Antinuclear

Australian news, and some related international items

​Australian nuclear news -week to 14 June:

Australian nuclear news week to 13 June:

June 7, 2026 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

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/

June 15, 2026 Posted by | secrets and lies | Leave a comment

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.

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.

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.

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.

RADIATION. NUCLEAR HOTSEAT. Women, Children At Greatest Risk from Nuclear Radiation – UN Report by Mary Olson, Dr. Amanda M. Nichols 

SAFETY.

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.

WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES.

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. 

June 15, 2026 Posted by | Weekly Newsletter | Leave a comment

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

June 14, 2026 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

Record winter temperatures in Antarctic raise fears over speed of climate breakdown

Temperatures above 15C ‘very strange’ say scientists, as snow melts and rain falls on glaciers in usually frozen region

Jonathan Watts , 11 June 26, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jun/10/record-winter-temperatures-in-antarctic-raise-fears-over-speed-of-climate-breakdown

Temperatures in the Antarctic climbed above 15C this month, shattering the previous winter heat record for the usually frozen region and raising concerns about the speed of climate breakdown.

The new winter peak temperature was logged by the Argentinian Esperanza base on the Trinity peninsula on 6 June amid a protracted heatwave, when the maximum daily temperature exceeded zero degrees for three consecutive weeks.

Scientists said the high of 15.4C broke the previous record set at the same station in 1998 by 2C. “This is absolutely crazy,” said Raúl Cordero, an Ecuadorian climate professor at the University of Groningen. “It is also about 20C above normal for this time of the year. That is a huge anomaly.”

Unusually strong warm winds from the north blew across much of the Antarctic peninsula. One Chilean weather station, Boonen Rivera, registered temperatures of close to 13C, Cordero said.

On King George Island, 100 miles (160km) from Esperanza, researchers said the landscape had changed from mostly white to brown, grey and green after temperatures hit 4.6C on 6 June.

“Last weekend was very strange. The temperatures here went very high so everything outside melted,” said Luis Muñoz, a Chilean glaciologist. “Usually there is 20cm of snow and a lot of ice on the ground at this time.”

Muñoz said he and a colleague, Natalia Mestre, climbed to the 500-metre peak of the nearby Collins glacier last Wednesday and were surprised to find rain melting the ice. “There was a direct impact on the glacier, which should be receiving snow now. It should not be suffering ablation at this time of the year. This is obviously not good for the glacier.”

The Antarctic region is coming under increasing human pressure, directly in the form of resource exploration and tourism and indirectly through the burning of fossil fuels, which is heating the planet.

Scientists warn that some of the region’s biggest glaciers, such as Thwaites and Pine Island, are approaching or may even have passed a tipping point that could push up global sea levels by four metres. Antarctic ice melt has also been found to slow global ocean circulation.

Cordero said a single winter of heatwaves, no matter how amazing, would not by itself make a huge difference to sea levels, but it signified more alarming long-term trends. “This heatwave happened because of extremely strong westerlies,” he said. “This has been happening with increasing frequency since the 1980s, and that is known to be related to climate change.”

June 14, 2026 Posted by | climate change - global warming | Leave a comment

Resisting radioactive racism in Australia

Unfortunately, a significant roadblock to ending patterns of radioactive racism, and enshrining FPIC / UNDRIP principles in legislation, is the AUKUS nuclear submarine project pursued by successive governments since 2021. The AUKUS project is being pursued with no regard to the rights and interests of affected Aboriginal people. The federal Labor government has secured passage of legislation through parliament allowing it to impose any AUKUS-related facilities ‒ including nuclear waste stores and dumps ‒ on Aboriginal land without consultation or consent. State laws providing feeble Aboriginal heritage protections and land rights are overridden by new federal laws.

Nuclear Monitor #938, Jim Green, 30 May 2026, https://www.wiseinternational.org/resisting-radioactive-racism-in-australia/

Australian governments and industry have a sorry history of disrespecting the rights and interests of Aboriginal people in order to advance nuclear projects. This history dates from the British atomic bomb tests in the 1950s and ‘60s, and scandal-plagued ‘clean-ups’ of contaminated test sites in subsequent decades. Racism has also been a constant companion of the uranium mining industry. For the past 30 years, successive governments have attempted to override opposition from Aboriginal communities to impose nuclear waste dumps. And since 2021, federal and state government have passed legislation disempowering Aboriginal people in order to advance the AUKUS nuclear submarine project.

Governments and industry deploy any number of tactics to dispossess and disempower Aboriginal people including ignoring their concerns; divide-and-rule tactics; radioactive ransom or bribery; ‘humbugging’ (exerting persistent, unwanted pressure); providing Aboriginal people with false information; threats, including legal threats; and stripping Aboriginal people of whatever feeble rights they enjoy under law.

There’s a long history of radioactive racism in Australia ‒ and an equally long history of resistance. Aboriginal people and their allies have fought long and hard for the decontamination of atomic bomb test sites, for victim  compensation, and for access to land previously off-limits.

A remarkable chapter of the history of resistance to radioactive racism has involved successful campaigns to prevent the imposition of unwanted nuclear waste dumps. Four attempts to impose a national nuclear waste dump have been defeated by Aboriginal-led campaigns, and an attempt to establish an international nuclear waste import industry in South Australia was also defeated by an Aboriginal-led campaign.

Mirarr Traditional Owners in the Northern Territory have fought long and hard to protect country and culture from the uranium industry. The Ranger uranium mine was closed in 2021 and a rehabilitation of the mine site is underway. A Mirarr-led national mass movement prevented the mining of Jabiluka around the turn of the century. Areva’s plan to mine uranium at Koongarra was defeated by Djok Traditional Owners. Aboriginal and broader community opposition has stopped several uranium mine proposals in Western Australia. As of May 2026, only three uranium mines are operating, all of them in South Australia: Olympic Dam, Beverley and Honeymoon.

Legal challenges have sometimes been used to challenge and delay nuclear and uranium projects. Examples include:


* the successful Federal Court challenge in 2003 by the South Australian government and a native title claimant against the federal government’s acquisition of land for a national nuclear waste dump;

* a legal challenge against the nomination of a site in the Northern Territory for a national radioactive waste repository (the nomination was withdrawn in 2014, before the court case had concluded); and

* the Barngarla Traditional Owners’ successful Federal Court appeal in 2023 quashing the nomination of a site in South Australia selected for a national nuclear waste dump.

Legal challenges have a place in resistance against nuclear and uranium projects, but community resistance outside of the legal system has been a more important and successful strategy. Case studies reveal a common pattern involving determined resistance by Aboriginal people, supported by civil society allies including environment groups, trade unions, church groups, public health groups and others.

UN Declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples

As well as fighting specific nuclear and uranium projects, Aboriginal people and their allies are working to enshrine the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in legislation and to enshrine the principles outlined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in legislation. Article 29 of the UNDRIP states: “States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.”

If FPIC / UNDRIP principles can be enshrined in legislation, the patterns of radioactive racism will be severely curtailed.

Efforts to enshrine FPIC / UNDRIP principles in legislation were given a boost by Dr. Marcos Orellana, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Toxics, who visited Australia in 2023. The final report of the Special Rapporteur stated:

“Indigenous Peoples have suffered grave maltreatment from radiation exposure due to nuclear testing, spraying of highly hazardous pesticides, uranium and other mining, and industrial activities with toxic impacts. The proposed siting of radioactive wastes on the lands of Indigenous Peoples illustrates the lack of respect for rights contemplated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

The Special Rapporteur‘s recommendations included the following:

“(a) Amend the National Radioactive Waste Management Act to explicitly reflect the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the right of free, prior and informed Consent of Indigenous Peoples; 

(b) Provide adequate compensation and assistance to those affected by radiation exposure from nuclear testing, particularly Indigenous Peoples; 

(c) Provide further assistance to affected communities and further environmental remediation in relation to the atomic tests conducted by the British Government on Australian territory.”

Federal Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, in its November 2023 report on the Inquiry into the UNDRIP in Australia, recommended that the federal government ensure its approach to developing legislation and policy should be consistent with the UNDRIP and that a National Action Plan should be developed to implement, and assess compliance with, the UNDRIP. The Committee further recommended that the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 should be amended to include the UNDRIP in the definition of ‘human rights’ so that it be formally considered when scrutinising legislation.

But the federal Labor government never responded to the Committee’s report, and has not adopted its recommendations.

Read more: Resisting radioactive racism in Australia

Efforts to enshrine FPIC / UNDRIP principles in legislation have a long way to go, but momentum is building. Those calling for FPIC / UNDRIP legislation (and for adherence to FPIC principles more generally) include the Aboriginal-led Australian Nuclear Free Alliance, Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation, the Nuclear Truth Project, and, among many others, a small number of progressive politicians such as Senator Lidia Thorpe and the Australian Greens.

Free, prior and informed consent

A 2024 paper by Australians for Native Title and Reconciliation (ANTAR) summarises developments in recent years:

“As of 2024, Australian law does not require corporations or others proposing projects on First Nations lands and waters to secure FPIC in accordance with the requirements of UNDRIP, despite the fact that Australia endorsed the Declaration in 2009. Still, there is an increasingly palpable expectation that First Nations Peoples are given a seat at the decision making table regarding laws, activities and projects that affect them.

“Partly this can be understood as a product of the 2023 Voice Referendum, which brought the issue of participatory decision making through a First Nations representative body into greater public consciousness. It is also a result of the destruction of Juukan Gorge in which a Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura sacred rock shelter containing a cultural sequence spanning over 40,000 years was legally blasted by mining company Rio Tinto in 2020. The devastation to First Nations cultural heritage sparked national and international outrage, as well as a Senate Inquiry which referred to FPIC as “a crucial principle that must be enshrined within Australian Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation and related practices”.

“Increasingly, non-resource companies and industries are also considering FPIC as part of their business practices. Both the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors ACSI and the Responsible Investment Association of Australasia have issued individual directives on interacting with First Nations communities, outlining the anticipation for companies to pledge to uphold the rights and cultural heritage of First Nations peoples in line with the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and UNDRIP. The Australian Sustainable Finance Institute, comprising major financial institutions, investors, and insurers, has also advised financial entities to integrate FPIC into their decision-making processes, including to reassess investments in projects or endeavours where this standard cannot be met.

“In October 2021, the Australian Heritage Council published a policy statement on FPIC, which defines important concepts with respect to FPIC and outlines how the Council will work with First Nations Peoples, including through sustained and meaningful engagement. …

“Numerous inquiries (such as the aforementioned Inquiry into Juukan Gorge) and proposed regulatory changes have explored ways to enhance protection for First Nations peoples and effectively integrate FPIC into Australian legislation. …

“In August 2022, Senator Lidia Thorpe re-introduced the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Bill 2022. The Senate referred the Bill to the Joint Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs to consider options to improve Australia’s adherence to the principles of UNDRIP, including FPIC.

“In November 2023, the Committee released its final report. In her additional commentary on the recommendations, Senator Lidia Thorpe acknowledged FPIC as a core principle of UNDRIP while also stating that FPIC is one of UNDRIP’s most disregarded principles.

“Several submissions made by native title bodies and Traditional Owners during the Inquiry suggested that the lack of appropriate processes for FPIC were at the heart of the problems with heritage and environmental protection laws. …

“Similarly, the National Native Title Council argued in their submission that the requirement of FPIC ‘should be central to all native title agreements and negotiations and needs to be legislated into the [Native Title Act] and other related legislations.’”

Unfortunately, a significant roadblock to ending patterns of radioactive racism, and enshrining FPIC / UNDRIP principles in legislation, is the AUKUS nuclear submarine project pursued by successive governments since 2021. The AUKUS project is being pursued with no regard to the rights and interests of affected Aboriginal people. The federal Labor government has secured passage of legislation through parliament allowing it to impose any AUKUS-related facilities ‒ including nuclear waste stores and dumps ‒ on Aboriginal land without consultation or consent. State laws providing feeble Aboriginal heritage protections and land rights are overridden by new federal laws.

For the most part, governments and industry are happy to try to dispossess and disempower Aboriginal people in the pursuit of civil nuclear and uranium projects … and even more so for a military project such as AUKUS.

Dr. Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the Nuclear Consulting Group.

June 13, 2026 Posted by | aboriginal issues | Leave a comment

Nuclear test survivor’s daughter calls on First Nations communities to speak up on AUKUS

Natasha Clark, June 8, 2026, https://nit.com.au/08-06-2026/24692/nuclear-test-survivors-daughter-calls-on-first-nations-communities-to-speak-up-on-aukus

First Nations leader Karina Lester cites her father’s painful survival of nuclear testing as a poignant reason for joining former Environment Minister Peter Garrett in a crowd-funded review of Australia’s biggest defence deal, AUKUS.

“As a second-generation survivor of the 1953 British nuclear tests at Emu Field, I urge all our mobs who have been tested on, mined on, threatened with nuclear waste dumps or fear the impacts on our people, country and culture to find your voices and speak up strong in this public inquiry,” Ms Lester, a proud Yankunytjatjara woman, said.

The independent inquiry into the $368 billion deal will hold public hearings, with a report due in October.

Ms Lester joins Mr Garrett, former defence chief Admiral Chris Barrie, ex-WA Premier Carmen Lawrence, and Australia Institute co-CEO Leanne Minshull on the panel.

The Morrison government unveiled the AUKUS deal in September 2021, partnering with the United States and United Kingdom.

Billed as a historic security pact, AUKUS would give Australia nuclear-powered submarines for the first time, replacing the ageing Collins-class fleet and scrapping the French submarine contract.

At the outset, the three countries had yet to decide how Australia would acquire the submarines.

The Albanese government announced the so-called ‘optimal pathway’ in March 2023.

Australia planned to buy at least three US Virginia-class submarines from the early 2030s, before moving to build a new class of British-designed, Australian-built SSN-AUKUS submarines.

However that plan has shifted again.

Australia had been set to receive a mix of second-hand and new Virginia-class submarines from the US, including at least one new vessel.

After talks in Singapore last week between Defence Minister Richard Marles and US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth, Australia confirmed it will instead buy three second-hand, in-service Virginia-class submarines.

Mr Marles defended the change, arguing it will simplify the transition, cut complexity, and deliver significant savings.

He said the overall cost of the program will not change dramatically.

The government insists the broader AUKUS plan remains on track, including the scheduled rotation of US and UK nuclear-powered submarines through HMAS Stirling in Western Australia from 2027.

Ms Lester believes the inquiry will dig into the cost to taxpayers, nuclear waste storage, and the impact on Australia’s relationship with China.

Ms Lester told National Indigenous Times she is very concerned about the potential environmental damage from nuclear waste if not stored properly.

She urged First Nations Australians to participate in the inquiry to help answer the many unresolved questions surrounding the deal.

“Please consider making a submission to the inquiry or giving evidence at the upcoming public hearings,” she said.

National Indigenous Times contacted Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Defence Minister Richard Marles for comment.

June 12, 2026 Posted by | aboriginal issues | Leave a comment

How Pete Hegseth turned the Pentagon into a Black Box

Australia’s security commitments are structurally bound to US military decision-making through ANZUS. When the Pentagon conducts a forty-day air campaign against a nation with nuclear ambitions, Australian governments are implicated – through intelligence sharing, basing arrangements, consultation and alliance obligations – whether they say so publicly or not.

And they’re making those commitments based on whatever Washington chooses to share. The same information architecture that’s been deliberately degraded for the American press is the one feeding into allied capitals.

10 June 2026 AIMN Editorial, https://theaimn.net/how-pete-hegseth-turned-the-pentagon-into-a-black-box/

Pete Hegseth has a word for journalists who ask inconvenient questions about America’s war with Iran. Pharisees. He said it in a speech. Out loud. Seemingly proud of it.

That tells you almost everything you need to know about how Operation Epic Fury has been covered – or rather, hasn’t been.

What a wartime press blackout actually looks like

The United States is at war. But the Pentagon has forced journalists out of the building, making it harder than ever for the press to report on what’s happening. Press conferences are rare. Hegseth takes questions only from friendly outlets. No mainstream news organisations have reporters embedded with US military units in the Middle East. Pentagon sources are increasingly reluctant to talk to journalists for fear of retaliation from the administration.

That’s not conjecture. That’s the Columbia Journalism Review, published June 2026, describing conditions during an active military campaign that has killed at least thirteen American service members and reshaped the security architecture of the entire Middle East.

“The United States public hasn’t experienced this lack of official wartime information since World War II.”

Think about that for a second. Not since before television. Not since before the satellite phone. Not since before the internet existed. This is where we are.

The Iraq comparison should embarrass everyone

Critics of embedded journalism in 2003 had a point. Reporters living with military units, dependent on them for food, transport and protection, were never going to produce the most sceptical coverage. Fair enough. In 2003, the Pentagon embedded more than 500 journalists with US and coalition forces in Iraq, with several contemporary and later accounts putting the number around 600.

Six hundred. During Epic Fury: zero.

Here’s what’s genuinely perverse about that comparison. The embedded programme in Iraq was criticised at the time as sophisticated Pentagon propaganda – reporters co-opted by proximity, producing coverage that soft-pedalled civilian casualties and framed the invasion as clean. And that criticism had merit.

But even that – even the propaganda model – was more transparent than what Hegseth has imposed. When the thing that was once attacked as government spin looks like press freedom by comparison, you’ve reached a new floor. You’ve gone somewhere underneath the floor.

The playbook, step by step

Hegseth has taken a series of escalating steps to curtail the work of the press inside the Pentagon: booting legacy press outlets from their workspaces inside the building, closing the press briefing room to reporters, and restricting reporters from going into wide swaths of the building without a government escort.

The Pentagon then demanded that journalists pledge not to use any unauthorised material – including unclassified information. Hegseth put it plainly: “The ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon – the people do.”

The people. Filtered exclusively through Pete Hegseth’s pre-approved briefings and Sean Parnell’s press releases.

When the New York Times sued – and won – the response was almost comedic in its brazenness. On March 20, 2026, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman ruled that portions of the new guidelines violated the First and Fifth Amendments and mandated that the Pentagon restore press credentials to seven Times journalists. Three days after the ruling, Parnell announced that the Defence Department would move journalists from their designated offices into a separate annex and mandate escorts – framing the changes as necessary security measures.

Court says you broke the Constitution. You wait seventy-two hours. Then you just do a version of the same thing with different language.

What you’re actually being told instead

Hegseth declared an “overwhelming victory” in the war against Iran, claiming the regime had “begged” for a ceasefire after Tehran’s missile programme was completely obliterated. “By any measure, Epic Fury decimated Iran’s military and rendered it combat-ineffective for years to come,” he said.

He also urged reporters to “get it right”: “You wouldn’t know it if you listened to the dishonest, anti-Trump media. These cameras – they have a choice. You’re either informing the American people of the truth or you’re not.”

The truth. As determined by the man who banned reporters from the building where the truth lives.

Maybe those strike figures are accurate. Maybe 80% of Iran’s air defences really were destroyed. Maybe the ceasefire really did represent a total Iranian capitulation. I genuinely don’t know – and that’s the point. Nobody outside the administration does either, because the people whose job is to verify those claims have been systematically removed from any position where verification is possible.

Why this matters beyond America’s borders

Here’s something that rarely gets said in coverage of Hegseth’s media crackdown. This isn’t only an American problem.

Australia’s security commitments are structurally bound to US military decision-making through ANZUS. When the Pentagon conducts a forty-day air campaign against a nation with nuclear ambitions, Australian governments are implicated – through intelligence sharing, basing arrangements, consultation and alliance obligations – whether they say so publicly or not.

And they’re making those commitments based on whatever Washington chooses to share. The same information architecture that’s been deliberately degraded for the American press is the one feeding into allied capitals.

When the Pentagon operates as a black box, it isn’t just American voters flying blind. It’s everyone tied to American military power – which, in the Indo-Pacific, is most of us.

The real scandal

The most disturbing thing about Hegseth’s press suppression isn’t the suppression itself. It’s that it worked. No mass public revolt. No serious congressional investigation. A court ruling that was circumvented within three days and barely registered in the news cycle.

History will eventually produce an account of what actually happened during Operation Epic Fury – what was hit, what was missed, what the real casualty numbers were, what the strategic consequences turn out to be.

When it does, the question worth asking won’t just be what Hegseth hid. It’ll be why so few people demanded to know in real time.

Hassan El Biali is a political analyst and writer specialising in US foreign policy, international security, and Middle East geopolitics. Published in Independent Australia and Counterfire. Substack: megam226.substack.com

June 12, 2026 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Call on Labor Government to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

Philip White Adelaide FoE Notes June 7, 2026, https://adelaidefoe.org/call-on-labor-government-to-sign-and-ratify-the-treaty-on-the-tpnw/

In March, Friends of the Earth Adelaide sent a letter to Prime Minister Albanese calling for the government to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

At the end of May we followed up with a letter to several other (mostly South Australian) Labor politicians. We are hoping to bring pressure on the government in the lead up to the ALP National Conference. The Conference will be held from 23rd to 25th July 2026.

We wrote to Defence Minister Richard Marles, Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy, Foreign Minister Senator Penny Wong, Environment Minister Murray Watt, Senator Karen Grogan, Senator Don Farrell, Health Minister Mark Butler, Steve Georganas MP, Tony Zappia MP, Claire Clutterham MP, Senator Charlotte Walker and Senator Marielle Smith.

It has long been ALP policy to sign and ratify the TPNW, but, even though it has been in power since 2022, it is yet to do so.

We encourage our supporters to write before the ALP National Conference to politicians (and any other delegates that you know) requesting them to support the TPNW.

List of Senators – https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Senators/Senators_photos?party=287

List of Members of the House of Representatives – https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Members/Members_Photos?party=287

Refer also to the website of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)- https://icanw.org.au/

Philip White, Convenor

June 11, 2026 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

Submission to Select Committee on Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification)(Amendment of Indenture) Amendment Bill 2026

May 31, 2026, https://adelaidefoe.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Roxby-Downs-Indenture-Act-2026-copy.pdf

Summary: This brief submission covers Community concern over the Bill’s rushed inadequate
process, extended legal privileges to BHP interests, toxic mining waste, and continued threats to
Mound Springs & Great Artesian Basin waters.


Dear Sir/Madam
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Bill.


There is considerable community concern about the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification)
(Amendment of Indenture) Amendment Bill 2026’s rushed and inadequate process, the extension
of legal privileges to the mine owner BHP Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd’s interests, the
increase of mining leading to more toxic & radioactive waste, and the continued threats to the
Mound Springs and Great Artesian Basin waters.

This submission is very brief, because the time allowed for review and submission was ridiculously
short from 22 May to 1 June 2026 on such matters that are intended to last 50 years. It almost
appears like the committee are anti-democratic and don’t really want to hear from the residents of
South Australia on this topic. We also find it unbelievable that the Committee will report on 2 June
which is the day straight after submissions are due. How can the committee possibly read and
digest the contents of submissions in that short time?


Our particular concerns include:


1, The shortness of the timeframe for submissions and reporting of the committee should be
rectified by the Select Committee recommending a Public Inquiry with wide public interest Terms
of Reference and facilitate public hearings into the Bill, and the House of Assembly should require
this Inquiry. Such a Public Inquiry could be commenced in June and run for three months to
September 2026.

2 The Bill should be amended to comply with Article 29 section of the United Nations Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:

Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment
and the productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources. States shall establish
and implement assistance programmes for indigenous peoples for such conservation and
protection, without discrimination.

States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous
materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free,
prior and informed consent.


According to the United Nations Declaration, mining and hazardous waste resulting from mining
(including radioactive waste) should not be imposed upon Aboriginal Traditional Owner’s land
without the free, prior and informed consent of all members of the affected community, rather
than a select token few community members.

  1. Regarding the water supply to the mine, the Bill should be amended to require the immediate
    closing of Wellfield A and the closing as soon as possible of Wellfield B. Any expansion of the
    Olympic Dam mine should be conditional on successful implementation of the Northern Waters
    Project, which should be funded 100% by the mine owner BHP Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd
    and not the taxpayers of SA. Any further use of bore water from the Great Artesian Basin and the
    River Murray should not be permitted in order to protect the Mound Springs and Great Artesian
    Basin, and water taken from these sources should cease well before the planned date of 8 May
    2036.

  2. Yours sincerely
    Robyn Wood
    Friends of the Earth Adelaide


June 11, 2026 Posted by | politics, South Australia | Leave a comment

Greens warn nuclear submarines deal risks war with China as Albanese says Aukus ‘full-steam ahead’

David Shoebridge says Australia could become embroiled in a US war with China if purchase of Virginia-class attack submarines proceeds

Dan Jervis-Bardy, 7 June 26, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/07/greens-warn-nuclear-submarines-deal-risks-war-with-china-as-albanese-says-aukus-full-steam-ahead

Anthony Albanese has reiterated that Aukus is “full-steam ahead” after the Greens renewed calls to cancel the nuclear-powered submarines deal, which the minor party warned could draw Australia into a potential US war with China.

Debate over the security pact has resurfaced after the announcement that Australia would buy secondhand Virginia-class submarines from the US, rather than a mix of old and new vessels.

The Greens have seized on the development to re-prosecute the case for the government to abandon the multi-decade, $368bn agreement.

Appearing on ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday, the Greens’ defence spokesperson, David Shoebridge, said the focus of Australia’s military assets should be on defending the nation’s borders.

He suggested that could be done with conventional submarines and other weapons, rejecting the need for capabilities designed to operate “thousands of thousands of kilometres from our shore” – such as the nuclear-powered vessels.

Shoebridge said buying the Virginia-class submarines would make Australia an “interoperable” part of the US military, drawing the country into a potential conflict with China.

“Nuclear submarines are pretty much a disaster on every front,” he said.

“Why are we inviting ourselves to a US war with China by buying this weapons platforms and making our defence an interoperable part of the US?”

Shoebridge said the greatest strategic threat facing the country was not China’s military buildup or disruptions to key shipping lanes.

Rather, it was the risk of Canberra losing its sovereignty to Washington, as he said occurred with the revised deal to send three secondhand submarines to Australia.

The government this week insisted it was always its preference to buy so-called “in-service” Virginia-class submarines from the US, saving money on acquisition, maintenance and training costs.

Shoebridge said there was a still a window of opportunity for Australia to dump Aukus and buy conventionally armed submarines from countries such as Japan, South Korea or Sweden without leaving a capability cap after the retirement of the Collins-class vessels.

He claimed the US was the world’s least-reliable supplier of submarines given the slow rate of production from its shipyards.

Shoebridge’s suggestion that Australia could acquire a different class of submarine appears to jar with the Greens’ own defence policy, which proposes to axe “unstrategic projects” including the Collins-class program.

Albanese brushed off Shoebridge’s criticisms when asked about them later on Sunday, declaring Aukus was “full-steam ahead”.

“We won’t be taking advice on defence from the Greens political party with respect,” the prime minister said at a press conference in Caloundra on the Queensland Sunshine Coast.

“What we’ll be doing is providing Australia with the defence assets that we need. Our alliance with the US is an important one but we promote peace and security in our region and the relationship with China is a very constructive one.”

The Aukus agreement – which also includes the UK – is expected to be on the agenda when the defence minister, Richard Marles, and the foreign affairs minister, Penny Wong, hold talks with their British counterparts next week.

Marles and Wong are scheduled to meet with the UK defence secretary, John Healey, and the UK foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper on Wednesday as part of a round of talks in Britain and Europe.

The Australian ministers will also sit down with their German counterparts for the first meeting of its kind since 2021.

Wong will also meet the French foreign affairs minister in Paris and Marles will hold talks with his Finnish counterpart during the trip.

“While geographically distant, Australia and Europe’s interests are increasingly interconnected which is why we must focus our partnerships on reinforcing collective deterrence,” Marles said.

“In complex and uncertain times, the United Kingdom remains a critical partner for Australia and we continue to strengthen and modernise our partnership including through the Aukus partnership.”

June 9, 2026 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

UK Navy nuclear submarine fleet stuck in dock while awaiting maintenance

The UK’s Navy’s entire available fleet of nuclear attack submarines is stuck in
port, leaving Britain vulnerable to Vladimir Putin’s underwater fleet. All
five of the UK’s Astute-class hunter-killer boats are awaiting maintenance
and repairs. A sixth, which was commissioned into the fleet, is not yet
ready to deploy. Naval commanders have said the situation makes the UK look
“toothless” in the eyes of Russia, which has ramped up naval activity
around British waters by a third in the past year. Cdr Ryan Ramsey, a
former nuclear submarine captain, said the lack of available attack boats
was a “serious wake-up call” for Britain.

Telegraph 7th June 2026, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/07/navy-fleet-out-of-service-maintenance-russia-lord-west/

June 9, 2026 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Freedom Of Information to die? Albanese’s nuclear strike on transparency

Instead of handing the documents over the Government has challenged the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Court.

 Who needs greater secrecy laws when you’ve got deep pockets funded by the very taxpayers’ they deny information to.

by Rex Patrick | Jun 7, 2026

So adamant is the Albanese Government to keep AUKUS nuclear waste plans secret, they initiated a Federal Court appeal to overturn an Administrative Review Tribunal transparency win. Rex Patrick reports.

Are we seeing another nail in the coffin of Freedom of Information and what is left of government transparency?

When ART Deputy President Britten-Jones handed down his decision in favour of disclosure he was adamant “there is a significant public interest in understanding policy decisions by Government in respect of nuclear waste management”.

He was quite convinced that the “best way to achieve [nuclear waste] social licence and trust is through transparency and not secrecy”.


But his very strong position was not enough to overcome Prime Minister Albanese’s secrecy obsession. In a very rare move, the Federal Government has appealed the Tribunal’s transparency decision to the Federal Court.

Political Sensitivity

It’s clear that the documents the Government was ordered to make public are politically sensitive. They may well be politically radioactive, but this is not an allowable reason under the Freedom of Information Act to refuse to release documents.

Britten-Jones stated in his decision:

I do not consider that there would be significant harm from disclosing geological information about a particular site even if it could be inferred that the site is either ruled in or ruled out from further consideration as a location for storage or disposal of nuclear waste.

At least one potential site for AUKUS waste is named in the documents. 

In response to the Government’s pleadings for narrative control, Britton-Jones stated: 

I can understand the [Government’s] preference for an orderly release of information but if the material was released, the Government would be able to provide its own context and the public would benefit from better understanding the process being undertaken.

He went on to declare:

Whilst there may be some inconvenient responses to the release of the information requiring Government action, the release would lead to and inform debate on a matter of public importance and it would increase scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government’s activities. These are factors in the public interest that favour giving access to the material in issue to the Applicant. In my view, these factors outweigh any of the concerns expressed by the witnesses for the Respondent.

The documents requested also include documents that Britten-Jones stated “might well be contentious and give rise to sensitivities’.

That’s all too much for government.

Instead of handing the documents over the Government has challenged the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Court.

The end of FOI?

The notice of appeal includes a request to the court that if the Government are successful,

“then I will have to pay their legal costs.”

I won the transparency battle in the Tribunal, and the Government now wants me to personally pay up to $150,000 if they win their appeal. With their very deep pockets (your money) they will likely engage a King’s Counsel to take on a bush lawyer.

In lodging the appeal and seeking costs against me the Government has ignored its own model litigant rules, which state that it can’t “take advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim”. The rules also state that “In certain circumstances, it will be appropriate for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth entity to pay costs (for example, for a test case in the public interest).”

Greens spokesperson for Justice, Senator David Shoebridge, was unimpressed on hearing of the proposed cost order:

“The Labor government has repeatedly made it clear that they are willing to use millions of public dollars to silence whistleblowers and hide the truth from the public.

“But even from them, this is fresh territory.”

“Threatening someone with a potentially crippling legal bill simply because they put a successful FOI through the system is bullying, plain and simple.”

In September last year the Albanese Labor Government tabled an FOI Amendment Bill in the Parliament with provisions that sought to dramatically expand Government secrecy. After a significant campaign by civil society groups, the Bill was booted from the Parliament by all non-government senators.

“Albanese’s secrecy grab failed.”

The appeal in this matter revives Albanese’s secrecy plans. It matters little what the law is, if a citizen fights and gets a good transparency decision from the Information Commissioner or the Administrative Review Tribunal the Government can just appeal it to the Federal Court and threaten legal costs. The regular citizen will have to walk away. They can’t risk a loss.

Bingo for the Government! Who needs greater secrecy laws when you’ve got deep pockets funded by the very taxpayers’ they deny information to.

Senator Shoebridge stated further, 

“This is another ugly precedent in secrecy from the Albanese government, and this time it’s delivered with a side serve of intimidation. It’s really shameful stuff.”

The approach taken is a nuclear strike on transparency of government and could well mean an end to FOI fights. It’s the absolute antithesis of the new era of transparency Albanese promised before his was elected. Indeed, it’s a very different story now that he’s got his hands on the government’s legal armoury.

June 9, 2026 Posted by | secrets and lies | Leave a comment

Investigating the Foolish: The AUKUS Public Inquiry is Announced

The inquiry proposes to answer a number of salient if self-evident questions. Will Australia, for instance, ever receive the sought and undeservedly celebrated submarines? Where and how will the toxic medium to high-level nuclear waste be stored?  How many actual jobs will be created in Australia, and at what opportunity cost?

7 June 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/investigating-the-foolish-the-aukus-public-inquiry-is-announced/

Of the three countries involved in AUKUS, that most draining, useless and even pernicious of security pacts, Australia has been the only country indifferent, even scoffing, about the need for an inquiry into its merits. Unsurprisingly, both the US and UK inquiries have found much to merit the project – Australian taxpayer money has sluiced and soothed the submarine industrial base of both countries – but have also expressed concern about their respective production rates of nuclear-powered submarines.

While the first pillar of the agreement promises, with mighty emptiness, that the Royal Australia Navy will receive three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs), with the possible opportunity to acquire a further two, the prospect of their timely arrival looks increasingly doubtful. The recent developments at the Shangri-La Dialogue held in Singapore that these will be hand-me-downs from the US Navy already suggests the lack of regard Australian personnel and their slavish representatives are held in. Add to this a joint as yet undesigned UK-Australian SSN design that will use US technology, the chances that a fleet of these expensive hulks finding their way into the hands of Australian sailors looks damnably remote.

With the Canberra mandarins and political governors insisting that no official inquiry be conducted into AUKUS, it has fallen to those keen on a public inquiry to take up the mantle. The crowd-founded AUKUS Public Inquiry, coordinated by the Australian Peace and Security Forum (APSF), will be led by a number of commissioners, spearheaded by former federal environment minister and frontman for Midnight Oil Peter Garrett. Former MPs, retired military and naval officers (these include former chief of the Australian Defence Force Chris Barrie), strategists and academics, human rights lawyers and union leaders promise to feature in this inquiry into the unpardonably foolish.

In remarks made on launching the inquiry, Garret declared that AUKUS “was the most significant, and by far the most costly decision made in secret by an Australian government, tying us to two other sovereign governments, and taking out an extraordinary amount of taxpayers’ money on a proposition which has got a lot of distinct and very difficult complexities and potential problems lying up ahead.”

The inquiry proposes to answer a number of salient if self-evident questions. Will Australia, for instance, ever receive the sought and undeservedly celebrated submarines? Where and how will the toxic medium to high-level nuclear waste be stored? (Australia lacks a single facility suitable for that task.) How many actual jobs will be created in Australia, and at what opportunity cost? (The conservative estimate of AU$368 billion is a ruinous one when considering what other parts of the federal budget will suffer as a result.) Why does Australia find itself in a situation where it will potentially join a war with the United States against China, its largest trading partner? The two last questions go to the central soundness (or lack of it) regarding AUKUS: whether sovereignty will be jeopardised (a moot point: it already has been), and whether the pact will turn the country into a nuclear target.

Other subsidiary matters will also fall within the purview of the inquiry. Transferring nuclear technology in this manner not only sets a precedent of destabilising value but raises concerns about nuclear non-proliferation treaty commitments and the environmental costs arising from developing nuclear storage facilities. Governments in Australia have repeatedly failed to consult and engage local communities about such projects, which have usually stymied in failed negotiations and costly litigation. How the martial dictates of AUKUS risks corrupting the tertiary sector in terms of research and university institutions is also a worry, given the tentacular nature of the military-industrial-university complex seen in such countries as the United States. Money hungry university vice chancellors and their morally flabby inner circles can always be trusted to make their institutions and countries less secure if the price is right. Then comes that most relevant of considerations: “Were credible and less costly alternatives to AUKUS properly assessed before the decision was made in secret?”

Civil society groups have welcomed this long-awaited effort. “The AUKUS agreement was conceived in secret and continues to be shrouded in secrecy,” observed Rtd Army Major Cameron Leckie, spokesperson for the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN). “Australians deserve the truth about what they are paying for, what they are getting, and what risks this agreement carries for our sovereignty and security.”

In parliament, independent MP Allegra Spender raised a “Matter of Public Importance” demanding that the government “be transparent about the risks to the delivery of AUKUS and how Australia’s national and security interests will be protected especially in light of recent changes to contract terms.” There were also “emerging gaps in capability” arising from the Collins-class Life-of-Type Extension program, intended to supposedly drag out the deployment of boats beyond their retirement. Other parliamentarians, all independents, including Sophie Scamps, Dai Le, Zali Steggall, Nicolette Boele, Kate Chaney and Monique Ryan, also expressed similar reservations about AUKUS. Pithily, Ryan, who represents the Melbourne federal seat of Kooyong, called the crowdfunded independent inquiry into AUKUS “a national embarrassment” for the government: “it’s only a matter of time before we find ourselves crowdfunding for the submarines themselves.”

Even more heartily, there are rumblings of disquiet within the Australian Labor government about the pact. Former cabinet minister Ed Husic, whose career as a frontbencher was scrapped, if only temporarily, by the factional fanaticism of his own party, is demanding a fresh caucus vote on the agreement. “We are not going to get the deal that was promised,” Husic told Sky News. He suspected a straitjacketed deal were the submarines ever to arrive. “You know, you can almost imagine [the Americans] saying, ‘We give you these, you will do this with them’. And so there’s an active sovereignty question there.”

While his efforts to raise the issue on June 2 were dismissed by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy with the usual nonsense that AUKUS was more than just a submarine agreement, the number of dissenters are growing. May their numbers burgeon sooner rather than later.

June 9, 2026 Posted by | politics | Leave a comment

Ed Husic breaks rank on AUKUS, demands ‘plan B’ as deal changes

2 June 2026, https://www.capitalbrief.com/briefing/ed-husic-breaks-rank-on-aukus-demands-plan-b-as-deal-changes-8dd38805-d076-4d98-9258-524dc0d52cd2/

The news: Labor backbencher Ed Husic has broken rank on AUKUS, demanding a “plan B” and urging Australia to confront the “reality” that it may never receive the submarines it is entitled to under the agreement.

The context: The comments come two days after Defence Minister Richard Marles confirmed Australia would not receive a new Virginia class submarine from the US, instead receiving a third secondhand model.

Husic, who Marles ousted from cabinet in a factional stoush, questioned the defence minister’s claim that the change was based on making the deal more cost effective.

“I’d imagine that in the circumstances he’s been placed, he would have to say that,” Husic told reporters on Tuesday.

The Albanese government has staunchly defended AUKUS and received a boost last year when US President Donald Trump confirmed his administration was “full steam ahead” on the agreement.

But the wording of the agreement means that the Congress could prevent submarines from being handed to Australia, if doing so would degrade Washington’s capabilities.

American manufacturers are currently producing submarines at a rate of less than 1.5 per year, well under the threshold needed to fulfill its AUKUS commitments.

“This deal has changed and … we need to recognise [that]. Is there anything that is going to improve this outcome?” Husic said.

“I don’t think so.”

Labor’s caucus backed the AUKUS deal from opposition in 2021, though there was disquiet among rank-and-file members — and former prime minister Paul Keating — over the deal.

Husic’s intervention came after a Labor-aligned group picked former minister Peter Garrett to head an independent review into AUKUS.

“You’ve seen within the broader movement a general disquiet about the nature of the deal itself,” Husic said.

“But putting all that aside, there’s an issue about reality confronting us about whether or not we will even get the new deal that has been put to us.”

Husic insisted the proper processes were followed at the time but stressed the situation had materially changed since 2021.

What they said: “That deal versus what we’ve got now are different,” Husic said.

“I think that it now gives us a moment to think about whether or not the deal should be reconfigured, or what are the contingencies.”

The source: Ed Husic press conference

June 9, 2026 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Virginia-class submarine deal exposes the real purpose of AUKUS

June 4, 2026, Mike Gilligan, https://pearlsandirritations.com/post/2026/06/australias-submarine-betrayal/

Dr Mike Gilligan worked for 20 years in defence policy and evaluating military proposals for development, including time in the Pentagon on military balances in Asia.

The shift to second-hand Virginia-class submarines exposes the deeper flaw in AUKUS: Australia is committing vast public funds to a capability designed around US strategic priorities rather than Australia’s own defence needs.

Yet another twist in Australia’s submarine fiasco has been disclosed by Defence Minister Marles. The United States has decreed it will sell us only used nuclear submarines of the Virginia class. Marles reportedly said that could mean financial savings short term, but not long run. As if he has ever revealed an instinct for efficiency in defence. No doubt Australians will experience another wave of waffle from the media, all of which misses th

Despite its crippling cost Marles has never explained what the Virginia class submarine is meant to do. Why has such an obvious ministerial obligation been evaded? Because it would reveal a sell-out of Australia’s security. And a massive direct underwriting of US defence budgets by Australian taxpayers – of say half a trillion of our dollars.

The Virginia class submarine is not a general-purpose vessel such as our Collins class. It is designed for supreme acoustic invisibility for a specific purpose – to find, track and attack submarines seen as a nuclear threat to the US mainland. That is the job which the US expects Australia’s submarines to do – effectively embedded into US military command – against China’s growing capacity to annihilate continental US from under the sea, anytime.e issue. What matters most about the AUKUS submarines has been concealed by this Minister throughout his tenure.

Why this role is of utmost priority for the US requires some explanation. Nuclear armed submarines, such as China possesses, present a uniquely difficult threat to the US homeland. Unlike the readily discernible launch locations of hostile land-based missiles, or from aircraft or sea-surface vessels, the submarine’s habitat and mobility make it largely invisible and impregnable across the vast ocean approaches to the US.

The US attempts to deal with this risk using specialised attack submarines (ie the Virginia), which can locate, track and destroy China’s nuclear submarines as they move into and around Pacific waters. This is one critical part of a mosaic of US self-protection measures, the effectiveness of which is eroding as China’s submarine production expands.

So, the hefty sacrifice which Australia’s taxpayers make to acquire new submarines is not for Australia’s benefit, but for defending continental US. Australia’s submarine needs are quite specialised and different, but simply ignored by Minister Marles. Australia is heavily gifting US defence spending while ignoring its own vulnerabilities, just as the President added another $500 billion to a trillion dollar defence budget. Now that the full horror of Marles’ tenure is established a Prime Minister would act.

June 8, 2026 Posted by | weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries