Australian news this week
Australian news this week
- Ivy Lee Patrick: “I was not only grieving AUKUS itself” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwE3TgLUnIA
- Jonathan Huston MLA: “HMAS Stirling pens will become a perfect open-air target”- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGh8TNLAB5E
- Joseph Camilleri: “One of the saddest decisions ever made by an Australian Government”-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9pZlIm6w48
- Eileen Darley & Sandra Dann (PACOA): “AUKUS is a war pact”-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvQaVN1T7YU
- Stop AUKUS WA says AUKUS “debases our democracy” and “threatens our sovereignty” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJP7Ic__6yw&t=197s
- FROM THE ARCHIVES – Lucas Heights nuclear reactor was always intended as a step towards nuclear weapons, AND IT STILL IS.
- Chris Schacht says “The AUKUS deal is terrible” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONKsPZAFdmg
- UK and Australia form closer nuclear ties.
- Royal Commission into Antisemitism a “$131 Million Whinge”
- Royal Commission: lawyers spar over Gaza genocide, health regulator admits Segal pressure.
UK and Australia form closer nuclear ties
Nuclear Institute to join forces with the Australian Nuclear Association. The UK’s Nuclear
Institute (NI) and the Australian Nuclear Association (ANA) will now
operate as a partnership in the hope to support better knowledge exchange.
NI members who live in the UK and ANA members living in Australia are
eligible to join the organisation at no cost. The agreement is said allow
to nuclear professionals to work internationally with ease. The
collaboration will also give members access to benefits including
discounted event rates, better professional networks and new development
opportunities in both countries.
Energy Live News 4th Aug 2026, https://www.energylivenews.com/2026/08/04/uk-and-australia-form-closer-nuclear-ties/
Royal Commission: lawyers spar over Gaza genocide, health regulator admits Segal pressure
by Stephanie Tran and Wendy Bacon | Jul 30, 2026 , https://michaelwest.com.au/royal-commission-lawyers-spar-over-gaza-genocide-health-regulator-admits-segal-pressure/
A heated exchange erupted at the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion on Wednesday after counsel for the Jewish Council of Australia, Kirsten Edwards SC, questioned Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) chief executive Justin Untersteiner about whether healthcare workers could face complaints for describing Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocide.
The exchange prompted strong objections from counsel for the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Michael Borsky KC, who argued the commission should not become
“a platform” for “false claims” about Israel.”
Edwards’ questioning centred on an example contained in the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism’s handbook, which AHPRA adopted alongside the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition in June.
One reading of the analysis provided of this example is that describing or using the words genocide, apartheid, or ethnic cleansing in connection with Israel’s actions in Palestine is antisemitic,” Edwards said.
She noted that international bodies, including the International Court of Justice, had used the term genocide in relation to Israel’s conduct in Gaza and asked how practitioners expressing similar views would be treated under AHPRA’s new approach.
“Prior to the publication of this handbook in January 2024, the International Court of Justice ruled that it was
plausible that Israel’s acts in Gaza could amount to genocide,” Edwards said.
“Genocide claims antisemitic, claims Israel lobby lawyer“
Borsky immediately objected and said the “false claims” would “fuel antisemitism”.
“I object. We respectfully submit that this Commission ought not be used as a platform for referring to such allegations. My friend is wrong. That’s not what was found, and the suggestion is, in any event, irrelevant to the Commission’s terms of reference, it could only be relevant to the subject of the Commission’s terms of reference in fuelling anti-Semitism and eroding social cohesion for these false claims to be advanced through this forum,” he said.
Commissioner Virginia Bell rejected the submission that the questioning was irrelevant.
“As I understand where Ms Edwards is going,” Bell said, “it is to contend that in some contexts, use of the word genocide … might nonetheless not be evidence of hostility towards Jews, but might reasonably be taken as a political statement about the conduct of the State of Israel.”
“I think that’s very much at the heart of aspects of the work of this Commission.”
Genocide denied
Borsky doubled down.
“Commissioner, with the greatest of respect, we understand and accept that. But accuracy matters and what my friend put was inaccurate. It was false. She put that the International Court of Justice has ruled that it was plausible that Israel’s acts in Gaza could amount to genocide.
“That is false, and its airing in public is liable to exacerbate the problem of anti-Semitism in his country,” he said.
Commissioner Bell disagreed.
“Mr Borsky, calling it false might be going one step beyond a neutral way of framing it,” she said.
Bell observed that the ICJ had not determined whether genocide had occurred but had accepted there was a prima facie case warranting provisional measures while proceedings continue.
Counsel assisting the Royal Commission, Richard Lancaster SC also interjected Edwards’ line questioning twice.
On the first occasion, Lancaster objected to Edwards’ characterisation of the example in the Special Envoy’s handbook, telling the Commission:
“I object to that because it refers to Zionism. It doesn’t refer to Israel.”
On his second interjection, he once again emphasised that the example of antisemitism in the handbook referred to the term “Zionist”.
“The launching pad for Ms Edwards’ questions was an example given in the ASECA handbook.The example does not involve expressions using the word Israel or the government of Israel. It uses the terms Zionist, and so the launching pad for the question does not sit well with Miss Edwards’ explanation of it,” Lancaster said.
The analysis of the example on page 76 of Segal’s handbook argues that “trying to separate ‘antisemitism’ from ‘antizionism’ ignores the history of misinformation, disinformation and antisemitic propaganda that has shaped narratives about Israel and Zionism … Antisemitism and antizionism are both expressions of hatred towards Jews.”
Untersteiner was unable to answer whether the handbook example would be found to be antisemitic. He said that it would depend on “context” in each case and that he was not a decision maker of complaints.
Segal handbook was “tipping point”
Earlier in his evidence, AHPRA CEO Justin Untersteiner confirmed AHPRA had resisted adopting the IHRA definition because of concerns it could inhibit legitimate political speech.
We resisted it for a period of time,” he said, because AHPRA had heard concerns about “the risk of the IHRA definition stifling free speech … within the healthcare system.”He said publication of the Special Envoy’s handbook earlier this year altered the regulator’s assessment.
“The handbook really provided greater granularity and detail about the definition, about what it does mean and what it doesn’t mean,” Untersteiner said.
“It was on the basis of that handbook, as well as all the feedback that we’d had over a period of time, that we felt it was the right decision then to adopt it.”
When Edwards suggested the handbook had been the “tipping point” in AHPRA’s decision, Untersteiner agreed.
Handbook to inform disciplinary action
Untersteiner also confirmed the handbook would not simply assist staff in triaging complaints but could
“inform disciplinary decisions made by professional boards.“
Asked whether the IHRA definition would be referenced if AHPRA alleged a practitioner had breached professional standards through antisemitic conduct, Untersteiner replied that it would.
“The recommendation and the report … would very much reference IHRA,” he said.
“The appropriate board would be referencing IHRA in making that final decision.”
He further agreed that AHPRA was embedding not only the IHRA definition but also the Special Envoy’s handbook into its regulatory framework.
When asked whether both documents could inform assessments of whether conduct was antisemitic and whether complaints were vexatious, Untersteiner answered: “Correct.”
AHPRA begins social media monitoring
The hearing also revealed AHPRA has begun using social media monitoring tools to monitor practitioners’ social media activity.
“We, like most regulators, use a range of different regulatory tools,” Untersteiner said.
“That includes the use of social media monitoring tools … to help us identify where there might be activity of concern to us related to, for instance, racism or discrimination.”
“We’ve engaged a service provider that undertakes general social media monitoring, and they will use a range of different methods to identify. And by the way, this isn’t just about discrimination, which relates to other issues that might play out in the health system,” he said.
Pressed on whether the monitoring involved searching for particular terms, such as “genocide”, Untersteiner said he was not sufficiently familiar with the technical operation of the system to answer.
Untersteiner said that 85% of complaints related to Islamophobia and anti-Semitism were related to social media activity compared to 40 to 45% of overall complaints regarding racism and discrimination.
Chilling effect acknowledged
Edwards also questioned Untersteiner about complaints made against doctors who had spoken publicly about Gaza.
She referred to correspondence from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners raising concerns that complaints relating to political speech, even when ultimately dismissed, were taking months to resolve and causing considerable stress to practitioners.
Untersteiner acknowledged that even
“unsubstantiated complaints could have a “chilling effect”.
He said AHPRA was considering whether practitioners should sometimes not be notified about complaints unlikely to result in regulatory action in order to reduce unnecessary anxiety.
Abuse after adopting IHRA
Questioned later by Borsky, Untersteiner said he had received abuse following AHPRA’s adoption of the IHRA definition, including allegations that he supported genocide or had been influenced by the Israel lobby.
Borsky also referred to abuse directed at Special Envoy Jillian Segal, who will reappear at the Commission on Thursday.
The hearing did not examine claims that AHPRA had also come under sustained lobbying from pro-Israel organisations before adopting the IHRA definition.
MWM previously revealed that AHPRA’s decision followed months of lobbying by the Australian Zionist Health Alliance and other advocacy groups, including calls for Untersteiner’s removal and repeated engagement with senior government officials.
Lucas Heights nuclear reactor was always intended as a step towards nuclear weapons, AND IT STILL IS.
Canberra hoped that aiding Britain might be a step toward its own bomb.
Australia took tentative steps to go it alone. This included the Lucas Heights nuclear plant on Sydney’s southern fringe. Still Australia’s only reactor, it began its life researching, among other things, nuclear weapons
“We have the people, the knowledge, the history, the uranium and we still have Lucas Heights.”
Australia’s secret plans to have its own nuclear arsenal, AMERICA. Russia. China. Britain. The world’s most powerful countries all have nuclear arsenals — and few people know Australia was almost one of them, Benedict Brook@BenedictBrook, news.com.au, JULY 11, 2017 “…….A military expert has told news.com.au, that top secret plans were so advanced Australia was considered “top of the pile” of countries expected to acquire its own nuclear arsenal
It was 60 years ago that the last nuclear bomb was detonated in Australia, a British weapon at the Maralinga test site in South Australia.
If you look closely, evidence of Australia’s plans for its own nuke remain. A few hours south of Sydney, at picturesque Jervis Bay, a small road leads into the bush. By a boat ramp is a large car park.
However, this was never designed to be a place for tourists’ vehicles. Rather, it is the unfinished foundations of Australia’s first commercial nuclear power station.
The public were told it would revolutionise the country’s energy needs. The truth was it would enrich uranium for Australia’s atomic bombs.
Associate Professor Wayne Reynolds is a defence and foreign policy expert at the University of Newcastle and author of the book Australia’s Bid for the Atomic Bomb….. “We wanted to have a navy; in WWII we wanted access to heavy bombers; and so we wanted nuclear weapons. We wanted to maintain a strategic leading edge.”
Australia didn’t want to go it alone. During WWII, British and Australian experts had worked alongside their American counterparts on the Manhattan Project to build the world’s first atomic bomb.
The expectation was that the US would share the results with its allies.
“In 1946, the Americans changed that calculation by announcing they would not share any of the technology or weapons,” says Prof Reynolds. “Britain and Australia were cut out from the club”……. Many in the government harboured a desire for a joint “Empire” bomb produced between Australia, Britain, Canada and South Africa.
Despite the UK’s ownership of the bombs it detonated at Maralinga, Canberra hoped aiding Britain might be a step toward its own bomb. Certainly, no one underestimated Australia’s atom ambitions. “German, Italy, the Netherlands — all wanted nuclear weapons but Australia was top of the list because of our uranium resources, our scientists and our enrichment program,” Prof Reynolds says.
Australia took tentative steps to go it alone. This included the Lucas Heights nuclear plant on Sydney’s southern fringe. Still Australia’s only reactor, it began its life researching, among other things, nuclear weapons…..
In the early 1960s, the Menzies Government was discussing with the US the top secret “SEATO plan 4” which could have seen American bombs on Australian soil.
“This were absolutely not known by the public and plan 4 was only declassified thirty years later,” says Prof Reynolds.
…..In 1968, ex-RAAF pilot Gorton became Prime Minister. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) was already in the works. However, a big supporter of a homegrown nuclear deterrent, Gorton wanted to Australia to be on the “brink of manufacture” of a weapon, says Prof Reynolds…….
Gough Whitlam formally ended Australia’s atom ambitions by signing onto the NPT and tying the country’s security to the US…….
Prof Reynolds says it is unlikely Australia would seek to host nuclear bombs — its own or others. But history warns you to never say never.
“Historically, we’ve gone with the major powers. But if this unravels we might need a capability down here,” he says.” “We have the people, the knowledge, the history, the uranium and we still have Lucas Heights.” benedict.brook@news.com.au http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/australias-secret-plans-to-have-its-own-nuclear-arsenal/news-story/2bcac85b0f2cbe3f7e377217d6ef999b?platform=hootsuite
News indirectly related to the nuclear industry, week to 1 August 2026
Some bits of good news – How to stitch a massive wildlife corridor through the Rocky Mountains. Indonesia’s free nutritious meal program reaches 62.4 mln beneficiaries. White Storks Return to the Midlands After Six Hundred Years
TOP STORIESZelensky’s Dangerous Gambit To Merge The Iran And Ukraine Wars . Not Even Israelis Are Willing To Die For Israel.
A nuclear deal for the Saudis, media blackout for Kushner’s corruption.
From the archives: Saudi Arabia, the Khashoggi murder case: the nuclear connections with Terra Power, Bill Gates, Breakthrough etc
Climate ‘The heat took him from me’: India’s death toll rises amid escalating heat crisis.
‘Fire cloud’ over Bordeaux as France braces for new heatwave. Uganda begins emergency food handouts after 19 die from hunger,
AUSTRALIA
. AUKUS Inquiry exposes nuclear weapon-sized crater.
Coalition MPs push for nuclear-powered data centres.
The Quiet Surrender of our Nation’s Sovereignty
| ATROCITIES. Israel Is Erasing Entire Gaza Families From The Civil Registry. |
| CIVIL LIBERTIES. Suffolk fire live: Hundreds of firefighters battle ‘unprecedented’ wildfire near nuclear plant. |
| ECONOMICS. Nuclear revival needs $250bn a year, industry says. Nuclear needs $6tn investment surge to meet 2050 ambitions. |
| MEDIA. ‘Earth’s Greatest Enemy‘ Delivers A Penetrating Insight Into The Heart Of Our Dystopia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz7MfkVAC40&t=110s |
| OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR .Campaign steps up opposition to south Wales nuclear project. |
POLITICS .
- Ontario touts small nuclear reactors with $500,000 for Haldimand County.
- The Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Hyper spreads to Italy. Philippines’ Marcos says ‘perhaps time to revisit nuclear energy’.
- Republican senator breaks ranks with Trump over controversial nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia. The Guardian view on a US-Saudi nuclear agreement: an offer that further erodes international safeguards. Enrichment Antics: Trump’s Saudi Nuclear Deal. Democrats prepare to resist Saudi nuclear deal.
- Trump Administration Picks Five States for Nuclear Fuel-Cycle Hubs.
- Trump threat to hit Pickaxe renews calls in Iran for nuclear bomb, NPT exit.
- The Collapse of the Bipartisan Consensus over US-Israel Ties. Democrats prepare to resist Saudi nuclear deal. Canada’s silence on the U.S. and Saudi Arabia’s nuclear agreement isn’t neutrality. It’s something much worse-ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/?s=Canada%E2%80%99s+silence+on+the+U.S.+and+Saudi+Arabia%E2%80%99s+
POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY.
Saudi Arabia stares down Trump whiplash US‑Saudi nuclear deal invites proliferation risks … unless safeguards are written in on nuclear deal.
The Saudi Nuclear Deal Invites Disaster (Wall Street Journal)
The US-Saudi nuclear deal.
Trump stuns Saudis by pinning nuclear deal to Israel ties.
UK’s New Defence Minister Called Israel ‘Rogue State’.
The nuclear lobby getting cold feet about public acceptance?
| RADIATION. As Trump boosts nuclear power, regulators seek to eliminate a longstanding radiation safety practice. |
| SAFETY. No more sheltering or iodine tablets: Why are we getting a new nuclear emergency plan? |
| SECRETS and LIES. Israel Is Paying Millions to Train AI Chatbots How to Talk About Gaza – It’s Working. Trump’s Phantom Enemies. |
WAR and CONFLICT.
- Colonel Doug Macgregor: Sleepwalking into World War III.
- Israel builds massive barrier inside Gaza to partition strip beyond ‘Yellow Line’
- War Criminal Pete Hegseth Disrupted.
- What would happen if the UK’s Faslane nuclear weapons base was hit in a nuclear strike? An Iranian missile attack on the UK is no longer far-fetched.
- The Chris Hedges Report: Is Iran Becoming Another ‘Forever War’?
- US Troops Always Die For The US Alone.
- A Big War is Coming. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXMjSY0spzQ&t=74s
WASTES. White House wants to entice ‘willing states’ to take nation’s nuclear waste with promises of economic boost. 5 states offer to accept nuclear waste in exchange for help developing nuclear energy!
WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES.
- Andy Burnham pitches £8.4bn nuclear submarine investment as great for youth employment. Russia’s
- Starlink killers showcase new era of electronic battlefield warfare. The Guardian view on a US-Saudi nuclear agreement: an offer that further erodes international safeguards. Is Trump’s Saudi nuclear deal set to trigger a Middle East arms race?
- The rise of the military-technology complex.
US Navy’s nuclear battleship plan raises questions for carriers, submarines and AUKUS
The same reactor vendor, dockyards and specialist workforce that sustain the Virginia boats promised to Australia under the trilateral AUKUS partnership are already working at their limit
Navy Lookout 30 July 26, https://www.navylookout.com/us-navys-nuclear-battleship-plan-raises-questions-for-carriers-submarines-and-aukus/
The US Navy has confirmed that its planned Trump-class guided-missile battleship, whose lead ship would be USS Defiant, will be nuclear-powered. The propulsion decision could have consequences extending beyond the BB(X) programme (now redesignated BBGN), placing additional pressure on US aircraft-carrier construction and the naval nuclear industrial base, with potential second-order implications for AUKUS and the submarine programmes of Australia and Britain.
Going nuclear
When BBG(X) was unveiled at the end of 2025, the Navy’s initial concept depicted conventional integrated electric propulsion using gas turbines and diesel generators. The FY2027 thirty-year shipbuilding plan subsequently confirmed that the battleship would be nuclear-powered, while Navy officials told Congress that it was expected to use the A1B reactor type fitted to the Ford-class carriers.
There is an operational logic to the decision. A large combatant intended to carry extensive missile batteries, high-output lasers, powerful sensors, electronic-warfare equipment and future energy-intensive weapons will require considerable generating capacity. Nuclear power also removes the fuel constraint that would otherwise limit a ship expected to operate across the distances of the Indo-Pacific, and it would make the Defiant-class the first American nuclear-powered surface combatant since the last of the Virginia-class cruisers paid off in the 1990s.
Industrial chokepoint
The difficulty is not the nuclear technology itself, which is proven in service and is a design that could be adapted for the battleships. The issue is the increased pressure on the supply chain. Nuclear-powered surface ship construction in the United States is dependent on one yard, HII Newport News. This facility is already experiencing delays and cost growth delivering the Ford-class aircraft carriers. The GD Electric Boat in Groton is the only other yard certified for naval nuclear work but only builds submarines, which are the Navy’s top priority. The most significant industrial bottleneck is the naval reactor supply chain centred on BWX Technologies, the sole supplier of US naval reactor cores and key reactor components. BWX are simultaneously supplying the CVN programme (each ship has 2 reactors) as well as two major submarine programmes. Adding the nuclear requirement to the battleship programme when there is no spare industrial capacity to draw upon means it must compete directly for nuclear-certified labour, drydock time and reactor components already committed years ahead.
The House Armed Services Committee has backed a requirement for the Navy to explain how the programme would avoid disrupting Ford-class carrier construction and the wider naval nuclear industrial base. The concern is grounded in the sequencing of the work, since naval reactors are ordered two to three years before the hulls they power, so any diversion of components or skilled staff is felt long before a battleship takes shape. The Columbia-class SSBN programme, which replaces the sea-based leg of the American nuclear deterrent, is already running late, while Virginia-class SSN construction is below the rate the fleet requires. Adding a third demand to that base without expanding it invites exactly the outcome Congress is trying to avoid.
The AUKUS dimension
The same reactor vendor, dockyards and specialist workforce that sustain the Virginia boats promised to Australia under the trilateral AUKUS partnership are already working at their limit. Nuclear surface ship construction is concentrated at HII Newport News alone. The GD Electric Boat in Groton is the only other yard certified for naval nuclear work but only builds submarines, which are the Navy’s top priority. Reactor components come from a single supplier, BWX Technologies, that is also supplying the Columbia and Virginia submarine lines. The clearest direct risk is to the Ford-class carrier programme, but submarine output would probably be indirectly impacted, through competition for reactor components, nuclear-qualified personnel and investment across the wider supplier base.
For UK reactor production, the exposure is less significant. British naval reactors are designed and manufactured through the UK Defence Nuclear Enterprise, centred on Rolls-Royce Submarines at Raynesway. Reactors for the Dreadnought and SSN-AUKUS boats are made in Britain and complement rather than compete with US capacity. What the UK relies on from the States is the design pedigree of the PWR3, which, to an unknown extent, is modelled on the S9G reactor that powers the Virginia-class and was developed with USN engineering support.
The last public figure put the UK’s Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) stockpile at 21.86 tonnes in 2002, but its present size, composition and availability for future naval fuel are not publicly known. Over half of that stockpile was of US origin and none of it is immediately replenishable since domestic weapons-grade enrichment ended in 1962. It is unclear if there is enough for the 4 Dreadnoughts, up to 12 RN SSN-As planned in the medium-term. (Provision of HEU for the 8 Australian SSN-As also has to be considered, although the source for this has not been publicly established). The genuinely usable reserve is smaller than the headline figure once spent cores, warhead reservation and material form are accounted for, and the stock must also serve every future class indefinitely. Building sovereign enrichment capability takes 15-20 years; the UK has committed £1.7bn to a Nuclear Fuels Programme to explore re-establishing a domestic enrichment to reduce dependence on the US in the long run.
Political and industrial reality
The propulsion decision has also exposed the BBGN programme to an even greater extent politically. Before the decision was finalised, then-Navy Secretary John Phelan said the service was still examining the trade-offs. Admiral Daryl Caudle had earlier warned that nuclear propulsion would add a construction ‘tail’ that could push the ship beyond the timeframe of the operational requirement, although he subsequently endorsed the nuclear design. The ambition for 15 battleships sits awkwardly against a fleet that the same plan does not expect to reach 355 ships until FY2040, and then only if industry achieves a dramatic improvement in delivery performance.
There are plenty who believe that BBGN is essentially a vanity project that will be axed as soon as Trump leaves office. Congress has strongly supported the USN’s continued development of the large, but less demanding, conventionally-powered DDG(X) project, although this is officially a replacement for the Ticonderoga cruisers an
Just the uranium/nuclear industry news this week
TOP STORIES. The hidden expansion of Britain’s nuclear strategy.
Fukkushima nuke plant struggles to clear radioactive waste debris.
Noel’s notes. The nasty truth about Small Nuclear Reactors’ toxic fuel and toxic wastes.
AUSTRALIA.
- A global threat for millennia: experts warn Australia’s nuclear submarine legacy will be weapons-usable uranium cache.
- Albanese government pledges extra $4.6billion for AUKUS shipyard – but critics warn it will make Australia a nuclear target.
- Billions of dollars are failing to lift production of AUKUS submarines – ALSO AT….https://antinuclear.net/2026/07/27/5-billions-of-dollars-are-failing-to-lift-production-of-aukus-submarines/
| CLIMATE. Cernavodă Reactor Shut Down as Drought Lowers Danube Flow. |
| ECONOMICS. A mad for nuclear world? Innovative geotechnical sub-alliance formed for Sizewell C construction. A nuclear deal for the Saudis. |
| ENERGY. Nuclear stagnates while renewables soar. |
| MEDIA. “Jobs Jobs Jobs” screams the media again as the nuclear lobby plans to bring Japan’s nuclear waste to Cumberland. |
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. Proposed US-Saudi nuclear energy deal: What we know so far. |
| SAFETY. Is it safe to extend the life of a nuclear power station?. |
| SECRETS and LIES. Government withholds cost to taxpayer of restarting nuclear power-critical CO2 factory. |
TECHNOLOGY.
Can an AI Black Box Be Trusted to Run a Nuclear Reactor?
Trump Administration Eyes Offshore Nuclear to Power AI Boom.
SMALL MODULAR NUCLEAR REACTORS.
- EDF exploring sale of stakes in modular reactor subsidiary Nuward.
- USA firm McDermott to support potential Dutch Rolls-Royce SMR projects. SMR on the moon – micro lunar nuclear reactor.
- “Small” nuclear reactors for Hartlepool? ONLY THEY ARE NOT SMALL.
- More dizzying spin about Small Modular Nuclear Reactors!
- U.S. Prioritizes Small Nuclear Reactors Across Southeast Asia.
- Government gives Canadian Strategic Missions Corporation (CSMC) $4.5M for Micro-Nuclear Technology in Canada’s Arctic.
- Nuclearelectrica’s proposal to review SMR options rejected by Romania ministry.
- NUCLEAR FUEL. Approval for VVER uranium/plutonium fuel production in Germany.
| WASTES. Nuclear Waste Could Be Headed to Five States in New US Plan (1). Leaked document reveals White House nuclear waste plan. Decommissioning. Demolition of Germany’s Stade reactor building progresses. Plan to Bring Failed Japanese Fast Breeder Reactor’s Contaminated Sodium to Workington. Multi-million-pound nuclear treatment plant set to be built at Port of Workington |
| WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. US Navy’s nuclear battleship plan raises questions for carriers, submarines and AUKUS. Canada remains anti-nuke, but its potential path to the bomb is getting shorter. |
Pat Conroy,Australia’s Minister for Defence Industry in denial about U.S. military bases (?targets) in Australia
Colin Mitchell, 31 July 26
On the 7.30 Report (Wed night) Pat Conroy would only talk about the current 5 year agreement for Rotational Force West due to end in 2032. Presumably the agreement could be renewed or another agreement made in 2032 for another 5 years or longer. He would not explicitly say that US subs would not come to HMAS Stirling after 2032 when asked directly by Sarah Ferguson on that. Instead he simply repeated that the current agreement ends in 2032.
“There are no foreign military bases in Australia” he said. What a whopper! (Pine Gap and NWCape are “joint” US – Australian bases).
He insisted that US Subs will not be “based” here, simply rotated through, because they will not be at Stirling for more than a year!
He wouldn’t give any shorter time limit than a year.
As for the Treaty of Rarotonga that Treaty does not prevent nuclear weapons entering Australia as he implied. It merely says that they can’t be “stationed” here. What length of time “stationing” would be is not defined in the Treaty. That leaves a gaping loophole in the Treaty. The shortest time Pat Conroy would specify for Stirling is one year! The Treaty of Rarotonga is no barrier to nuclear weapons transiting or “rotating” through Australia, with the length of time constituting a “transit” or “rotation” not specified. Pat Conroy’s idea would be anything less than a year.
A sub could go to sea and then come back again for another year! Likewise a plane could fly out on an exercise and come back again.
Yes the US will respect the Treaty of Rarotonga because the Treaty does not prevent nuclear weapons from being in Australia for extended periods of time.
When genocide is silenced in the name of “unity”
30 July 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, https://theaimn.net/when-genocide-is-silenced-in-the-name-of-unity/
When genocide is silenced in the name of “unity”: Labor’s festering wound
Dedicated to the young Senator, the young Muslim – who dared to speak when others stayed silent.
I. Introduction: A Funeral for Unity
In July 2026, over 400 delegates gathered in Adelaide for the Australian Labor Party’s National Conference. They were there to shape the party’s platform – to decide what Labor would stand for over the next three years. Yet, during that conference, a debate about the genocide in Gaza was killed before it could begin.
Labor MP Ed Husic moved an amendment acknowledging the UN inquiry’s finding that Israeli authorities had “deliberately targeted Palestinian children, resulting in genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Gaza Strip.” His motion was initially seconded by the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA).
But on the morning of the debate, the union withdrew its support. Without a seconder, the motion could not proceed. The debate was over before it started. Husic said:
“I’m astonished by the extraordinary amount of energy that’s been put into preventing this being discussed rather than discussing it, rather than having a conversation, rather than thrashing it out better.”
He did not back down. He said: “If they put me in the freezer, I don’t give a shit.” But another voice emerged. Mike Kelly, a former Labor minister and a former Australian Army officer – made extraordinary comments.
II. Kelly’s Accusations: The Weaponisation of Conspiracy Theory
Mike Kelly’s comments were not merely offensive – they were pathological.
Kelly claimed that “hard core, violent revolutionary communists in league with Islamist extremists are subverting the union movement, branches and the Labor Party.” This was not a policy disagreement. This was a conspiracy theory dressed up as political analysis.
One observer described his remarks as “bizarre dangerous claptrap.” They are.
What is the truth?
Kelly is using the spectre of the Cold War to delegitimise anyone who criticises Israel. He is trying to reframe opposition to genocide as a product of extremism. He is trying to silence those who dare to speak.
His own colleague, South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas, questioned Husic’s motives, suggesting he might be “pursuing a barrow” for attention. This is a classic smear tactic: when you cannot rebut the argument, you attack the character.
III. The Pattern of Suppression
The incident is not isolated. It is a pattern:
- A crisis occurs. The evidence of genocide is overwhelming.
- The government tries to control the narrative. Dissent is silenced. Critics are marginalised.
- The “unity” narrative is weaponised. Anyone who speaks out is framed as a threat to party cohesion.
- The dissenters are isolated. Payman is attacked. Husic is put in “the freezer.” The seconder disappears.
At the conference, Husic said Labor had become unwilling to engage in open disagreement. He argued that the “trauma” of the Rudd-Gillard years had created a situation where anything that looked like debate was seen as “disunity” that could bring down the government.
But as one participant noted: “Unity must be based on democratic consent, not bureaucratic diktat.”
IV. The Lancet and the Numbers
The Lancet published a study estimating that the death toll in Gaza could exceed 186,000 people. The study accounted for both direct violence and indirect causes – starvation, disease, the collapse of the healthcare system.
Mike Kelly’s response to these numbers? He did not rebut them. He supported the killers and cheered them on.
That is not leadership. That is moral abdication.
V. The Deputy Prime Minister’s Admission
Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles made a rare admission (paywalled): while Labor’s platform on Israel-Palestine was flawed, compromise was necessary for unity.
In other words: truth matters. Morality matters. Justice matters. But unity matters more.
It is a calculation we have seen elsewhere – the calculation of those who place power over principle, cohesion over conscience.
VI. Conclusion: The Festering Wound
The festering wound inside the Labor Party will not be healed by performances of “unity.” It will not be healed by those sitting in air-conditioned rooms, saying it is “complex,” and hoping the problem goes away.
The young Senator Fatima Payman dared to cross the floor. Ed Husic dared to speak. They were isolated. Attacked. Put in “the freezer.”
But they were not defeated.
They are a reminder that we have real consciences – and not just servile obedience to party loyalty.
AUKUS Inquiry exposes nuclear weapon-sized crater
by Rex Patrick | Jul 25, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/aukus-inquiry-exposes-nuclear-weapon-sized-crater/
The AUKUS Public Inquiry has reminded Australians of a nuclear weapon proliferation problem that the Government is yet to solve and one that could change the program from full-steam-ahead to a dead stop.
AUKUS Public Inquiry
It’s the inquiry the Labor government and Coalition opposition didn’t want. It’s the “AUKUS Inquiry unauthorised!”
The inquiry will likely have little direct effect on Prime Minister Albanese and his Cabinet National Security Committee.
They’re completely blinded by the gold epaulets on the shoulders of the admirals that are briefing them (the same admirals who spent $3B not buying French submarines, buying the most expensive frigates known to man and procuring patrol boats that were found not fit for purpose).
But the Inquiry will inform the public.
Nuclear weapon material
One very useful submission to the Inquiry was from Tilman Ruff, a Nobel laureate. He laid out some facts about the nuclear fuel inside a Virginia Class submarine’s reactor.
At the start of their life every Virginia class submarine has about 650 kg of highly enriched uranium that will power the vessel’s reactor. That’s a 93% enrichment – 610 kg of fissionable uranium-235. At the end of each submarine’s life the fuel elements in the reactor still be 83% enriched – 375 kg of uranium 235. The Hiroshima bomb was 80% U-235.
Waste responsibility
Australia must deal with the waste from our AUKUS submarines. By binding treaty agreement with the United States and the United Kingdom, AUKUS provides that “Australia shall be responsible for the management, disposition, storage, and disposal of any spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste resulting from the operation of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants …”
The Australian Government is doing everything it can to not talk about how it will deal with nuclear waste. It recently lodged an appeal in the Federal Court to try to overturn a Freedom of Information win on the topi
Whatever they ultimately do on the waste front, it’s going to be expensive.
Tilman told the AUKUS Public Inquiry that AUKUS nuclear waste needs a really high level of security because “in 10,000 years, someone could still go and dig that stuff up and build nuclear weapons with it”.
Non-proliferation risk
And therein lies one of the problems with AUKUS that the Government has been unable to solve.
Australia is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and associated materials and technology.
Under the Treaty, non-nuclear-weapon states (including Australia) are obligated to not manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons.
Correspondingly, nuclear-weapon states (including the US and the UK) are obligated not to transfer nuclear weapons to any recipient, and not in any way to assist, encourage or induce any non-nuclear-weapon state to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons.
IAEA decision the key
Associated with the Treaty are legally binding Comprehensive Safeguard Agreements between a signatory country and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to allow the IAEA to verify that a country’s nuclear material is being used only for peaceful purposes and not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
Article 14 of the treaty allows Australia to pursue naval nuclear propulsion, but it requires that we renegotiate our Comprehensive Safeguard Agreement, originally agreed in 1974 with no contemplation of operating weapon grade naval reactors.
If we do not reach agreement with the IAEA, the US and UK will not transfer submarines to Australia
Follow the money
Australia commenced negotiations on a new Comprehensive Safeguard Agreement in May 2023. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has taken the lead on the negotiations.
There has been considerable secrecy from the Government in relation to progress on the Agreement, which is opposed by several countries including Indonesia, Malaysia and China. Opposing countries argue that
“AUKUS could weaken the non-proliferation regime.“
Information on progress has been limited. So MWM has followed the money.
In the 2023-24 Budget, DFAT was allocated $35M for financial year 23/24 and $40M for 24/25 to provide legal, policy and diplomatic support for AUKUS non-proliferation related negotiations. No money was allocated for financial years 25/26 or 26/27.
In the 2024-25 budget optimism was still alive with $40M remaining allocated for that financial year and, again, nothing allocated in 25/26 or 26/27.
In the 2025-26 budget optimism had faded and another $39M was thrown in to the pot to cover ongoing negotiations. Nothing was allocated for the following years.
This year’s Budget papers are telling. It allocated $43M for this financial year and includes $44M for 27/28.
“The negotiations have gone from a two year $75M task to a four year $200M task (at least).“
Like happens so often with Defence projects, the whole thing has been a complete under-estimation.
Nuclear explosion-sized crater
When MWM made the first ever FOI request for an Australian Submarine Agency’s Budget Estimate’s Brief (October 2023) there were seven pages dedicated to nuclear non-proliferation. In the latest Budget Estimate’s Brief (June 2026) there was nothing.
If the IAEA does not reach agreement with Australia, whether for political or technical reasons, AUKUS is dead. The price of then proceeding without IAEA agreement would be to risk a catastrophic breakdown of the already shaky nuclear non-proliferation regime.
“That would be something the AUKUS powers could not afford. “
The US and UK can walk away, thankful for the billions in taxpayer’s dollars that we’ve gifted to their industry. And even more will have been wasted here in Australia.
We’ll be left with a nuclear explosion sized crater in our Defence budget with nothing to show for it. The money will be gone, and our national security will have been compromised.
Are Australian military exports fuelling massacres in Sudan?
by Andrew Bartlett | Jul 28, 2026 |, https://michaelwest.com.au/are-australian-military-exports-fuelling-massacres-in-sudan/
While the heat is on Defence for arms sales to Israel, the government is mute on its role enabling the atrocities in Sudan. President of Australians for War Powers Reform Andrew Bartlett reports.
A great deal has been said about Australian military exports to Israel during the genocide in Gaza and despite a series of denials from the Albanese government, there is clear evidence that some exports are continuing.
But there is now credible evidence that Australia may be contributing to serious atrocities in another conflict zone – Sudan – where appalling civilian massacres have been documented over the past two years.
As an example of how grave the situation is in Sudan, in February the BBC reported that 6000 civilians were killed in one city in just three days.
In November last year, multiple media outlets published satellite images of the city of El Fasher in which piles of dead bodies could be seen from space.
A brutal militia group called the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) is actively engaged in a massive civil war against the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).
According to the UN, both sides have committed severe atrocities, war crimes, and human rights violations since the war began.
Why is Australia involved?
But how on earth is Australia involved?
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is accused of providing weapons and resources to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan.
Despite this, Australia continues to export military equipment to the UAE – in fact, almost $300 million worth in the last five years.
If there is even a slight chance that our exports are being used to slaughter large numbers of unarmed civilians, you’d think the government would at the very least properly investigate this possibility.
But there are no signs that the government has taken any action, and getting straight answers from them about our arms trade with the UAE is like pulling teeth.
Human rights groups and civil society groups have both warned the government about this possibility and asked questions about the trade, but the result has been PR doublespeak.
Defence plays a deadbat
In December, Greens Senator David Shoebridge grilled senior defence officials in Senate estimates about exports to either Sudan or the UAE, but he got no answers.
For half an hour the officials simply recited policy documents but did not provide any meaningful answers about the transfer of sensitive goods to this bloody conflict.
One official said he didn’t know if there were any existing exports permits for Sudan and that he would have to go back and check the records.
They were asked, given the civilian bloodshed, whether any permits were under review. No answer was forthcoming.
Under the Arms Trade Treaty, which Australia has signed, states are prohibited from transferring military equipment if they are likely to be used in attacks directed against civilians.
Our organisation, Australians for War Powers Reform, has also sought answers on these matters and has faced blatant stonewalling.
Wong and Marles duck
We wrote to Foreign Minister Penny Wong in November and received a response from the Defence Department which did not address any of the questions raised.
We have also contacted Defence Minister Richard Marles on two occasions and have not received a response.
In August last year, 64 civil society organisations, including the ACTU, Amnesty International, The National Council of Churches and The Human Rights Law Centre, called for a parliamentary review of Australia’s growing arms export sector, to ensure compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty.
“This call too has fallen on deaf ears”.
The level of secrecy and the complete lack of accountability is unacceptable.
The Australian community does not want weapons or other military equipment being used in a brutal civil war, where civilians are targeted en masse.
At present there is no reliable way to establish if our exports are making their way to Sudan and that’s for one reason only – the government won’t tell us.
ICC weighs in
This week the International Criminal Court reported a breakthrough in its investigation of atrocities in Sudan.
The court says it now has concrete evidence linking the RSF militia to war crimes and that charges were likely to follow.
The ICC system is notoriously slow, and charges will not stop war crimes in the near future.
The Albanese government should act immediately to thoroughly investigate our involvement and cancel or pause any suspect export permits.
1 This month.
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
Antinuclear 