights organisations that favour broad anti-racism strategies and do not accept that anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism (unlike CAM).
CAM’s actual political agenda is clarified in its submission to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, which was published on the Commission’s website in mid-September.
The CAM submission has four authors – the first is CEO Roytman and the second is CAM’s Australia CEO Nissel. Nowhere is it mentioned that Roytman is in Israel or that Nissel is on leave from an organisation that partners with the Israeli state. The other authors are Polson and Gutnick.
Despite their ‘grassroots’ talk, CAM’s agenda is a top down one.
CAM wants the Royal Commission to recommend training police to enforce IHRA as it is doing in several US states where CAM trains police in “evolving forms of antisemitism”.
It favours passing laws which prohibit posting online material viewed by CAM as antisemitic. It wants a National Local Government Partnership Against Antisemitism and for Social Cohesion, delivered through Australian Local Government Association LGAs built on CAM’s Action Plan’s four pillars.
Even by Zionist standards, CAM’s version of IHRA is wide. A symbols document that they distributed to conference attendees last year is attached to their submission. It takes in everyday symbols like ‘keffiyehs’ and ‘watermelons’ and a broad range of pro Palestinian slogans.
In the submission CAM attacks union and activist campaigners who wrote letters (including one to Darcy Byrne signed by 700 people) urging a boycott of last year’s conference.
They accuse them of intimidation, harassment and antisemitism – for example by referring to a Zionist Lobby or Israeli propaganda. It asks the Royal Commission to conclude that the albeit peaceful action of critics demonstrates the need for a Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion.
Peace protestors to blame
CAM blames peaceful protesters for costing them thousands of dollars and forcing them to bring in a counter-terrorism squad.
One of these protesters was Jewish anti-Zionist Veronica Sherman. Sherman told MWM that she was one of about five people who “travelled independently from around Australia to protest outside the conference …
“nothing about us could be described as intimidating.”
“Even the cops told me how surprised they were at how few protestors there were because they had been told there would be hundreds if not thousands. Which explained why there was such a heavy police presence. Including helicopters,” she said.
Protesting is a “basic Australian and democratic right. It’s important that Australians know that the Zionists don’t represent all Jews which is one of the reasons I flew up to hold a banner peacefully outside the venue”.
Pressure and complaints
Recently Polson exercised his democratic right to write on behalf of CAM to the organiser of an event at the University of Tasmania at which Nick Hanna, co-founder of the Civil Defence Legal Centre and lawyer at Hanna Legal was delivering the keynote address.
CAM claimed that Hanna had produced an antisemitic video and asked the University to reconsider its invitation. The University rejected CAM’s argument and said the event would go ahead. Hobart Synagogue, which is supporting the CAM conference, then wrote a letter complaining that while Hanna sounds ‘calm and reasonable’ he is ‘extremely dangerous’ for its Jewish community.
In releasing his video about this behind the scenes pressure, Hanna says it showed that people can resist pressure and win.
Polson has high hopes for the November conference, hoping that it will “scale a national movement already underway”.
But MWM hears applications to attend the conference, which this year costs $600 without accommodation, are slow – and a new campaign to discourage councillors from attending has just begun.
Detailed questions for this story were put to CAM, Polson and Waverley Council but we received no reply or acknowledgement.
Wendy Bacon
Wendy Bacon is an investigative journalist who was the Professor of Journalism at UTS. She worked for Fairfax, Channel Nine and SBS and has published in The Guardian, New Matilda, City Hub and Overland. She has a long history in promoting independent and alternative journalism.
She is a long-term supporter of a peaceful BDS and the Greens.
Monazite – From Brazil to Chicago, Utah, and Nevada / The Brazil–Chicago–Utah–Nevada Connection
20.10.26 – Rio de Janeiro – Pressenza New York, https://www.pressenza.com/2026/10/from-brazil-to-chicago-utah-and-nevada-the-brazil-chicago-utah-nevada-connection/
Monazite sand mining and processing for the production of rare-earth minerals is a risky business and can contaminate people and environment with radioactive thorium, uranium and their decay products. All that was not known in the 19th century when the first Monazite mining boom happened at the coast of Brazil. Now the region and its indigenous peoples are facing the third rush for its thorium and rare earth elements containing sands.
One of the mining companies responsible for that is Energy Fuels Inc. Already in 2023 the U.S.-based critical minerals company acquired about 15,000 hectares at the coast of Southern Bahia, encompassing the municipalities of Alcobaça, Caravelas, and Prado. „The Bahia Project is an initiative that transcends traditional mining, playing a vital role in advancing the global energy transition. Specializing in the extraction of strategic minerals essential for the manufacture of clean technologies, the project strategically positions itself at the forefront of efforts towards a globally less fossil fuel-dependent economy“, writes Energy Fuels.
The company intends to mine between 3,000 and 10,000 tons of monazite sand per year that will be shipped to the US and processed at its White Mesa Uranium Mill in Utah, approximately five miles north of the White Mesa Reservation, home to the Ute Mountain Ute people. The operation is planned to start in 2028, when the expansion of its White Mesa Mill is completed.
However, for decades the Ute demand the closure of the mill, citing significant threats to Indigenous health, sacred lands, water, cultural heritage, and public health…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The US Environmental protection Agency (EPA) first discovered thorium contamination at Lindsay Light’s Illinois Street location in 1993. Since then, further investigations found soil contamination at more than a dozen locations in the Streeterville neighborhood and additional locations on the south side of the Chicago River. Prolonged or high levels of radiation exposure can damage genetic material in cells and cause cancer and other diseases later on, especially for children, who are more sensitive to radiation. The EPA estimated that, before the waste was removed, radiation levels in some residential neighborhoods in West Chicago increased lifetime cancer risks up to 70 times.
To date, cleanups have been completed at more than a dozen properties. More than 55,000 cubic yards of thorium-contaminated materials have been removed and shipped to Utah. „Several properties known to have contamination remain to be cleaned up“, writes EPA on its website, last updated on March 10, 2026. „EPA’s cleanup at the Lindsay Light site is ongoing. „Because of the long-lived nature of thorium contamination, the need to know that these areas are safe for workers will continue far into the future.“
Norbert G. Suchanek — Journalist, author, photographer, and documentary filmmaker; co-founder of the International Uranium Film Festival, which since 2010 has organized more than 60 festivals across seven countries, bringing nuclear and uranium-related issues to public audiences worldwide.
Nuclear Kills Kids – by Tony Webb
To put it simply and in language that will resonate with workers and their families in the communities around the seven nuclear power plant sites the federal Liberal-National Coalition proposes to build if elected to government, nuclear kills kids.
Tony Webb,, April 2025, https://www.fabians.org.au/nuclear_kills_kids
One moment from my work in the USA in the early 1980s stands out in my memory. I’d driven from Chicago to Cleveland at the invitation of the Health and Safety Officer of the US Boilermakers Union. The purpose was to speak to the members meeting held on the night ahead of the recruitment of members for work on the annual ‘clean-up’ of the local Nuclear Power plant. The hired workers would be ‘radiation sponges’ – short-term casuals recruited for the ‘dirty jobs’ that would result in significant radiation exposures sometimes up to the permitted annual exposure limit and ‘let go’ if they reached that limit. The practice offered some protection to the company’s full -time employees whose skills would be needed on an ongoing basis and whose exposures needed to be kept below the limit. The meeting was well attended , rowdy, with a lot of questions and discussion which spilled over into the carpark after the meeting closed. I noticed one man hanging back from the circle and invited him to join and share his thoughts. As I recall them the essence was:
“I will be going in to apply for work tomorrow. I understand what you shared about the risks . . . no safe level of exposure and chance of getting cancer perhaps 20 years from now . . . It will put a roof over my family’s heads and food on the table . . . BUT my wife and I have had all the family we want. If we hadn’t, what you shared about the genetic risks, the damage to our children and future generations . . . no I wouldn’t be going . . . “
It is a sad fact that workers, both men and women will choose, often from necessity, to put their health at risk from the work environment. What is however consistent in my experience of working on radiation and other occupational health and safety issues is that they are far more concerned, cautious and likely to prioritise safety when it comes to risks to their children.
We now have solid evidence(1) that workers in nuclear power plants routinely exposed to radiation face significantly increased cancer risks, risks of cardiovascular disease including heart attacks and strokes, dementia and potentially other health effects. There is also an increased risk of genetic damage that can be passed on to their children and future generations. But perhaps most significant of all there is now solid evidence of increased rates of leukaemia in children living close to nuclear power plants.
To put it simply and in language that will resonate with workers and their families in the communities around the seven nuclear power plant sites the federal Liberal-National Coalition proposes to build if elected to government, nuclear kills kids. It matters little whether or not these nuclear plants can be built on time, within budget, make a contribution to climate change, reduce electricity prices, or secure a long-term energy future; these nuclear power plants will likely kill kids who live close by. They cannot operate without routine releases of radioactive material into the environment and our young will be exposed and are particularly susceptible to any exposure that results.
Now add to that if you care that women are more susceptible than men; that workers in these plants face greater exposure and health risks than adults in the community; that nuclear plants have and will continue to have both major accidents and less major ‘incidents’ resulting in radiation releases, community exposures and health damage. Add also that quite apart from the workers and others exposed when these plants need to be decommissioned, the radioactive wastes resulting from perhaps 30-50 years life will need to be safely stored and kept isolated from human contact for many thousands of years longer than our recorded human history. And, again if you care, also add in the concerns around proliferation of nuclear weapons which historically has occurred on the back of, enabled by and sometimes concealed by countries’ developing so called peaceful nuclear power.
All these arguments add weight to the absurdity of Australia starting and the world continuing down this nuclear power path. But if we want a single issue that strikes at the heart of human concerns it is this – and forgive me saying it again, it needs to be repeated many times until the electorate in Australia hears it loud and clear – Nuclear Kills Kids.
Dr Tony Webb is a Fabian and a long-time community and environmental activist. He has worked on housing, unemployment, worker cooperatives, anti-nuclear, radiation and health, food policy, and energy/climate issues in the UK USA Canada and Australia. Along the way he picked up an MSc in Energy Resources Management and a PhD in Humanities.
(1) SOURCES……………………………………………………………….
The World is Not Trump’s Playground: Has the International Community Finally had Enough?
Australian Independent Media, 17 October 2026Michael Taylor
When the President of the United States mistakes global leadership for personal entitlement, the rest of the world eventually discovers that it has options.
There comes a point in every relationship when the other party stops making excuses for your behaviour.
You can forgive the occasional tantrum. You can overlook a misplaced insult, an unreasonable demand or even the odd diplomatic incident. You might tolerate somebody who thinks rather highly of themselves, provided they occasionally remember that other people exist.
But eventually, patience runs out.
Welcome to international relations in the age of Donald Trump.
The President of the United States appears to regard diplomacy as a peculiar game in which he makes the rules, changes them whenever circumstances become inconvenient, and declares victory regardless of the outcome. Allies are expected to demonstrate their loyalty through obedience. Adversaries are expected to surrender when threatened. International institutions are useful when they serve American interests and troublesome when they don’t.
And anyone who disagrees risks becoming the next target of a presidential outburst.
It is an extraordinary way to conduct relations between nations. It is also becoming increasingly expensive.
The world’s most powerful schoolyard bully?
Let’s be clear about something. The United States is entitled to pursue its national interests. Every sovereign country is. American presidents are elected to represent American citizens, not to spend their days worrying about whether foreign leaders find them agreeable.
But there is a considerable difference between defending national interests and behaving as though the interests of every other country are somehow subordinate to your own.
Trump’s approach appears to confuse the two.
Tariffs become instruments of punishment. Military alliances become opportunities to demand tribute. Trade agreements become personal victories. Diplomatic disagreements become public feuds.
And the demands keep coming.
At NATO’s July 2026 summit in Ankara, Trump attacked several European allies over their positions on the war with Iran, threatened to halt trade with Spain and renewed his controversial claims concerning Greenland. The summit subsequently produced declarations of unity, but the public disagreements demonstrated just how difficult it has become for America’s partners to anticipate Washington’s next move.
Imagine running an international alliance on the principle that everyone must demonstrate their friendship by agreeing with you, while reserving the right to punish them if they don’t.
That isn’t a partnership. It’s a protection racket with considerably better stationery.
NATO members have legitimate disagreements about defence spending, military commitments and national priorities. Those disagreements are precisely why alliances require negotiation, established procedures and mutual respect.
The purpose of an alliance is not to eliminate differences of opinion. It is to enable countries to cooperate despite them.
Apparently, somebody forgot to explain that to the President.
Friendship is not a subscription service
One of the great ironies of Trump’s approach is that he seems to regard American power as an unlimited personal resource.
He can threaten tariffs against allies, question their commitment to collective defence, demand concessions and then expect them to turn up smiling at the next summit.
But international relationships do not work like a subscription service. Countries cannot be charged an additional fee every time the American president becomes dissatisfied with their behaviour.
Nor can decades of diplomatic cooperation simply be switched on and off according to the mood of the occupant of the White House.
Consider the implications for Australia.
Our alliance with the United States has been central to Australian defence and strategic planning for generations. It involves intelligence cooperation, military coordination, technology sharing and the (unpopular and finance-draining) AUKUS partnership.
These arrangements matter. They cannot be dismissed lightly, and Australia has good reasons to maintain a close relationship with Washington.
But an alliance is only as dependable as the trust underpinning it.
If an American president can threaten one ally today, impose economic penalties on another tomorrow and question established commitments the following week, Australian governments must ask an uncomfortable question.
What happens when our interests diverge from his?
Australia cannot simply assume that friendship, history and military cooperation will guarantee predictable American support under every conceivable circumstance.
That does not mean abandoning the alliance. It means approaching it with open eyes.
A sensible government maintains its relationships while ensuring that the country’s security does not depend entirely on the goodwill of one foreign leader.
That is not disloyalty. It is responsible government.
The curious case of the disappearing trust…………………………………………………….
International law is not an inconvenience
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of Trump’s approach is his relationship with the international institutions designed to restrain the arbitrary exercise of power.
On 9 October 2026, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court, prompting criticism from the Court, United Nations officials, European institutions and several allied governments. The dispute raised further concerns about the independence of international justice and the willingness of powerful countries to accept legal scrutiny.
One need not agree with every decision made by an international court to recognise the importance of judicial independence………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Ukraine: another lesson in uncertainty
Ukraine offers another example of the difficulties created when diplomatic signals become unpredictable.
For European governments, the war is not an abstract negotiating exercise. It concerns the security of the continent, the future of European borders and the consequences of allowing military aggression to succeed.
Yet Trump’s shifting approach to American support for Ukraine has repeatedly forced European allies to consider how much they can rely on Washington………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://theaimn.net/the-world-is-not-trumps-playground-has-the-international-community-finally-had-enough/
All energy costs rise but small nuclear most reactive
29 July 2025, Jennifer Dudley-Nicholson, Australian Associated Press, https://australian.museum/aap/all-energy-costs-rise-but-small-nuclear-most-reactive-1/
Next-generation nuclear reactors are the most expensive of all energy-producing technologies, a report has found, and would significantly increase electricity prices in Australia.
Establishing a large-scale nuclear power plant for the first time would also require more than double the typical costs, and estimates for wind projects had inflated by four per cent due to unforeseen requirements.
The CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency, released its GenCost report on Tuesday, revealing rising construction and finance costs would push up prices for energy projects of all kinds in the coming years.
The findings come after a heated debate about introducing nuclear power to Australia and after members of the federal coalition questioned the nation’s reliance on renewable energy projects to achieve net zero by 2050.
The final GenCost report for 2024-2025 analysed the cost of several energy-generating technologies, including variations of coal, gas, nuclear, solar and wind projects.
Renewable technology continued to provide the cheapest energy generation, the report’s lead author and CSIRO chief energy economist Paul Graham said.
“We’re still finding that solar PV and wind with firming is the lowest-cost, new build low-emission technology,” he told AAP.
“In second place is gas with (carbon capture storage) … then large-scale nuclear, black coal with CCS, then the small modular reactors.”
Small modular nuclear reactors proved the most expensive technology of the eight options by a large margin, with the report basing its costs on Canada’s Darlington nuclear project, announced in May.
The 1200-megawatt development is estimated to cost $23.2 billion and will be the first commercial small modular reactor built in a Western country.
The new reactors produce one-third the power of typical nuclear reactors and can be built on sites not suitable for larger plants, but have only been built in China and Russia.
“This is a big deal for Canada – it’s their first nuclear build in 30 years,” Mr Graham said.
“It’s not just about meeting electricity demand … they’ve said a few things that indicate they’re trying to build a nuclear SMR industry and export the technology.”
In addition to the cost of different technologies, the report estimated “premiums” for establishing first-of-a-kind energy projects, with the first large-scale nuclear project expected to command 120 per cent more and the first offshore wind development expected to cost an extra 63 per cent.
The cost of wind projects also grew by four per cent as researchers factored in building work camps to accommodate remote employees, and capital financing costs rose by one per cent.
Developing energy projects was also expected to cost between six and 20 per cent more by 2050, the report found, due to the rising price of materials such as cement and wages, as detailed in a report by Oxford Economics Australia.
Findings from the CSIRO report would help inform the design of future energy infrastructure, Australian Energy Market Operator system design executive general manager Merryn York said.
“We’ll use the capital costs for generation and storage from GenCost in the upcoming Draft Integrated System Plan in December,” she said.
Nuclear technology is banned as an energy source in Australia, which has a target of achieving 82 per cent renewable energy in the national grid by 2030 and reaching net zero by 2050.
Nuclear needs to build up to 8,000 SMRs just to catch up with wind and solar. By 2035, they might have 5
Giles Parkinson, ReNewEconomy, May 27, 2026
Australia’s almost indistinguishable far right political parties – the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation – are pushing the nuclear barrow once again, not for climate reasons but because of the “anything but wind and solar” ideology demanded by their fossil-fuelled benefactors.
So it came as a timely reminder on Wednesday, when one of the world’s leading green energy analysts, Michael Liebreich, underlined just how useless nuclear energy is for dealing with climate change, and how far the small nuclear reactors championed by many are from competing with surging wind and solar.
Liebreich is the founder of Bloomberg New Energy Finance and his address to the Energy Efficiency Council’s National Conference also touched on the perils of net zero targets (because it puts the focus on what’s really hard rather than what’s readily achievable), and the overwhelming push for electrification for “just about everything.”
But it was the nuclear hype that he was also keen to puncture, if only to underline the sheer scale and dominance of wind and solar, and its rapidly growing share of “useable” energy, as opposed to “primary energy” that ignores the massive inefficiencies of fossil fuels.
SMR are still not being built but they are championed by some of the world’s richest people, the AI and social media “tech bros” who are looking for ample energy sources to power their massive data centre needs (while contracting tens of gigawatts of wind and solar in the meantime).
“They (the tech bros) love nuclear, and they’re going to be very angry when they discover what everybody discovers, which is nuclear is kind of expensive and long and complicated,” Liebreich said.
“But even if they succeed, it’s not going to be a climate solution,” he said. And the reason is that simply to match the output of wind and solar in the 2024 calendar year, the industry would need 1,250 of the 470 MW SMRs that are being developed by Rolls Royce, or up to 8,000 of the much smaller SMRs pushed by the likes of Oklo.
“If they build five by 2035 that will be a big win,” Liebreich said. “And so, as a climate solution, by the time you did build 2000 Westinghouse SMRs, where do you think wind and solar is going to be?
“It’s obviously going to have grown. That green curve is not stopping, it is taking off, and you can see it’s taking off even in the countries that are really trying to build nuclear.”
The nuclear push is usually associated in Australia by calls to abandon net zero targets, with the main argument being – without evidence – that it is trashing the economy.
Net zero has been criticised by others supportive of strong action. Andrew Forrest, aiming for real zero at Fortescue’s giant iron ore mines by 2030, says net zero is an excuse to do not much and use offsets instead of cutting emissions, others say a 2050 target is used by an excuse to do not much anytime soon.
Liebreich’s criticism is that it makes everything sound too hard. “By focusing on zero, immediately your eye is drawn to doing the difficult bits, and the difficult bits are expensive, and we just don’t have to have those discussions right now…………………………………. https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-needs-to-build-up-to-8000-smrs-just-to-catch-up-with-wind-and-solar-now-by-2035-they-might-have-5/
Nuclear brawl erupts over powering Australia’s AI data boom
Ronald Mizen, Financial Review, Aug 25, 2026
A political fight has broken out over using small modular nuclear reactors to meet the soaring electricity demand from data centres, and new research shows that using renewable power could make Australia a regional hub for low-carbon computing power capacity.
On Monday, Coalition frontbencher Jonno Duniam said using SMRs to power data centres should be part of the conversation, and the government should end the moratorium on nuclear power.
Duniam is leading a push within the Coalition to land a largely bipartisan position on artificial intelligence.
Last week, he was appointed deputy chairman of a bipartisan committee on AI and recently travelled to the United States where he held talks with major AI and data centre companies.
“It was clear to me when talking with representatives of major AI and data centre operatives that, if the moratorium was not in place, these companies would be seriously looking to nuclear SMRs to power their operations and not drive up prices,” he told The Australian Financial Review on Tuesday.
The fresh brawl over nuclear power comes ahead of a meeting of the national cabinet on Wednesday during which Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will seek support from premiers and chief ministers for his AI agenda.
The Albanese government wants to force the owners of next-generation, large-scale data centres – those that train and power artificial intelligence agents – to use renewable electricity, and to add more power to the grid than they consume.
This proposal is opposed by Coalition governments in the Northern Territory and Queensland, which want an energy-agnostic policy, including allowing gas.
Grattan Institute energy program director Tony Wood said that despite having as many SMRs today as there are unicorns, Australia needed a plan B to get its electricity emissions to zero.
“It could be [viable],” Wood said of using SMRs. If the technology is viable, it should be part of the energy mix, he said.
Industry Minister Tim Ayres labelled the idea “an ideological fantasy” and said “nobody in the real world with real money” was talking about nuclear power. Energy Minister Chris Bowen said he was opposed based on “cost and delay”, not safety.
“I’m not aware of any proposals to do that in Australia,” Bowen said.
But the AI sector, in Australia and overseas, is keeping a close eye on the development of SMRs, which some believe could power data centres in as little as three to five years.
In late 2024, Google signed a world-first agreement to purchase up to 500 MW of nuclear energy for its data centres from Kairos Power in the US. The first SMR is scheduled to be online in 2030, and the rest are targeted for 2035.
Local industry sources are reluctant to speak publicly on the topic, given how politically charged it is.
A report commissioned by Data Centres Australia from economic consultancy Mandala, being released on Wednesday, shows Australia could become a big exporter of green computing power capacity to the Asia-Pacific region because emissions from hosting this locally are far less than in other countries…………………..https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/nuclear-brawl-erupts-over-powering-australia-s-ai-data-boom-20260825-p60rce
Work begins on Coulport building for Dreadnought submarines a cost of £7.75bn each
15th October, https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/26637101.work-begins-coulport-building-dreadnought-submarines/
Built at a cost of £7.75bn per unit, four Dreadnought submarines will replace the current Vanguard ships
Work has started on a building which will arm the Royal Navy’s new multi-billion-pound nuclear submarines.
Naval Base Commander Clyde and Commodore Andy Bray recently broke ground on a new facility at Royal Naval Armament Depot (RNAD) Coulport to support future classes of Royal Navy submarines.
Building 300 at the Royal Naval Armament Depot will house the Vertical Embarkation System, or VES, a new facility used to load tactical weapons onto future Dreadnought-class deterrent submarines.
The House of Commons approved replacing the current submarines in 2016, despite opposition from anti-nuclear groups and campaigners concerned about the cost.
Built at a cost of £7.75bn per unit, four Dreadnought submarines will replace the current Vanguard ships, which constantly patrol the seas carrying ballistic missiles equipped with thermonuclear warheads.
2026 George Monbiot Nuclear Greenwash Award goes to the UK Green Party for Abandoning Nuclear Opposition
Image: The George Monbiot Nuclear Greenwash 2026 Award to The Green Party for Abandoning Nuclear Opposition. George Monbiot’s famous “I love nuclear” in the wake of the Fukushima disaster deflected an otherwise inevitable crisis of nuclear confidence and was of course key to the push for the building of the first new nuclear plant in the UK in decades at Hinkley C which he now says (after facilitating the damn thing) should be scrapped in favour of, even more dangerous. fast breeder reactors,
Lakes Against Nuclear Dump, Oct 12, 2026, https://lakesagainstnucleardump.com/2026/10/12/2026-george-monbiot-nuclear-greenwash-award-goes-to-the-green-party-for-abandoning-nuclear-opposition/
Just days before the 69th anniversary of the UKs worst nuclear accident to date , the Windscale Fire, the Green Party announced their abandonment of their opposition to nuclear, and with it their reason for being. The Green Party used to call the nuclear industry the “nuclear military industrial complex” for good reason, the “civil” nuclear industry is necessary in order to produce elements for military use, including plutonium, tritium and americium.
Here in Cumbria we won’t notice much difference as the Green Party have spectacularly failed to publicly voice strong opposition or lead any charges against nuclear developments for many years with Green Party members seemingly much more concerned with the horrible nitty gritty of political advancement than protecting the health and wellbeing of the public and our environment from nuclear developments.
Having said that we wait more in hope than expectation to be surprised and delighted by vigorous, strong and principled Cumbrian Green Party opposition to the tsunami of nuclear developments coming our way.
It has not gone unnoticed that despite there being more Green councillors than ever before on Cumberland council, the Council as a whole is like never before, acting as a facilitating arm of the nuclear industry. Cumberland council and its Green Party members are partners in the geological nuclear dump plan and partners in the plan to bring Japanese sodium coolant to Cumbria amongst other things.
Bizarrely the Green Party in Cumbria even had to be persuaded long and hard by Radiation Free Lakeland to oppose the earth quake inducing coal mine near Sellafield with the Green Party’s candidate, in the 2017 Whitehaven hustings Jack Lenox actually saying he was “a big fan of coking coal” this despite its close proximity to Sellafield. The coal mine was finally refused largely on the grounds of induced seismicity.
Professor Chris Busby has this to say: “the Green Party began as an anti-nuclear party in Germany, with Petra Kelly. When I chained myself to the gates of Trawsfynydd Nuclear Power Station in Wales in 1992, Petra Kelly had agreed to come and support our campaign against opening the nuclear site, which was dangerous. The station operators had applied to run the reactors at a high temperature to anneal the cracks in the pressure vessel. This was not long after the experiment at Chernobyl. And the contamination of Wales by Chernobyl (which led to sharp increases in cancer and child leukemia)…..The nuclear police had pistols and we were told they would shoot us. Petra Kelly was assassinated a few months after this. How can I say this? How do I know? Well, of course I don’t know and cannot be sure. But here is something you don’t know about this. The story now widely accepted (look at Wikipedia) is that her man, General Gert Bastiaan killed her.
The police determined that Kelly was shot dead while sleeping by Bastian, who then died of suicide.
Well and Good. But I spoke with Prof Ernest Sternglass about this. He knew both of them, and said it was impossible that Bastiaan would have killed her and himself. They were full of positive energy and life, when he met them in Berlin some 6 weeks before she died. She was very excited. She had received an offer of considerable financial support by German TV to make a series of documentaries with Russian and Belarussian scientists including Dr. Shevchenko, to report on the real health effects of the Chernobyl accident contamination. At the time, the nuclear operators and their tame scientists in the IAEA and the WHO were stating that there were no measurable health effects. It was the same at Fukushima some twenty years later. But back in those days they killed you, rather than using media to destroy your credibility.”
“No economic case:” Global experts say nuclear has role in some countries, but makes no sense in Australia
Giles Parkinson, Oct 12, 2026, https://reneweconomy.com.au/no-economic-case-global-experts-say-nuclear-has-role-in-some-countries-but-makes-no-sense-in-australia/
As Australia’s ultra conservative political parties embark on a headlong race towards nuclear and away from renewables, a major new report by global experts says nuclear has a role in some countries, but makes no sense and will only cause delays and increased costs in Australia.
The new report from the Energy Transitions Commission, a think-tank comprising dozens of energy experts around the world, including those in the nuclear industry, says nuclear capacity could double over the next three decades or so, but it will stay play a relatively minor role in the overall transition away from fossil fuels.
And, they point out in the report – “The Role of Nuclear in the Energy Transition: Complementary but Limited” – it will only make sense in a few countries – a situation the report suggests will not be greatly changed by the hype and interest generated by AI and the push for massive energy-hungry data centres around the world.
For countries like Australia, rich in lower cost renewable resources like wind and solar, the report says nuclear makes no economic sense at all, and trying to build a system around them will simply lead to delays and increased costs.
“In these countries, which include most of Africa, and much of Latin America and Australia, renewables (particularly solar) and batteries will provide the fastest and cheapest option for scaling electricity supply at suitable increments to align with financing availability and system needs,” the report says.
“In these markets, investing in nuclear concentrates scarce capital in a small number of centralised projects, committed roughly a decade before operations, during which the power system could change substantially.
“Developing nuclear would deliver no total system cost benefit, and would require a reliance on foreign nuclear supply chains, which would reduce energy security. Pursuing nuclear programmes in these countries would divert resources from cheaper alternatives, and nuclear shares should remain close to 0%.”
These conclusions, of course, are well understood by the energy industry in Australia, from the Australian Energy Market Operator, the CSIRO, policy makers and regulators, the network operators, the renewables industry and the major utilities who currently burn coal and gas for a living.
But the global fossil fuel and climate denial industry still has its tentacles around the conservative parties in Australia – particularly One Nation and its less popular sidekicks in the Liberals and Nationals – all of whom are determined to slow or even stop the renewable transition in Australia, legalise nuclear and have the government invest countless billions into the tech.
The Energy Transitions Commission highlights the folly of such an approach, and the report would make sobering reading for those politicians, assuming they would be bothered to read it.
Like the World Nuclear Status report released more than a week ago, it punctures a major hole in the nuclear hype, including the assumption that small modular reactors (SMR) will somehow change the game.
- “Small modular reactors remain 1-2 decades away from wide deployment, despite attracting large investment and political attention amid surging AI-driven power demand,” the report notes.
“Early US cost estimates range from ~$US140–$US270 per MWh, well above the large reactor cost range of $US40–$US190 per MWh. Similar reactor designs can cost 4–9 times more to build in the US and Europe than in China and South Korea – financing costs are key factor.”
The report also notes that depending on nuclear power would intensify supply chain risks, rather than easing them. Russia, it notes, controls 40% of global uranium enrichment capacity in 2025, and key nuclear equipment manufacturing is concentrated in just six countries.
“Nuclear supply chain concentration poses the greatest risk, rather than safety and waste management,” the report says.
The report looks at the recent commitment to treble nuclear capacity across the globe by 2050 to around 1,500 gigawatts of capacity. This it says, would require around 500 GW of nuclear extensions (although that itself might be too optimistic), and it struggles to see how 1,000 GW of new capacity could be built.
It says that would require a six-fold increase in contraction compared to recent years. And even if it was delivered, it wouldn’t reduce the need for new wind and solar, which would still have to be built at a rate of 1,500 GW each year, rather than over the next 25 years.
“While this contribution to the energy transition is useful in targeted countries, even this scale of nuclear buildout would be dwarfed by the required scale of investment in renewables to transition to low-carbon energy systems,” the report says.
“An investment of $200 billion per year in new nuclear build is likely to be less than 10% of the $2,200 billion per year needed in renewables, grids and storage.”
The report is at pains to note that nuclear technology may make sense in some countries, those with limited renewable resources and also those with billions already invested in the nuclear industry, including those with nuclear weapons.
More importantly, nuclear’s system value is highest where land is scarce and solar and windresources are weakest
Submission to the AUKUS Public Inquiry – cancel AUKUS, cease to be part of American militarism – Bevan Lee Ramsden
ED. This is a long and clearly argued submission. For reasons of space and time, I am here posting only extracts from it. It can be found in full at https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
This submission argues that the AUKUS Security Pact should be cancelled and as a
starting point activating the six month cancellation clause in the Naval Propulsion
Agreement.
The AUKUS Security Pact should be cancelled for the following reasons:
- The eight nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines are neither necessary nor
suitable for Australia’s territorial defence. Twenty air-independent submarines
would be far more effective, be easier to maintain and would cost only fraction
(8%) of the $375 billion. - AUKUS gives the United States porting and maintenance facilities for its nuclear
submarines which may be nuclear-armed and will make Australia a missile target
by enemies of the United States in war time. - AUKUS undermines our sovereign ability to make independent decisions about
involvement in US wars and will inevitably draw Australia into future US wars - AUKUS requires Australia to store toxic nuclear waste from the nuclear
submarines with consequential health risks to present and future populations and
exposes local populations to the health risks of a nuclear radiation leak or
accident. - AUKUS Pillar 2 ties Australian defence manufacturing and research into the arms
manufacturing programs of the United States and for their benefit not Australia’s. - AUKUS compromises Australia in undermining its commitment to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Treaty of Rarotonga (South Pacific nuclear-free
zone) as well as providing an impediment to Australia signing the TPNW. - The enormous public expenditure anticipated for this narrowly focussed
acquisition of up to eight nuclear subs will severely compromise national efforts to
address other urgent matters of human security including fuel and food security,
housing and medical security and to address the climate crisis.
I will now provide the arguments for cancellation of the AUKUS Security Pact
starting with Pillar 1.
Pillar 1- The acquisition of nuclear-powered attack submarines.
……………………………………………………………………….. The remaining argument used by nuclear submarine proponents is that they are
needed for defence of Australia’s territorial waters. However, Australia’s territorial
waters are in many places too shallow for the large, noisy, nuclear-powered
submarines to operate in safely and without detection, If submarines are needed
for defence of our territorial waters, smaller vessels are available from Japan and
Sweden which would be far more suitable. These vessels have quieter,
air-independent propulsion, cost far less and are free of radiation hazards. Former SA Senator and submariner Rex Patrick has said that Australia could acquire 20
air-independent subs for $30 billion, which is only 8% of the $375 billion for the 8
nuclear-powered vessels.
The arguments for Australia needing nuclear-powered submarines for our defence
clearly do not withstand scrutiny.
So why are successive governments committed to acquiring them?
There appears to be only one answer.
The US views nuclear subs as a vital part of its strategy to contain China, to track
and destroy Chinese naval vessels in the event of war with China. Our subservient
Australian leadership wants us to participate in such a war as we have done in all
the other post-WW2 wars the US has instigated,………………………..
Conclusion one: The eight nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines are neither
necessary nor suitable for Australia’s territorial defence. Twenty air-independent
submarines would be more effective for territorial defence, be easier to maintain
and would cost only fraction (8%) of the $375 billion.
Conclusion two: The US has made it clear that it will expect Australia’s
nuclear-powered subs to participate in any US-instigated war and be subject to US
orders. To acquire such submarines in order to join a war with the US against
China would not only be extremely foolish but an economic disaster for Australians
and bring an unnecessary war to our soil.
The cost
Cost has to be another reason for questioning the acquisition of these
nuclear-powered submarines. Five of the eight submarines are of a new type, the
SSN series, to be designed by the UK and built largely at the Osborne shipyards in
South Australia. Given that they are yet to be designed and are to be built at a
facility that has no prior experience in building such vessels, the estimated cost of
$375 billion has to be regarded as a massive under-estimate………………………………………………………………..
Under Aukus and the Force Posture Agreement $8 billion of tax-payers fund will be
spent on the development of porting and maintenance facilities at HMAS Stirling,
Garden Island in WA for US and UK nuclear submarines. This development includes
a “controlled industrial facility” which will store the low -level nuclear waste from
these submarines. Greens Senator David Shoebridge has found out that
intermediate-level nuclear waste could also be dumped at this location.
The AUKUS Agreement has thus opened the door to Australia having to store
submarine nuclear waste and the concern is that the high level nuclear waste from
the nuclear reactors that drive the propulsion system of these submarines will also
have to be stored somewhere in Australia when those reactors have passed their
use-by-date.. Such a facility has not been determined yet and the provision of such
a secure facility which will prevent toxic leaks for centuries has proved a problem
for many countries and therefore presents a potential toxic threat to Australians in
the future. It should be noted that these nuclear propulsion reactors use
weapons-grade enriched uranium.
No costing has been done on the design and provisioning of such a facility in
Australia…………………………………………..
The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill, 2023 declares Garden Island in WA
and Osborne in SA to be nuclear zones, areas in which the scenarios determined
by ARPANSA, would apply
The residents living near Garden Island and the Osborne Shipyard have not been
ad-vised of the ARPANSA risk analysis and emergency responses in relation to a
nucle-ar radiation leak or accident and so have had no opportunity to ask questions or raise any opposition based on this concern.
It is becoming clear that whether Australia receives or builds its own nuclear
subma-rines, this porting and maintenance facility at Garden Island and also the
proposed similar porting and maintenance at a facility on the east coast of
Australia, will be-come southern ocean ports for the US navy,its nuclear
submarines and perhaps more of its naval fleet pulling Australia even more
securely into US war plans.
In doing so they make Australia a missile target by enemies of the United States in
times of war.
AUKUS introduces nuclear weapons into Australia………………………………………………
The flawed process of signing onto the AUKUS Security Pact
The decision-making process behind AUKUS reeks of authoritarianism and
contempt for the Australian people and parliament. There was no public or
parliamentary discussion as one would expect prior to making such a significant
and costly national decision.
Scott Morrison was the Prime Minister who in 2021 secretly signed us up for AUKUS
together with an unknown number of faceless security advisors. He then sold the
idea to the leaders of the ALP in a two- hour power point presentation with no
documentation, no business case and no costing detail.
The ALP leadership enthusiastically embraced AUKUS and have never questioned
its legitimacy and never held any public discussion or inquiry into AUKUS and the
nuclear submarine acquisition. It has become bipartisan policy of the ALP and
Liberal Coalition with One Nation applauding in the background.
Only the Greens and some Independents have voiced questions and opposition regarding AUKUS.
AUKUS was entered into by a deeply flawed and anti-democratic process and
should be subjected to an immediate review in the form of a Royal Commission or
independent public inquiry.
AUKUS Pillar 2- Integrating Australian research and manufacturing with the US to
increase supply to the US war machine.
………………………………………………………………………………. Under Pillar 2, Australian defence industry will also be increasingly dominated by
the big three US software corporations (which already dominate and surveil all of
us), us-ing massive data centres and military focussed artificial intelligence (AI)
corporations such as Anduril and Palantir.
In practice, Australian defence developments and research will be acquired by the
US military. The Pillar II focus on sharing technologies between partners means in
prac-tice a mostly one-way sharing that is towards the US and building up its war
industry. So they will suck our brains for their benefit.
Under Pillar 2, Australian industry will become increasingly integrated into the US
mili-tary industrial complex – serving the needs of US government and US military rather than Australia.
We do not need Pillar 2. We need a publicly -owned, sovereign defence industry
manufacturing to meet our territorial self-defence needs which is quite a different
role to one designed to meet the needs of the US in its wars of aggression.
Alternatives to AUKUS.………………………….
The United States is a fractured, undemocratic society flouting international law
with impunity. We can have no affinity with this dangerous “ally” as former PM
Malcom Fraser said in his book “dangerous allies”.
The heavy US military footprint on our country will only attract a missile attack by
enemies of the US when they are at war. AUKUS is part of the US military footprint
on Australia…………………………………………………………………….
For a peaceful, independent and more secure future, AUKUS must be cancelled
and the Force Posture Agreement terminated, a consequence of which will be the
regaining of sovereignty and ending the heavy US military footprint on our
continent.
Submission to the AUKUS Public Inquiry – against Australia’s interest to be aligned with aggressor USA – Diane Atkinson
When they attacked Iran, the United States acted as a rogue state. They launched this attack in defiance of rules laid down in the United Nations’ charter, against wars of aggression. This war is already proving to be very much against Australia’s interests
Australia should be seeking to extricate ourselves from the alliance with the US, given the nature and direction of its wars of aggression, rather than tying ourselves more deeply to this alliance through AUKUS.
the danger that wars will be launched from Australian territory by the US, and that Australia will bear the brunt of retaliation against the US.
No 233.
AUKUS represents a very large investment by Australia: $368 billion over 30 years. This is a very
significant portion of our total budget, so we would want to ensure that we get good value, and that
it prepares Australia for the future. However, there is plenty of evidence that this commitment is
taking Australia in the wrong direction. Where we need to be contributing to a more stable and
cooperative world, so that we can solve collective challenges, we will instead be contributing to the
humanitarian and environmental damage that will be wrought by a declining empire, with no
tangible benefit to Australia.
We need to carefully weigh the security threats that are unfolding at this point in history, before we
commit to 30 years of spending. We know that climate change represents a major threat, which is
proving very difficult to confront. Building goodwill and cooperation would contribute to this task,
however the AUKUS alliance does the opposite. Australians have always resisted the nuclear
industry, but this deal forces us to accept the presence of nuclear-powered submarines, and the
waste that will require disposal on our soils. Having nuclear submarines present here is likely to
drive a regional arms race. At a time when resources need to be spent finding solutions to pressing
problems such as climate change, we will instead spend those resources on wasteful weapons of war.
The increased military spending will be perceived as a threat by other powers, and will undermine
the goodwill and global cooperation needed to produce binding agreements to reduce carbon
emissions. Instead, other countries will be obliged to also waste more resources on military
production.
When they attacked Iran, the United States acted as a rogue state. They launched this attack in
defiance of rules laid down in the United Nations’ charter, against wars of aggression. This war is
already proving to be very much against Australia’s interests. It threatens the availability of diesel
fuel and fertilizers, which are so important to Australia’s food security. At this time in history,
Australia should be seeking to extricate ourselves from the alliance with the US, given the nature and
direction of its wars of aggression, rather than tying ourselves more deeply to this alliance through
AUKUS.
Australia’s national security interests are not identical with those of our military ally, the United
States of America. The Global Financial Crisis of 2008 did not impact Australia in the severe way that
it impacted the USA or Europe. One of the reasons that Australia barely registered a recession
during this crisis, is the strength of our trade with China, which accounts for 25% of Australian trade,
based on 2025 figures from DFAT. It could be argued that we are too dependent on trade with China,
but when we think about our national interests, this current reality of China being our strongest
trading partner, needs to be factored in. Australia’s interests are not identical to those of the USA or
Europe, and this is a reflection of both geographical and economic differences. Our proximity with
Asia means that it makes sense for us to trade with Asia, including China. This also makes sense
because we have natural resources that these markets need, while we have lost or failed to develop
our manufacturing base, and our Asian neighbours can supply low-cost manufactured goods. We
made a decision to reduce tariffs and close down some of our industries. These decisions have
consequences for our security.
There is no identifiable threat to Australia’s security that currently emanates from our Asian
neighbours, including China. However, as a result of our free trade policies, we do now face an
economic threat, if our trade is interrupted. This could happen as a result of war, or of trade wars. Neither are in Australia’s interests, given our lack of self-reliance. Australia’s lack of self-reliance in
oil stands in contrast to the position of the United States. The problems in the Strait of Hormuz,
caused by US attacks on Iran, impact Australia more heavily than our military ally.
The United States has different defence priorities to Australia. The US seeks to suppress the rising
powers that have begun to challenge US hegemony. This has become obvious through their attacks
on Iran, which also have a negative impact on both Russia and China, since Iran is at the centre of key
trade corridors, and for that reason both countries have substantial investments in Iran. US leaders
make it very clear that they are hostile to China and Russia, along with a list of nations that are not
willing to accept US domination.
Since the US dollar is the world reserve currency, and this confers huge economic benefits on the US,
challenges such as the BRICS nations trading in their own currencies and using their own payment
systems, are likely to have negative consequences for the position that the US has enjoyed. The
power to shape institutions like the World Bank and trade rules such as the GATT arises from the
overwhelming economic power that the US has held, and this is ultimately backed by their military
power, which has been used to thwart countries that want to reduce the economic and political
dominance of the US over their internal governance. This was manifest in repeated military
interventions in Latin America last century, and in the Middle East more recently.
However, Australia is in a very different position. We are not an empire with hegemony to defend.
We are a smaller power, very reliant on trade, and therefore we have an interest in a stable world
order, and good relations with our Asian neighbours. We have already been adversely affected by
the war on Iran, and this could lead to a direct threat to our national security. One dimension of this
is food security. Diesel and fertilizers are essential inputs to our farming sector, and any resumption
of the war on Iran is likely to cause shortages of both.
The other threat to Australia’s security is the danger that wars will be launched from Australian
territory by the US, and that Australia will bear the brunt of retaliation against the US. We have seen
this happen in the Middle East. Iran retaliated against US military bases in the UAE, Kuwait, Iraq,
Bahrain, Qatar and most recently Jordan, since the US launched their attacks from those bases.
Military agreements such as the Force Posture Agreement and AUKUS prevent Australia from
controlling what the US does on our soil. We may not expect retaliation from Iran because US bases
in Australia in all likelihood provide intelligence for attacks on Iran, but we could well expect
retaliation if the US goes to war with China. Based on US threats, this scenario is currently the most
likely reason that any country might attack Australia.
Australia is currently allied with the very country that is launching wars of aggression. Even the
average person living in the US does not benefit from these wars. They have seen their standard of
living deteriorate over past decades. This deterioration is caused by a shift in the US economy,
whereby it is increasingly dominated by private monopolies, and the public sector increasingly serves
the interests of these rather than the general public interest. This tendency has reduced the
vibrancy of US industry. Even the arms industry, which receives so much public funding, produces
expensive equipment which is proving to be obsolete on the battlefield. Aircraft carriers and
battleships have repeatedly been withdrawn from the area of engagement in the Strait of Hormuz, as
they make easy targets for cheap drones and for missiles. The USA is not demonstrating that it can
use military force to great effect, and yet it relies on such force increasingly, suggesting once again
that it is an empire in decline.
In its attempts to shore up this loss of power, the US is leaning more heavily on its allies like Australia.
We are expected to subsidize the extravagant expenditure on arms that continued world domination
would require, at the expense of our own interests. AUKUS arose out of Australian attempts to
purchase non-nuclear submarines from France. We now find that the Australian prime minister who
undermined that process, and instead committed Australia to purchasing nuclear submarines from
the US and the UK, is now working for the US arms industry. It is obvious that as prime minister, he
was already promoting those interests. Instead of obtaining working submarines in a reasonable
timeframe at a reasonable cost, we now have a program that commits Australia to massive spending,
with no guarantees as to what Australia will get in return. Meanwhile AUKUS spending is driving a
war economy. Education spending by the South Australian government subsidises degrees for the
arms industry, instead of degrees for health care workers and teachers. In this way we are directly
subsidising US owned arms manufacturers, while under-investing in the sectors that ensure our
collective well-being. In the midst of a housing crisis, when many young Australians cannot afford to
buy a home, and many cannot even find let alone afford rent, we neglect to make the necessary
investments in social housing, and instead spend to subsidise the operations of foreign arms
companies. We train our young people to build arms instead of building houses.
The secrecy surrounding AUKUS shows that its proponents have no faith in their ability to convince
Australians that this appalling decision is in our interests. Any reasonable person can see that it is
not.
Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry – AUKUS a sellout of Australia’s security – Michael Gilligan
232. Michael Gilligan
I was responsible for Defence Department advice on options after retirement of
Oberon class submarines (Head of Force Development and Analysis Division in early 1980s). I am a Board member of Pearls and Irritations (P&I), online policy forum created by John Menadue. Regular contributor to P&I.
Despite its crippling cost, no Minister for Defence has ever explained what the
Virginia class submarine is meant to do. Why has such an obvious ministerial
obligation been evaded? Because it would reveal a sell-out of Australia’s security.
And an extraordinary direct underwriting of US shipbuilding and defence budgets
by Australian taxpayers – of perhaps half a trillion of our dollars. The Virginia class
submarine is not a general-purpose vessel such as our Collins class. It is designed
for supreme acoustic invisibility for a specific purpose – to find, doggedly track
underwater for months and be able to destroy submarines seen as a nuclear threat
to the US mainland. Principally Russian and Chinese SSBN boats. The United States
is stretched beyond its industrial capacity to deal with China’s growing SSBN fleet.
Assisting in that ongoing task is what Australia offered in AUKUS, and so the US
expects Australia’s submarines to do – effectively embedded into US military
command – against China’s burgeoning capacity to annihilate continental America
from under the sea.
LINK – https://johnmenadue.com/post/2026/06/australias-submarine-betrayal/
More broadly, the Minister for Defence has misled Australians habitually on the
value of submarines in defending Australia. His case rests on treating submarines
as essential to Australian sovereignty, while ignoring the powerful array of
capabilities which already protect Australia and its maritime approaches.
Assessments of the submarines’ marginal effectiveness in a whole-of-Defence
context raise serious questions about the value of submarines, even whether they
are warranted at all on cost-effectiveness grounds.
So, the debate on submarines currently consuming Australia’s headlines is
corrupted by two compounding Ministerial lies by omission – the submarines’ job
within AUKUS, and Australia’s range of defence capabilities purposefully created
over decades, which marginalise submarine importance to our security.
Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry- dubious security value, breaching treaties, radioactive wastes, huge costs – Ian Lowe
227. Ian Lowe
To summarise my relevant experience, my doctoral research at University of York
was funded by the UK Atomic Energy Authority. I studied the basic physics of a
problem affecting the useful life of fuel elements in nuclear reactors. As a member
of the UK Open University’s Energy Research Group, I participated in a
comparative study of the whole-of-life operating costs of nuclear or coal-fired
power stations. I was for twelve years a member of the Radiation Health and
Safety Advisory Council, which advises the nuclear regulator ARPANSA, and I was a
member of the Expert Advisory Committee for the South Australia Nuclear Fuel
Cycle Royal Commission, which reported in 2016.
The critical question is whether owning and operating eight nuclear-powered
submarines would actually enhance our security. I participated in a one-day
seminar run by the Submarine Institute of Australia well before the AUKUS
agreement was negotiated. The submariners were clearly divided about the
question of whether the next generation of submarines should be
nuclear-powered. While they could operate away from base for longer periods and
at greater depth than conventional submarines, their size would prevent them
operating in the comparatively shallow waters around Australia’s northern
coastline, making them less useful for defending our territory. That observation
poses an obvious related question about sovereignty and independence. Would
the AUKUS arrangement move Australia away from being an independent
middle-sized country like Japan or Indonesia, locking us into the US war machine
and increasing the risk of being dragged into great-power conflict with China, our
major trading partner? Some observers fear that AUKUS could actually make
Australia a nuclear target. Given that China is our major trading partner, it seems
bizarre to imagine that we need to protect our ocean-going trade from the Chinese
navy, but that has been proposed as a reason for acquiring nuclear-powered
submarines.
A whole group of questions arise from the specific problems of nuclear-powered
boats. If nuclear technology is transferred from the USA and the UK to Australia to
allow submarines to be built here using weapons-grade uranium, does that
contravene the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? The proposal has certainly been
seen by some of our South Pacific neighbours as inconsistent with our treaty
obligations. What are the environmental risks of operating nuclear-powered
submarines in Australian waters? Some technologists who are quite enthusiastic
about nuclear power stations are worried about installing reactors in vessels which
an enemy would understandably try to destroy in any serious conflict.
The final issue under this heading is the long-term problem of managing the
radioactive waste when the submarines reach the end of their lives. The AUKUS
agreement makes Australia responsible for waste management. That would be a
huge problem. Our government has made three unsuccessful attempts to
establish a national repository for the comparatively benign low-level radioactive
waste from nuclear medicine and industrial applications. In every case, the
proposals have been successfully opposed by local First Nations groups. Their
memories are critically shaped by their experiences when the Menzies government
allowed the British military to test nuclear weapons on our land. But the problem
of managing the waste from nuclear submarines is orders of magnitude more
difficult than storing low-level waste. The small reactors use highly enriched
uranium, weapons-grade material, which produces a much more intractable set of
waste products than emerges from nuclear power stations. The USA and the UK
have been operating nuclear submarines for more than sixty years, but have still
not worked out how to manage the wastes. The decommissioned boats are just
sitting at docksides while the government scientists ponder the issue.
Assuming we do prove able to solve the problem and develop a system for
managing the waste, it is likely to add another huge sum to the overall costs of the
project. In 2015, a South Australian Royal Commission considered the possibility of
going into business managing the waste from nuclear power stations in Asian
nations that do not have suitably stable geology for long-term secure containment.
I was a member of that inquiry’s expert advisory committee. We sponsored a
serious study of the likely cost of building and operating a secure repository for
high-level radioactive waste from power stations. The consultants came up with an
estimate of $145 billion; adjusting that total to 2026 costs gives a figure of about
$190 billion. So accepting responsibility for managing the wastes will mean a
further eye-watering cost burden on future generations. In fact, that figure is likely
to be a conservative estimate, because the consultants were asked to calculate
the cost of managing waste from nuclear power stations. Not only is the mix of
waste products from a nuclear submarine nastier, it also contains enough
weapons-grade uranium to make at least 20 bombs. So the waste management
facility will require military security to ensure the fissile material is not misused.
Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry – dissolve AUKUS, stop being a cog in USA’s military industrial complex – Heidi Glaser.
226. Heidi Glaser
AUKUS must be dissolved. It is beyond comprehension, the level of incompetence
and ignorance our government is capable of to think Australian’s would support
and agree to these conditions. It could not be more insulting to our intelligence.
We are a peaceful people. We have no interest in wars. We do not want to be
aligned with the US and participate in their forever wars. We have become a cog in
their military industrial complex. Why are we supporting a country we know are
involved in illegal wars who are committing war crimes with complete impunity?
Why would we sacrifice our country for them? The US are not our ally. We have
become a vasal state against our will. No wonder they mockingly refer to us as a
lap dog.
We are enabling them to continue their slaughtering of innocent civilians
around the world. We want no association with them, their bullying, coercion and
disruption globally needs to end now. We are paying them to become a military
target on their behalf, we are less safe because of AUKUS.
We have no interest in
conflict with China. They have no reason to attack us and have never threatened
our country. We rely on them for our economic success. We should be doing more
to partner with them and create a coalition in the global south to make Australasia
the safest and economically sound region in the world.
We have great relationships with our neighbours and AUKUS will destroy that. That is the
incredible insanity of this agreement. It is ensuring our future failure not
prosperity. If we spent this much time and money on peace in the world, and not
on planning for future wars, humanity would be thriving. Fearmongering from the
US must be stopped, not supported.
We can never allow nuclear dumping on this
land. These submarines shouldn’t even be made. Why are they even allowed to
build anything that produces a radioactive poisonous waste? They have no idea of
the long term damage to the planet and it’s unbelievable to hear they have never
had an established protocol around safe storage of the nuclear waste produced.
That is sickening to me. Stop making things that are killing us and the earth. We
need to protect this land. The first nations people are the oldest continuous
civilisation on the planet, the ancient history of their people and of their land is
sacred and it should be honoured and protected at all costs. We can not let them
down, we owe them to fight for this beautiful land.
We reject AUKUS, we don’t
want wars, we don’t want a world where we even need weapons. This can not be
allowed to proceed. No intelligent Australian supports this. It’s time Australia took
back it’s sovereignty. Imperialist America’s must be stopped and this is our chance
to cut all ties with them.
1 This month
25 October – Film –Britain’s Nuclear Bomb Scandal: Our Story – part of the Adelaide Film Festival,
Screening and Conversation
A screening of Britain’s Nuclear Bomb Scandal: Our Story (2024) followed by a talk with 2026 Bettison and James Awardee and Tradtional Owner Karina Lester in conversation with Simone Tur.
When: Sun 25 Oct, 12:00pm-Screening, 1:15pm-Talk
Where: The Mercury
Free admission, register below by clicking on BUY TICKETS and select free event tickets, at end of web page:
https://www.adelaidefilmfestival.org/program/2026/britains-nuclear-bomb-scandal-our-story
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
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
