Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry – with a focus on Western Australia – STOP AUKUS
No 320 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nkcNWsxkD82ipTDEguemqIQ0LNEk0DXn/view
Stop AUKUS WA is grateful for the opportunity to make a submission to the 2026 Public
Inquiry into AUKUS.
Although not specifically included in the TOR of the Inquiry, we will mainly focus on the
regional/local impacts of AUKUS and only briefly outline our perception of the broader
issues, noting that we concur with the substantial submissions to date by respected experts
including Tilman Ruff, Richard Tanter, Dave Sweeney, Joseph Camileri and John Lander.
National and International Issues
An appropriate defence asset?
The Virginia class submarines to be purchased under AUKUS Pillar 1 were originally
designed for the main purpose of deterring Chinese submarines from launching missiles
into mainland USA.
They are not suitable for defence of coastal Australia where a larger fleet of smallersubmarines would be more appropriate. By the time of delivery of Virginia class or SNN-AUKUS submarines they are likely to be obsolete due to improved underwater detection methods and development of underwater drones (ironically being developed under AUKUSPillar 2).
Financial implications
The huge cost of procuring nuclear-powered submarines under AUKUS, now estimated at
A$375 billion (albeit including a substantial contingency), inevitably detracts from
expenditure on other ADF options. This in turn exacerbates the defence budget creep which
consumes funds better spent on combating real existential threats of climate change and
nuclear war, and on social well-being programs. Furthermore, history has shown that initial
projected costs of large military or civilian projects (e.g. Snowy Hydro) inevitably blow out.
The risks of committing to such expenditure are huge – non-delivery of submarines, pending
obsolescence, the fallacious assumption China is our enemy etc.
Loss of sovereignty
The military interoperability and increased implementation of the Force Posture Agreement
(FPA) implicit in AUKUS will ensure further subservience to the USA, obliging Australia to
continue following the US into wars of its choosing. The assumption that subservience to the
US or having US bases on our soil will ensure Australia’s security and safety is false
particularly in light of the prevailing “America First” agenda. The recent attacks on US Bases
in West Asia are also testimony to this.
There are also serious doubts Australia would have the nuclear-ready workforce to operate
its own nuclear-powered submarines; equally that the US will meet the production level
requirements needed to provide Australia with the much touted 3 Virginia Class SSNs in
2032, ’35, ‘38 and that the US will simply perpetuate a quasi SRF-West co-crewed by US
and Australian crews but under the command of the US.
Abrogating treaties
AUKUS also threatens to undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT) to which
Australia is a signatory: it would exploit the loophole in the Treaty which technically permits
visiting vessels (as opposed to ‘stationed’ vessels) being nuclear capable. This is especially
alarming given Australia’s “Don’t ask – Don’t tell’ attitude and the increasing likelihood that
the future models of Virginia Class submarines could be nuclear armed.
Further, the highly enriched uranium (HEU) used in Virginia Class submarines, and in the
Rolls Royce reactors for Australia’s SSN-AUKUS to be built at Osborne, can be used either
directly or with reprocessing, in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Although the current
legislation prohibits Australia from enacting this, there is always the implied risk or possible
breach of security which could facilitate this.
Nuclear Waste Concerns (other than localised at HMAS Stirling)
AUKUS commits Australia to storing the high level nuclear waste from the 2nd hand Virginia
Class submarines to be procured in the 2030’s and Australia’s own SSN-AUKUS.
Decommissioning the reactors will generate potent waste remaining dangerously radioactive
for tens of thousands of years. This will require secure storage at an undisclosed
astronomical price and ‘defence site’ yet to be determined – no doubt to be again rightfully
challenged by First Nations peoples. AUKUS would be committing Australia to an inevitable
problem to which no solution is on the horizon, a damming legacy.
Diplomacy vs aggressive deterrence
China is Australia’s major trading partner as well as the intended US target adversary of
AUKUS which inevitably could have adverse repercussions on trade relations. Some harsh
trade restrictions imposed by China recently suggest that this is already happening. Further,
most Asian nations see AUKUS as an anglospheric reincarnation of European colonial
dominance – the antithesis of enhanced regional security.
Australia’s security could best be enhanced by rapidly expanding Australian diplomacy in the
region, combined with an independent foreign policy based on peace and justice.
Impacts of AUKUS on research, universities and foreign student intake
AUKUS imposes laborious and stringent restrictions on research partnerships and foreign
students from countries other than the USA and UK. This is reportedly leading to a brain drain back to China or to elsewhere. Recent data cited by Clarivate reveals Australia-
Chinese co-authored publications in the top 10% of those most cited globally over the pastfive years in computer science, materials science and engineering far outnumbers those co-
authored with US partners – 54% to 12%. Only 5% of China’s top publications involve an Australian author.
Confining Australia to research and development with its anglosaxon partners is a setback to
our scientific and technological development which risks Australia being left way behind in
the global arena. It is also having a negative impact on the foreign student intake which in
turn impacts universities’ income earning capacity.
WA Specific Issues
Loss of local jurisdiction
Currently, two bays in the north of Garden Island and beaches on the west of the island are
accessible to the public by boat during daylight hours for recreational purposes. There is
also a “closed naval waters” buffer zone to the east of the island in Cockburn Sound.
Although the Australian Navy, the Australian Submarine Agency (ASA) and the Australian
Naval Nuclear Power Submarine Agency (ANNPSA) all claim that public access to the island
will not be further impacted under Submarine Rotational Force West (SRF-West) as of 2027,
it is difficult to believe. The whole of the island is already a designated [nuclear] zone under
the ANNPS Act.
Also, a considerable area of Cockburn Sound adjacent to Garden Island, now accessible to
recreational boats, would likely become a restricted zone. With the increased traffic and
stationing of nuclear-powered submarines and the radioactive waste facility to be built in the
southern part of the island it is also highly likely that the current assurances that public
access to the Sound for fishing, boating, snorkelling and other water activities will not be
impacted, will ultimately prove untrue.
2. Environmental heritage effects………………………………….
3. Housing, employment and the local economy………………………………….
4. Henderson Defence Precinct – the AUKUS dry dock……………………………….
- Congestion in Cockburn Sound: commercial shipping, toxic industry and
recreational boating
6. Local Nuclear Issues – Waste and Radioactivity
The stationing of US and UK nuclear powered submarines at Stirling under SRF-West
necessitates in-water maintenance which in turn requires a Controlled Industrial Facility
(CIF) to manage and store the low level radioactive waste. ARPANSA granted the
construction licence to ASA in 2025 after a flawed public consultation – the public were
denied access to requested technical and detailed information regarding the intended
structure and radioactive materials to be handled and ultimate disposal procedures.
No information was given of the identity and amounts of the actual isotopes involved, other
than to claim that it would be “low level waste” of the type emanating from hospitals and
research labs such as gloves and protective clothing. It is essential to know the details of
hazardous substances before it can be worked out how best to handle and store them. The
radioactive waste was initially claimed to be of short half-life but later it was admitted that
some isotopes would have a half-life of about 300 years. The actual lifespan of the CIF (on
precarious geological island land, especially given climate change) was put at 40-50 years.
And all in the face of there still not being a permanent/long term storage site/plan or in fact
anywhere to take it to in case of emergency.
It is feared that the radiological waste from the temporary CIF storage facilities at Stirling and
Henderson will eventually be transported by road through, or in close proximity to, populated
areas. Authorities prefer not to discuss this and claim it is still in the planning stage.
At other bases for UK and US nuclear powered submarines there have been reports of
release of radioactive materials into the air and the harbour (e.g. Faslane, Scotland). In the
AUKUS proposals so far put out for consultation such possible emissions (including
evaporation of liquid waste) have been acknowledged but with no clear indication as to how
they would be monitored, minimized, remedied or reported to the public.
7. Accidents, safety and secrecy
…………………….Disturbingly, we have learned that the US is intending to relax its safety standards for
radiation exposure by a factor of five, against long accumulated medical advice. It remains
unknown as to what extent these relaxed standards would be applied in and around US
nuclear powered submarines, especially as the SRF West rotations will occur under the
2014 Force Posture Agreement (FPA) with the US and Stirling being listed as a special
facility and area under the FPA. Under Article IV.1, this gives the US “unimpeded access to
and use of Stirling” for related activities.
Article V.5 states “The Parties shall mutually develop procedures to address incident and
accident responses, including for the following matters: (a) first response; (b) the security of
incident or accident sites and human remains; (c) investigations; and (d) public statements
concerning accidents and incidents.”
Stop AUKUS has sought clarification of this issue via Questions posed at the various ASA
Information sessions held in 2025 and 2026 in Fremantle, Perth, Cockburn and Rockingham
and via repeated emails to the ASA – all to no avail.
The nuclear safety record for nuclear submarines is not good, and unlikely to be better for a
nation with no prior experience in nuclear submarines. At least nine nuclear-powered
submarines have sunk. Decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines are not dismantled
due to absence of permanent storage facilities for their reactor fuel, anywhere. Since 2006 a
total of 789 nuclear safety events were recorded at HM Naval Base Clyde at Faslane and
nearby Royal Naval Armaments Depot Coulport. The UK has ceased public reporting of
nuclear accidents since 2017.
With the standing up of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Agency (ANNPSA) on 1
November 2025 it has taken over naval nuclear safety and reporting from ARPANSA. It
reports to the Minister of Defence, who would no doubt be hesitant to disclose any mishaps
or misdeeds of their ministry – thus is an ineffective mechanism to gain and maintain social
licence of AUKUS, especially in the advent of any accidents.
It is usual practice that the military everywhere, and most civilian governments, are reluctant
to publicly report accidents, and especially those involving radiation, to prevent credibility
loss and loss of social licence. This tendency towards secrecy is readily apparent in the
ongoing local AUKUS public consultancy process (e.g. “information not available for security
reasons”) and ASA’s community information sessions in a belated attempt to gain some
semblance of social licence which is clearly lacking in the ill-conceived AUKUS plan.
Although visiting nuclear powered submarines fall under the OPSMAN visiting ships manual,
the new Regulator will play a role – seemingly yet to be defined even though the Regulator
has been in existence for 8 months. The WA Police are responsible for managing any
incident response under the HAZMAT Annex A – Radiation Escape From A Nuclear Powered
Warship (NPW) – State Hazard Plan. An update of the 2023 manual to factor in the ANNPSA
has been in the making for some time and still uncompleted or if it has been it is still not
publicly available.
We maintain none of the above bides well for social licence nor Australia’s nuclear readiness
in the eyes of its AUKUS partners.
8 Target
Our initial protests that establishing a base for US nuclear submarines in the vicinity of the
Perth metropolitan area would make us a prime target, rather than protect us, in any future
global-scale conflict were essentially dismissed. However, the recent US-Israel war on Iran
has illustrated how US bases do become prime, first-choice targets. The bombing of Pearl
Harbour by the Japanese in their opening of the war with the USA some 85 years ago
provides another example.
There are no contingency provisions for the public in the event of attacks on HMAS Stirling,
either conventional or nuclear. A successful conventional attack would in any case lead to
the uncontrolled release of radioactive contents from submarines and storage facilities.
9 China trade
A majority of the container ships visiting Fremantle, and eventually Westport, are involved in
the China trade. The existence of AUKUS discourages that trade with the general
understanding that the purpose of AUKUS is to join the US in militarily confronting, or as a
minimum, containing China. Understandably China is now seeking alternative trading
partners and would be reluctant to send their commercial shipping into hostile ports.
Conclusion
It is apparent that creation of AUKUS was primarily motivated by Australian political party
jostling for power, the US desire for a nuclear submarine base in the Indian Ocean/Australia
and the lingering nostalgia of the UK for a lost empire. The project as proposed is more likely
to antagonise Australia’s relations with its neighbours rather than enhance the security of the
country, and we would inevitably need to sacrifice further sovereignty to the USA. AUKUS
has so far not received the required parliamentary scrutiny for such a complex, costly and
future setting commitment.
Public consultancies held around various components of AUKUS such as the Australian
Submarine Agency’s licence applications for the siting and construction of a radioactive
waste storage facility at Stirling lacked sufficient information for thorough public scrutiny and
the outcome seemed preordained.
In WA, promises of increased employment and economic stimulation seem exaggerated,
especially when all of the disadvantages of proceeding are considered. It is clear that the
issue of nuclear waste has not been adequately thought through, especially the long-term
storage aspects designed to deal with nuclear reactor isotopes for millennia.
AUKUS poses a public health and safety, environmental, security and social cohesion risk to
the Cockburn Sound communities. It lacks social licence and a cost benefit analysis.
Australia’s submarine and defence policy needs an urgent rethink – as does the Australia-US
Alliance.
Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry -Australia should quit alliance with the UK and US – Dr Gideon Maxwell Polya.
No.258
“……………………My submission is in 3 parts and summarizes several detailed articles that set out why
Australia should quit alliance with the UK and US.
(A). As a UK lackey, US lackey or major climate criminal country Australia has
violated all circa 80 Indo-Pacific countries.
In 2021 Australia formed the anti-China AUKUS (Australia, UK and US) Alliance and
thence the Quad (Australia, India, US and Japan) Alliance to contain a supposedly
aggressive China. In reality as a nuclear terrorist, climate criminal, serial invader
and subversive entity Australia has violated all Indo-Pacific countries (see Gideon
Polya, “AUKUS & Quad In Context: Australia Violates All Indo-Pacific countries”,
Countercurrents, 9 December 2021: https://countercurrents.org/2021/12/aukus-qu
ad-in-context-australia-violates-all-indo-pacific-countries/ and for an exhaustively
referenced version see Gideon Polya, “Australia violates all Indo-Pacific countries”,
Stop state terrorism, 9 December 2021: https://sites.google.com/site/stopstateterr
orism/2021-12-09-australia-violates-all-indo-pacific-countries ).
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………As a UK and thence US lackey, Australia in the last 80 years (i.e. WW2 onwards)
has had armed forces in many countries of the Indo-Pacific region, and has joined
the US in massive invasions and occupations. Australia has participated in all
post-1950 US Asian Wars (atrocities in which 40 million Asians have died from
violence and war-imposed deprivation). Anti-Arab anti-Semitic Australia has been
an enthusiastic participant in the US War on Terror (over 30 million Muslims have
died from violence and imposed deprivation in 20 countries invaded by the US
Alliance since the US Government-exploited 9/11 atrocity that killed 3,000 people).
The joint US-Australian telecommunications spying base at Pine Gap in Central
Australia targets war criminal US drone strikes on 7 Muslim countries.
As US lackeys Australians have been involved with the US in covert subversion of
many Indo-Pacific countries, and were successful in achieving regime change in 8
instances, namely Laos (1960), Indonesia (1965), Cambodia (1970), Chile (1973),
Australia (1975), Fiji (1987), Fiji (2000), and Australia (2010) (the latter 3 also
involving Apartheid Israel). Australia is second only to the US as a fervent
supporter of nuclear terrorist, genocidally racist, grossly human rights-abusing and
globally subversive Apartheid Israel, and hence of the utterly vile and intolerable
crime of Apartheid…………………………………………………………………………………………………
(B). Why Australia should quit military links with serial war criminal, genocidally
racist and egregiously mendacious America.
For a detailed and exhaustively referenced analysis see Gideon Polya, “Why
Australia Should Quit Military Links With Serial War Criminal America”,
Countercurrents, 28 January 2023: https://countercurrents.org/2023/01/why-austr
alia-should-quit-military-links-with-serial-war-criminal-america/ . Summarized
below are cogent arguments why Australia should quit its AUKUS alliance with
nuclear terrorist, genocidally racist and serial war criminal America and the UK.
(1). War typically violates International law, and is the penultimate in repugnant
racism, with genocide being the ultimate in racism…………………………………………..
(2). The US is a horrendous serial invader of other countries. Apart from inevitable
border spats, most countries in the world have not invaded other countries…………………………………………………
(3). War criminal active and passive mass murder by nuclear terrorist America and
the US Alliance. Iraq and Afghanistan were not the only countries murderously
violated by the US in the 21st century. It was estimated in 2015 that 32 million
Muslims had died from violence (5 million) and imposed deprivation (27 million) in
20 countries invaded by the US Alliance after the US Government-exploited 9/11
atrocity that killed 3,000 people, mostly innocent Americans…………………………………………………
(4) American lying ………………………… As cogently analysed by
Professors Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky in “Manufacturing Consent”,
mendacious US Mainstream media serve the interests of the US Establishment and
US governments.
(5). America violates, subverts, dirties and acutely threatens Australia.
(i). Australia was involved in all post-1950 US Asian wars.
(ii). AUKUS and Australian violation of all Indo-Pacific countries.
(iii). Australian involvement in 8 US-effected coups.
(iv). US lackey Australia’s deadly covert operations in neighbouring Indonesia.
(v). The US Murdoch media empire dominates Australia.
(vi). America spies on, subverts, deceives and betrays Australia.
(vii). UK- , US-, and Zionist-backed coups and other subversive interventions in
Australia.
(viii). Craven submission to American militarism makes Australia complicit in
nuclear terrorism and makes Australia a prime nuclear target.
(ix). Zionist subversion of IHRA member Australia is a product of blind Australian
fealty to Zionist-subverted America and soils Australia.
(x). Locked-in support for US militarism and militarist fiscal perversion inescapably
contributes to 100,000 preventable Australian deaths annually.
(xi). Australia is complicit in horrendous UK and US war crimes, notably in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
(xii). Blind support for the US has created a contemptible, reality-ignoring,
“look-the-other-way” Australian national culture.
(xiii). US lies and terror hysteria impacting Australian civil liberties.
(xiv). Genocidal US, US Alliance and Australia need de-Nazification.
(C). The AUKUS Alliance betrays, robs, soils, threatens and kills Australians.
………………………………… (i). AUKUS betrays Australians. The AUKUS deal supposedly protects Australian
sovereignty but the opposite is true. The nuclear submarines (if delivered) would
become Australia-crewed adjuncts to the naval strategy of a serial war-making US.
The deal locks an impotent Australia into US war-making strategy against our
biggest trading partner, China. Conversely, military strategy expert Albert Palazzo
(“The Big Fix”) argues that middle-power Australia should revert from a US-led
“strategic offensive” position to an efficient, effective and Australia-first “strategic
defensive” position. Our AUKUS partner, Zionist-perverted America, gets Australia
to hugely subsidize US war industry, makes Australia a prime nuclear target, and
substitutes hugely expensive, submarine hunting , White Elephant “sitting ducks”
for an intelligent, multi-faceted and high technology defence system.
(ii). AUKUS robs Australians. The Australia Institute estimates that the cost could
be $500 billion for a few second-hand, US-controlled, US-assisting, single-purpose
submarines that may already be detectable and vulnerable to the latest
AI-assisted anti-submarine technology. The US war industry gets A$500 billion and
in return Australia becomes a prime nuclear target, and gets locked into an absurd
“strategic offensive” position for the benefit of the US instead of an expert-advised
“strategic defensive” position for the defence of Australia.
(iii). AUKUS soils Australia. Racism is vile because to whom we are born and by
whom we are raised is out of our control. War is the penultimate in racism and
genocide the ultimate. The UK has invaded 193 countries or nearly every country.
Only 3 countries have not had a US military presence. Before WW2 the British
committed genocide on all inhabited continents whereas the US (African slavery
and Pacific islands aside) largely confined itself to the American Indian genocide
and domination of Latin America. After WW2 the UK replaced colonialism with
deadly neo-colonialism but also participated in the (deaths from violence and
deprivation in brackets) Palestinian (3 million), Korean (5 million), Iraqi (5 million), Libyan (0.2 million) and Afghan (7 million) Genocides. The US invaded a swathe of
countries around the world after WW2…………………………………………………………………….
(iv). AUKUS threatens Australians. The Australia-US joint spying base at Pine Gap,
Central Australia, plays a key role US nuclear terrorism and in targeting US and
Israeli bombing. Australia is constructing a huge base for nuclear-armed US
submarines in Western Australia, is expanding the Tindal air base in the Northern
Territory to host potentially nuclear-armed B-52 bombers, and hosts a
3,000-personnel US Marine base near Darwin. AUKUS makes Australia a prime
nuclear target – in any escalating nuclear war key bases in Australia and Australian
cities would be bombed before bombing any US cities………………………………………………….
(v). AUKUS will kill Australians. AUKUS will remove $500 billion from Australia’s
capacity to keep Australians alive and healthy via its prosperous economy-based
world-leading universal health care system, the National Disability Insurance
Scheme (NDIS), the education system, and preventive medicine…………………………………………………………. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s1_Y3ywvk8ywqTLFvhOt3RfBFZfYH25g/view
Data centres revive Coalition passion for nuclear power, but this time more expensive and even less realistic
SMRs are “the most expensive form of energy you could possibly choose”
Peter Hannam, 12 November 2026, https://reneweconomy.com.au/data-centres-revive-coalition-passion-for-nuclear-power-but-this-time-more-expensive-and-even-less-realistic/amp/
The data centre-driven revival of the nuclear power debate in Australia is yet another political distraction from the urgent task of rapidly decarbonising the energy system, a new report has warned, only this time it’s focused on a technology that doesn’t technically exist: small modular reactors.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) aren’t operating commercially anywhere in the world despite decades of research and hype, won’t sate data centres’ energy hunger, and will dash federal Coalition hopes for an alternative to renewable energy, the report by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) finds.
The Phantom Energy report, released on Thursday, details the lack of progress of SMRs globally.
“Nuclear power is too slow, too expensive, too unpopular, too dangerous and too thirsty to be a viable source of power for data centres in Australia,” the report says.
This has not stopped major technology firms such as Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Meta, from announcing nuclear energy partnerships to support growing data-centre demand, including inking more than a dozen agreements worth nearly 10 gigawatts (GW) of capacity.
“However, these commitments are largely non-binding agreements, power-purchase arrangements, or modest investments in SMR developers rather than direct funding for reactor construction,” report author Jim Green argues.
In particular, the US – home to those tech giants – has no SMRs or even large-scale reactors under construction. Plans to restart three shuttered reactors to power data centres “face obstacles and delays and only represent a tiny percent of electricity demand for data centres,” the report says.
Indeed, it cites a report by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists from July that found nuclear funding commitments from Amazon and Google to be fraction of 1% of their annual expenditures earmarked for building data centres.
The spending was “primarily meant as greenwashing, in order to divert attention from the negative environmental impacts of data centre operations,” including much larger fossil fuel investments, the bulletin found.
Debate over how to power Australia’s data centre boom has intensified, as communities wrestle with how another 225 planned or proposed centres can be accommodated by a grid already hosting about 165 of them.
On the one hand, Chris Bowen, the federal climate change and energy minister, is insisting they source and supply their own renewable energy, although Queensland and the Northern Territory are pushing for fossil-fuel carveouts.
The federal Coalition, however, is pushing for nuclear energy – reviving a stance that was widely rejected in the 2025 elections, costing them as many as 11 seats. Prohibitions would need to be overturned under federal law and in states, including Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria.
Matt Canavan, the Nationals leader even told ABC’s Insiders last weekend that he’d “welcome nuclear power here every day of the week”.
“I’d much prefer a nuclear power station next door to me than a 300-metre wind turbine,” he said.
Aside from the “theoretical” possibility of having SMRs – defined as having an electrical generating capacity of 300 megawatts or less – advocates have to explain how they would produce competitively priced power in the US, Australia, or elsewhere.
“Electricity from the Natrium and Xe-100 SMR designs would cost at least twice as much as electricity from large nuclear plants [in the US] and the cost of electricity from large nuclear plants is at least three times higher than from solar and wind,” the ACF report says.
No wonder, then, that a 2025 survey found 78% of US adults polled were somewhat or very concerned that new data centres would increase their power bills, it said. (The data centre issue also reportedly hurt Republicans – the US equivalent of the Coalition – in the recent mid-term elections.)
The annual GenCost report by CSIRO, meanwhile, has consistently underscored the high cost of nuclear energy – both large and small – as the ACF noted.
SMRs are “the most expensive form of energy you could possibly choose,” Mia Popper, a nuclear free campaigner at the Australian Conservation Foundation, told Renew Economy.
Quiet but sweeping defence changes are yet another blow to our public trust
The Coalition and Labor will most likely be in lockstep for the latest defence changes, a bill that sailed through the last House sitting while attention was mostly on estimates. It changes 14 different acts of legislation, while giving public servants ministerial powers to override state, territory and, in some cases, federal, laws if an area has been declared necessary for “defence capabilities”.
The Coalition and Labor will most likely be in lockstep for the latest defence changes, a bill that sailed through the last House sitting while attention was mostly on estimates. It changes 14 different acts of legislation, while giving public servants ministerial powers to override state, territory and, in some cases, federal, laws if an area has been declared necessary for “defence capabilities”.
Amy Remeikis, Nov 11, 2026, https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-politics/2026/11/11/defence-legislation-public-trust
Peter Dutton is someone who “politicises everything”. He is “loose”. He “darkened his own brand” and chose to “punch down on vulnerable people”. He “played political games” with national security. He was someone who engaged in “casual falsehoods” with international relations and “gaslit” the Australian public.
So of course it makes total sense that the same people who levelled all those criticisms at Dutton would also reward him with a plum position on the Australian War Memorial Council.
Politics is mostly about compliance above competency, and playing the game matters more than public integrity. After all, it’s all nudge-nudge, wink-wink when you’re in the club, right?
To most members of the club, announcing Dutton as the latest board appointment (or Sussan Ley for that matter) is considered a flash in the pan. They’ll weather the criticism, which they’ll assume comes from the usual suspects, and also assume that most voters won’t notice or care, and then the cycle will move on.
What they never take into account is the cost to public trust. That every political appointment, usually of someone rejected by the Australian people, undermines what little faith people still have that their politics can be different.
It shouldn’t have to take collapse and repudiation to bring politicians back to the reasons they purport to have wanted to get into politics in the first place.
But that seems to be what Labor is racing towards. And it is not just appointments that undermine this trust, but the hand-in-hand attack on civil liberties, like protest, and the ever-expanding security and defence state apparatus that continues to grow with almost no checks or balances by the parliament.
The Coalition and Labor will most likely be in lockstep for the latest defence changes, a bill that sailed through the last House sitting while attention was mostly on estimates. It changes 14 different acts of legislation, while giving public servants ministerial powers to override state, territory and, in some cases, federal, laws if an area has been declared necessary for “defence capabilities”.
What laws? We don’t know. That’s not in the bill. But if the minister of the time thinks an area needs to be designated as a defence zone, then the bill allows for public and private-owned assets, the land, sea and sky around it, to become no-go areas.
And another fun fact – you can’t appeal a decision. It sits above the law. So, no doubt, this will end up in the High Court at some point, when civil rights and policy experts get a chance to actually examine the legislation.
Canberra Times journalist Dave Allen is among those who reported on the bill early, while Rita Jabri Markwell, a lawyer, policy analyst and human rights scholar has updated on the bill’s capabilities on her Substack. Sydney Criminal Lawyers, one of the best outlets to follow for the decay of civil liberties, has also alerted on the legislation.
Mostly, though, the bill is being treated like most of Australia’s national security and defence laws – a fait accompli, that both major parties support, and barely worth mentioning more widely.
Never mind that the legislation allows defence personnel, private defence contractors and arms and tech manufacturers from other countries to be given some of the same authorities previously reserved for Australian Defence Force personnel and public servants. Never mind that designated public servants within defence would be given the powers to override state and territory laws if the ADF wants.
Never mind that we are about to create federal militarised zones because our government appears to be preparing for war – and no one is really being told about it, or why they believe it necessary (could it be because Australia is handing over sovereignty to the US with AUKUS, including through establishing more American military bases on our shores, which is what makes us more of a target in the first place?!).
The explanatory memorandum says the bill is to update Australia’s strategic responses for a new era, and to protect against drone attacks. That’s on the minds of all Western powers after Iran showed it did not need multibillion-dollar aircraft carriers or navies to defend its territory – it managed it mostly through drones and AI Lego videos on social media.
The legislation changes will allow defence officials, ratified by the minister (a tick and flick exercise, at best), to declare special security zones, even temporarily, where unauthorised entry or presence (so, protest) – among other unauthorised and restricted activities – could land you in jail and or heavily fined.
Police will be given powers to patrol these special zones, along with defence and defence security officials, who will be given special enforcement gear by Defence for the purposes of their patrol.
Citizens can be searched, detained, compelled to show ID, subjected to use of force, including with dogs, and have items, including vehicles, boats or planes, seized.
It’s a bill the “Temu Trump” himself would have been proud to have under his authority.
So, of course, there will be no conservatives jumping up and down about property rights. No questions of overreach. Just another knock to Australian’s civil liberties that most won’t even know about. It should be more of a scandal that we are sold so cheaply.
Amy Remeikis is a contributing editor for The New Daily and chief political analyst for The Australia Institute
Artificial intelligence, nuclear power a costly combo
ByJennifer Dudley-Nicholson, November 12 2026, https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/9390176/artificial-intelligence-nuclear-power-a-costly-combo/
Powering Australia’s growing network of data centres with small nuclear reactors could cost between $6 billion and $11 billion more a year than using solar power, a study has found.
The technology could also take decades to deploy in Australia as no small modular reactors had been built successfully using a mass-production model.
The Australian Conservation Foundation issued the warnings on Thursday in a report examining the nuclear technology and its potential costs in Australia.
It comes days after Nationals leader Matt Canavan reiterated his call to remove Australia’s ban on nuclear power and as the federal government considers rules for data centre developments.
The report, Phantom Energy, analysed the progress of small modular reactor technology, data centre electricity demand in Australia, and figures from sources including the CSIRO, Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), and the Nuclear Energy Agency.
Despite calls to unlock the technology, the study found no commercial reactors had been built using the modular manufacturing methods designed to lower their cost.
Only two small plants described as small modular reactors had been built in Russia and China, and both had suffered long delays, cost overruns, and did not use modular construction.
Another five small modular nuclear projects were under way in China, Russia, Uzbekistan and Canada, the report said, but others had been abandoned in Argentina, France and the US.
The nuclear technology was not ready to meet rising energy demand from data centres, Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner Mia Pepper said, and its future was unclear.
“Small modular nuclear reactors remain unavailable and prohibitively expensive,” she said.
“They remain a theoretical answer to a very real and rapidly growing challenge: decarbonising the electricity system while meeting increasing demand from electrification, industry, and data-intensive technologies.”
More than 160 data centres operate in Australia, with another 225 developments planned or proposed.
Using forecasts from the CSIRO and AEMO, the report calculated that powering Australia’s data centres using small modular reactors would cost between $8.5 billion and $12.2 billion a year.
By comparison, large-scale solar projects would cost between $780 million and $2 billion a year, and onshore wind developments would cost between $1.9 billion and $3.1 billion.
The federal government is considering rules for data centre developments, including standards for their power supply and water use, with draft legislation expected before the end of 2026.
In an interview with the ABC on Monday, however, Senator Canavan said the government should remove Australia’s prohibition on nuclear power to meet data centre demands.
“Right now while we ban nuclear energy, we have de facto bans on coal and gas, it’s almost impossible to meet the enormous requirements of data centres, certainly without giving people confidence that there can be more energy after than before,” he said.
Phantom energy: New report exposes empty promises behind nuclear power and data centres
“Coalition and One Nation members pushing nuclear for data centres are ignoring the reality that small modular nuclear reactors don’t exist and there is no serious investment in SMRs for data centres anywhere in the world.
12 November 2026, https://www.acf.org.au/news/phantom-energy-new-report-exposes-empty-promises-behind-nuclear-power-and-data-centres
The push for nuclear-powered data centres is entirely dependent on technology that remains commercially unproven and prohibitively expensive, according to a new report released today by the Australian Conservation Foundation.
Several Coalition shadow ministers are promoting nuclear power, particularly small modular nuclear reactors, or SMRs, as a potential energy source for data centres.
Shadow energy minister Dan Tehan, Nationals leader Matt Canavan, Nationals deputy Bridget McKenzie, shadow minister Andrew Hastie and Liberal senator Jonno Duniam have all said nuclear power should play a role in supplying electricity to data centres.
“SMRs are presented as a solution to Australia’s future energy needs, but they remain a theoretical answer to a very real and rapidly growing challenge: decarbonising the electricity system while meeting increasing demand from electrification, industry and data-intensive technologies,” said ACF’s nuclear free campaigner Mia Pepper.
“Australia has more than 160 operating data centres and many more are planned.
“The rapid spread of data centres – including proposals to power them with coal and gas – has sparked serious and widespread concerns about energy, water and land use, health impacts, electricity prices and the growth of AI.
“The International Energy Agency expects renewables to provide around two-thirds of new electricity generation for data centres between 2024 and 2035, compared with just 6% from nuclear – and much of that projected nuclear contribution relies on SMRs suddenly becoming commercially viable.
“Small modular nuclear reactors remain unavailable and prohibitively expensive. There is a growing list of abandoned attempts to build prototypes globally.
“Coalition and One Nation members pushing nuclear for data centres are ignoring the reality that small modular nuclear reactors don’t exist and there is no serious investment in SMRs for data centres anywhere in the world.
“The push for nuclear-powered data centres risks distracting – possibly deliberately – from the urgent task of rapidly decarbonising Australia’s energy system.
“Combining two of the most unpopular industries, data centres and nuclear power, is a strange political strategy to win over a public that staunchly opposes both.”
Read the report: Phantom energy: Small modular reactors and data centres
Public Inquiry into AUKUS recommends recalibrating Australia’s relationship with the US
November 5, 2026, https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/public-inquiry-into-aukus-recommends-recalibrating-australias-relationship-with-the-us/
The four-month AUKUS public inquiry has recommended a recalibration of Australia’s relationships with the United States and China, including the cancellation of nuclear-powered submarines.
The launch of the commissioners’ final report, Surrendering Australia – The AUKUS Deception, coincided with US mid-term elections that significantly reshaped the American political landscape.
“Yesterday, the people of the US recalibrated their relationship with the US government, rejecting the policies of President Trump. Now is the perfect time for Australia to do the same,” said Leanne Minshull, co-CEO of The Australia Institute and one of five public inquiry commissioners.
Recent polling conducted on behalf of The Australia Institute found just 16% of Australian voters now consider the US to be a ‘close friend’ of Australia.
The AUKUS deal is sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas but it also has a clear way out, the first step being to give the US and UK one year’s notice of withdrawal.
“In a cost-of-living crisis, redirecting hundreds of billions of dollars allocated to AUKUS would not just boost our national security but our economic security as well.”
The full Commissioners’ Report can be found here
AUKUS Pillar 1 should be scrapped, report says
ICAN Australia urges a rethink of US alliance agreements
By APDR•Nov 8, 2026, https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/posts/aukus-pillar-1-should-be-scrapped-report-says
A comprehensive examination of the AUKUS submarine deal to date is recommending it be immediately scrapped and a Plan B cost-effective alternative implemented immediately to ensure a capable submarine service. A Royal Commission into how the disastrous defence pact was conceived and allowed to continue for as long as it has, is also required.
Report is available at aukuspublicinquiry.com.au.
The independent, crowdfunded Public Inquiry into AUKUS has found that the security partnership will not succeed in any of its stated aims and constitutes a gross waste of public monies – up to half a trillion dollars if nuclear waste management costs are included – that compromise our national security and sovereignty. The inquiry report included 17 recommendations, including that Australia urgently develop a comprehensive National Security Strategy, suspend plans for a US naval base near Perth, cease seconding RAN submariners on US submarines and that an urgent Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) audit of the AUKUS program be undertaken and the results made public.
Lead Commissioner Peter Garrett said that AUKUS represented an absurd cost for submarines of highly contested utility that may well never arrive. “After carefully considering all the material presented to us, we conclude that AUKUS is the worst, most costly and riskiest defence decision ever made. AUKUS compromises our national security, erodes our sovereignty and commits us to any future conflict in support of US war plans. AUKUS definitely does NOT keep us safe.”
A substantial number of Australians – including a former Prime Minister, five former Foreign Affairs and Defence Ministers, senior academics and recognised military experts, unions, community groups and citizens – presented to the Inquiry across 10 day-long hearings in 8 cities around Australia since it launched in June.
ICAN Australia urges a rethink of US alliance agreements
ICAN Australia urges a rethink of US alliance agreements and says Australia must sign the nuclear weapon ban treaty Hosting US nuclear-capable forces is increasing the risk to Australian communities, and that risk is set to grow, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) Australia said today.
The AUKUS Public Inquiry’s report, Surrendering Australia, released last week, warns that AUKUS opens the door to nuclear weapons hosted in Australia. It finds the Force Posture Agreement does not prevent the US deploying them here, and that Perth would be a likely nuclear target in a US-China conflict. The report, and recent events, point to what’s currently here and what’s coming:
- Now: US B-52s landed at RAAF Base Tindal, near Katherine, on 1 September. The base has been upgraded to host them, and at least half of the US B-52 fleet is nuclear-capable.
- From 2027: US and UK nuclear-powered submarines will rotate through HMAS Stirling, beside Rockingham.
- After 2032: US Congressman Michael McCaul says it is “logical to assume” rotating US submarines could be nuclear-armed.
- Next: The report names Port Kembla, Newcastle and Brisbane as possible east coast submarine bases.
The report urges the government to recalibrate the US alliance around Australian sovereignty, rescind ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and honour Labor’s commitment to sign the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
Associate Professor Tilman Ruff, founding chair of ICAN and contributor to the inquiry said: “The US will neither confirm nor deny whether its aircraft and submarines carry nuclear weapons, and Australian governments say they ‘understand and respect’ that policy. This level of secrecy is unacceptable in a modern democracy. Communities like Katherine and Rockingham are carrying a nuclear risk they were never asked about. We don’t even know whether emergency and medical services have been told what they might face. Our agreements with the US leave the door open to nuclear weapons operations being launched from Australia, and each new deployment pushes it wider. We need to rethink those agreements, including AUKUS Pillar 1, and sign and ratify the nuclear weapon ban treaty. That would replace don’t ask, don’t tell with a clear legal line – no nuclear weapons hosted here.”
AUKUS is a global issue – don’t let Albanese sweep it under the carpet
7 November 2026 Noel Wauchope, https://theaimn.net/aukus-is-a-global-issue-dont-let-albanese-sweep-it-under-the-carpet/
So easy to dismiss the AUKUS Public Inquiry. Apart from one feeble attempt to disparage it – by Jennifer Parker, in The Conversation, the mainstream media have pretty much left it alone, captive as they are, to the purportedly progressive and leftish Labor State and Federal governments. And it’s interesting that Ms Parker, of the, Defence and Security Institute, The University of Western Australia; UNSW, so confidently dismisses the evidence of former Chief of the Defence Force, Inquiry Commissioner, Chris Barrie.
And weren’t the media lucky? They can have a party with the pleasant surprise of the Democrats trouncing Trump at the U.S. mid-term elections (even though Trump can make executive action havoc until the new Congress and Senate take over on 3rd January 2027). But the Australian media can rejoice about this and demonstrate their progressiveness, while ignoring the “trivial” AUKUS thing.
The Australian mainstream media is so busy toeing the line that Prime Minister Albanese has set up – be a small target – look what happened to Gough Whitlam, so busy that they’re becoming irrelevant.
The Albanese government has a huge advantage in the Parliament, with 94 MPs, and the lead in the Senate, but it chooses to become indistinguishable from the Opposition, when it comes to foreign policy. Everyone still bleats “Security” when there’s a risk of saying something slightly different from the USA’s mantras on relations with South East Asia and the Pacific. And here’s where AUKUS comes in.
The pretence is that AUKUS is for Australia’s security. Read the Public Inquiry Report, the Commissioners’ report, Surrendering Australia: The AUKUS Deception is available to download for free at aukuspublicinquiry.com. Or just watch the replay of the National Press Club Luncheon.
In his introduction at the Press Club Luncheon, Garrett says that the Inquiry project goes to the heart of what kind of country we want to be.
The Inquiry was done with the love and concern of so many people, and all done without drawing on the public purse at all. Concerns include the question of radioactive waste. And above all, in the AUKUS decision-making, the government spurned any parliamentary oversight practices. The AUKUS agreement was announced with fanfare, but no scrutiny.
The Inquiry included an Impressive range of former parliamentarians and defence experts, who concluded that AUKUS is seriously flawed and unlikely to deliver security.
It means that at Stirling in Western Australia, 2000 US troops are to be housed at Australia’s expense. That’s just one part of the costs of the AUKUS agreement. There will be no recourse, no refunds, if things go wrong. There is also no costing made for storage of US radioactive waste. Neither USA or UK have waste facilities. There is no public understanding, no public consent. AUKUS legislation overrides existing legislation.
Chris Barrie explained that the AUKUS nuclear submarine plan is untenable. It would be madness for Australia to take on a great power like China. It makes no sense to build our defence policy around partnering the USA in a war against China.
Australia would be the only non-nuclear weapons state to operate nuclear powered submarines fuelled by weapons grade uranium. Australia has agreed to dispose of all radioactive wastes from the submarines. US subs could later carry nuclear weapons. We need to scrap the AUKUS submarine project now – and get the government to produce a comprehensive security strategy.We do need submarines. We must decide on what is the purpose of submarines. The Government should explain this – Australians should decide for ourselves, and have the submarines under Australian command and control. The test is whether we can say no – one of the hardest decisions a government has ever had to make.
Peter Garrett concluded that we need to share, and publicise the results of this inquiry. We need a Royal Commission into the AUKUS mess. End Pillar 2, suspend Stirling naval base and have an immediate audit of AUKUS.
Question time followed. It seemed to be a pretty widespread boycott of this Inquiry by the mainstream media. But there were exceptions – 9 News, the Sydney Morning Herald, and AAP. But overseas news media had noticed this Inquiry. And I thought that the most pertinent question came from Miriam Weber, from Politico, and the first woman to get a word in. Miriam Weber asked: “Do you have a plan to get the government to pay attention?”
And really, after all the work of so many people, including Defence experts, and former Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers from both Labor and Liberal – that is the big question.
Can this excellent Inquiry just sink and disappear under the weight of politicians and journalists deciding that their top priority is keeping their jobs? And as for the Labor Party, it’s sad to realise that the formerly anti-nuclear Anthony Albanese now has an unprecedented autocratic control over the Labor Party! The subject was carefully banned from discussion at the recent national Labor Conference in Adelaide! Is Labor going to continue to kowtow to this suppression of debate?
And here’s a bit of why I think that AUKUS is so very important:
Australia is the only continent which is governed by one single national government, and is a continent which has successfully resisted the commercial and military nuclear industry over decades, with both national and State legislation against it.
Australia has a really democratic political system, with compulsory voting, and preferential voting. It is run by an efficient, impartial and independent Electoral Commission.
Australia is part of South East Asia, and is a truly multicultural nation. It makes sense to maintain cordial relationships with our neighbours, even if we can differ on some individual matters. It does not make sense for Australians to see ourselves as some sort of Christian white outpost of USA and UK militarism, ready to be the frontline of battle against China.
Australia has a very considerable Chinese heritage, not always one to be proud of. Now we do have a proud and successful group of people with Chinese heritage – 5.5%of the population (compared with indigenous 2.5%). It is a disgrace and a shame that in the last few years, Australian education, particularly in universities, has downgraded the teaching of foreign languages and culture, especially Chinese. The industry-driven push for STEM education does have its role – we do need science education. But not as a definite campaign to stifle the humanities – which is what has happened to university funding.
In this tense, crisis-driven world, what is desperately needed is communication, negotiation, the reaching out for respectful understanding of other nations’ cultures, especially in the South East Asian neighbourhood. Trumpism will be over soon. How good it would be for Australia to dump its “cultural cringe” and take the lead in rejecting the USA-UK military-industrial-nuclear complex, by rejecting the AUKUS folly!
The USA seems to have only one big export industry – weaponry. Time for the world to stop buying the USA’s weapons and its philosophy of endless wars. Australia is poised to lead the way.
Public Inquiry into AUKUS recommends recalibrating Australia’s relationship with the US
November 5, 2026, https://australiainstitute.org.au/post/public-inquiry-into-aukus-recommends-recalibrating-australias-relationship-with-the-us/
The four-month AUKUS public inquiry has recommended a recalibration of Australia’s relationships with the United States and China, including the cancellation of nuclear-powered submarines.
The launch of the commissioners’ final report, Surrendering Australia – The AUKUS Deception, coincided with US mid-term elections that significantly reshaped the American political landscape.
“Yesterday, the people of the US recalibrated their relationship with the US government, rejecting the policies of President Trump. Now is the perfect time for Australia to do the same,” said Leanne Minshull, co-CEO of The Australia Institute and one of five public inquiry commissioners.
Recent polling conducted on behalf of The Australia Institute found just 16% of Australian voters now consider the US to be a ‘close friend’ of Australia.
The AUKUS deal is sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas but it also has a clear way out, the first step being to give the US and UK one year’s notice of withdrawal.
“In a cost-of-living crisis, redirecting hundreds of billions of dollars allocated to AUKUS would not just boost our national security but our economic security as well.”
The full Commissioners’ Report can be found here
AUKUS Public Inquiry: $368 Billion, No Guarantee | The West Report
6 Nov 2026 The West Report
They’ve made us a target for China – and we are paying for it too. AUKUS will cost Australia $368 billion with no guarantee we will even get the submarines. The AUKUS Public Inquiry – the one Labor and the Coalition refused to hold – calls it the worst, costliest and riskiest defence decision in Australian history. Former Labor minister Peter Garrett released the report of a crowdfunded inquiry run by former prime ministers, foreign ministers and defence chiefs, after Labor and the Coalition refused a parliamentary inquiry. Freedom of information requests on where the nuclear waste will be dumped were refused.
Inquiry urges Australian gov’t to terminate AUKUS pact
Source: Xinhua, Editor: huaxia, 2026-11-04, https://english.news.cn/20261104/e47195ed31584f15a2214df618abf5c9/c.html
CANBERRA, Nov. 4 (Xinhua) — An independent inquiry has called for the Australian government to immediately terminate the AUKUS treaty, describing the pact as the riskiest defense decision in national history.
Former government minister Peter Garrett and former Australian Defense Force chief Chris Barrie, two of the five commissioners conducting the public inquiry into AUKUS, presented the final report at the National Press Club of Australia in Canberra on Wednesday, concluding that the landmark security pact does not serve Australia well and should be scrapped.
After receiving more than 1,000 submissions and conducting 10 days of public hearings around the country, the final report said that the inquiry did not uncover any “convincing foundations” for AUKUS.
“We concluded that AUKUS is the worst, riskiest and most costly defense decision ever made by an Australian government,” the report said.
“AUKUS jeopardizes our sovereignty, further entangles us with U.S. war planning and actually endangers our security.”
The report made 16 recommendations, including that Australia immediately terminate pillar one of the AUKUS deal, under which Australia would acquire eight nuclear-powered submarines in the 2030s and 2040s, due to current delivery schedules “most likely” being unachievable.
Additionally, it said that plans for a U.S. naval base near Perth in Western Australia should be suspended until “critical questions” regarding nuclear security and health and environmental safety for the local population are fully examined.
The independent inquiry was established after successive federal governments ruled out holding a major public review of the pact.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters on Tuesday after meeting with British counterpart Andy Burnham in the Caribbean that work on AUKUS is progressing very well.■
Foreign agency. Antisemitism Envoy Jillian Segal a US tool for Zionists
by Cathy Peters and Wendy Bacon | Nov 4, 2026 https://michaelwest.com.au/foreign-agency-antisemitism-envoy-jillian-segal-a-us-tool-for-zionists/
Antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal is part of a network of ‘special envoys’ launched by key pro-Israel bodies and the US State Department. Cathy Peters and Wendy Bacon investigate.
Civil liberties and Palestinian supporters are calling for the sacking of the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, after her latest ‘Priorities’ report accused them of using ‘human rights’ to hide their antisemitism.
Segal’s Priorities ‘roadmap’ appears designed to increase the pressure on all levels of government as well as the forthcoming final report of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion in December.
Segal is an active player in an international network coordinated by key pro-Israel Jewish bodies as well as the US State Department. Indeed, if it had not been for pressure from the US government, Segal might not have the job at all.
Global network of antisemitism envoys
Segal is one of 32 Special Envoys in North America, Europe, South America, Israel and Australia.
The position of the US Special Envoy to Combat and Monitor Antisemitism was established in 2004 when New Jersey Republican congressman Chris Smith, who has a history of advocating for Israel and a record of accusing organisations including UN bodies of rampant antisemitism, successfully pushed to pass legislation creating the position.
The State Department then lobbied allies to appoint Envoys.
Following the US lead, the European Union appointed an Envoy in 2015, followed by Canada, Greece, the Organization of American States (OAS) and the UK. Israel’s envoy is part of its Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In 2021 Smith, by then a strong Trump supporter, successfully pushed for an amendment which strengthened the position of US Special Envoy to the level of ambassador, who reports directly to the Secretary of State, is appointed by the President and crucially, can access foreign governments.
The ambassador’s mission is to promote US foreign policy by developing and implementing policies and projects to support action against antisemitism. The office uses the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition which directly links Jewish people with Zionism and the State of Israel, and conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
Current US Antisemitism Ambassador is far right winger Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun who has boasted about influencing governments and recently described his office as supporting Trump’s policies by having 250,000 visas cancelled to keep campuses ‘safe’, interfering in foreign educational curricula and initiating prosecutions of what he describes as ‘hate crimes’.
This is echoed in Segal’s ‘Priorities’ which include compulsory training for Home Affairs staff responsible for certain visa applications and a task force to review existing visas.
Acceding to US demands
Initially reluctant, the Labor Albanese government finally appointed Segal in July 2024.
Her appointment followed a period of intense lobbying from the US State Department which was not covered by Australian media.
FOI releases show that In May 2024, the then US deputy antisemitism envoy, Aaron Keyek travelled to Australia and met with officials in Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Attorney General’s Department to put pressure on the Albanese government to appoint an envoy.
He also met with Co-Chair of Labor Friends of Israel Deborah O’Neill.
The crunch came with an ultimatum regarding a meeting of special envoys in Argentina in July 2024 to sign US drafted global guidelines to counter antisemitism. A former senior US official told JNS,
“We were all diplomatic about it, but we told Australia, essentially, ‘it’s going to be glaring.’ We didn’t want to repeat the situation where one of our closest allies didn’t stand up to one of the top foreign-policy priorities when it comes to human rights that the United States is pushing internationally… So we told them that they could
“only attend if the delegation was led by a special envoy.”
Australia jumped and DFAT sent a cable on July 4 to the US State Department saying the appointment of an envoy who would report directly to the Prime Minister was imminent.
Jillian Segal was appointed on July 9, just ten days before the meeting in Buenos Aires which she attended. According to that cable, she had already approved the guidelines and
“her tickets were booked before she was even appointed.”
Australia’s Ambassador to Argentina was permitted to sign off on the Guidelines which refer to the IHRA definition as a key tool for fighting antisemitism, as a result of Segal’s hasty appointment.
World Jewish Congress
US State Department works with World Jewish Congress (WJC) – Special Envoy and Coordinators Network
In 2019 the New York based WJC – the central governing organisation of Jewish organisations, which ‘defends the Jewish state of Israel’ – established the Special Envoys and Coordinators Combating Antisemitism (SECCA) Network which coordinates ‘responses to antisemitism …’ Segal’s work is partially dictated by this body.
Since her appointment, Segal has worked closely with SECCA. In July last year, the US Special Envoy in the State Department Ambassador Rabbi Yehuda thanked her for hosting an online forum.
In her first fifteen months, Segal took five trips overseas costing $85,000 and in May this year she travelled to Geneva to sign another SECCA joint declaration.
SECCA’s Dublin meeting
The 15th meeting of SECCA was held last month in Dublin organised by the WJC in partnership with the European Commission.
The conference aimed to look at ways to implement strong measures to ‘confront online hatred and turn government promises into concrete action’.
It heard reports from delegates from 28 countries including Australia and included visits to the European headquarters of TikTok and Meta which included representatives from the WJC’s Technology and Human Rights institute (TECHRI) which focuses solely on lobbying governments, international bodies, and tech companies on policy, monitoring and control within the digital realm.
Maram Stern, WJC Executive Vice President & SECCA Co-Chair spoke at the forum emphasising the need to urgently enforce ‘practical solutions’ to antisemitism. She linked the October 7 Hamas attack to a worldwide surge in antisemitism rather than to the worldwide revulsion with Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Segal spoke via video at the Dublin conference urging stronger institutional accountability, education and enforcement against antisemitism. Referring to the Royal Commission (which heard many unchallenged allegations of antisemitism in what some commentators saw as a concerted effort to demonise pro Palestine groups and supporters), she noted that its proceedings had brought into focus, “concerns about antisemitism in universities, cultural institutions, and healthcare”.
These are key areas where we’ve seen false claims of antisemitism and lawfare used against academics, artists and healthcare workers.
Segal wasn’t the only Australian who spoke. Her close partners from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (EJAC), Peter Wertheim, EJAC co-CEO, called for ‘more proactive regulation of technology companies and effective legal avenues for people harmed by online content’ while ECAJ president and WJC vice president, Daniel Aghion emphasised the importance of ‘active special envoys, sustained government engagement and coordination between Jewish organisations.
Hotel boycotts SECCA conference
Before the conference started, it emerged that one of Dublin’s prestigious hotels had refused to accommodate the SECCA delegates and alternative accommodation and a conference venue had to be found.
This went unreported until Maurice Cohen, chairman of the Jewish Representative Council of Ireland, told a pre-conference event that the 4-star Herbert Park Hotel in Dublin which had taken the SECCA booking for 70 rooms in April this year had abruptly cancelled this booking after a meeting with the conference organisers and the hotel’s general manager.
Cohen was asked by the hotel manager whether the event had any ties to the Israeli Defence Force. He told Fox News Digital, “I was completely taken aback by that question. I said,
“What would the IDF have to do with a conference on antisemitism?’”
It was revealed that the hotel’s general manager subsequently consulted the hotel owners before the cancellation was made.
This was immediately characterised as a major antisemitic event by the organisers.The World Jewish Congress published an opinion by Maurice Cohen on 14 Oct. titled, “Ironically, an Antisemitism Conference Falls Victim to Jew-Hatred.”
Although the Herbert Park Hotel refused to make public comment, it’s clear it chose not to be associated with an event that had any ties to the IDF. The links between SECCA and support of Israel and members of the IDF are strong. SECCA representatives work with pro Israel organisations who have key personnel directly connected with the Israeli state and past and present members of the IDF.
Conflating this refusal with antisemitism, is yet another example of how peak pro-Israel Jewish organisations continue to deceptively link antisemitism to protest actions such as the Herbert Park Hotel boycott.
Combat Antisemitism Movement
One of the major organisations participating in the SECCA conference in Dublin was the Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM) which is based in the US and has spread internationally. Its advisory board members and its CEO are directly linked to Israel.
CAM works globally to pressure governments to not only endorse the IHRA definition of antisemitism but to enforce it. It reported that it was recognised as a “trusted US State Department partner” at the SECCA conference where it reiterated the coordinated push to get governments to enforce the IHRA antisemitism definition – a point which was emphasised by The US Special Envoy Ambassador Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun.
As previously reported by MWM, CAM also has strong links with the IDF.
Antizionism equals antisemitism
The J50 forum is a body founded by Israel’s foreign ministry that includes 50 Jewish organisations internationally. It held its third meeting in Jerusalem in September and published its hardline and contentious Declaration on Zionism and Antisemitism which stated unequivocally that “Zionism is part of Jewish identity” and defined anti-Zionism as a form of antisemitism when used to “marginalize or deny Jewish self-determination”.
Daniel Aghion spoke and his presentation summarised ECAJ’s work since Bondi. He offered some unguarded and frank insights into the way in which this organisation mobilised around the Royal Commission:
“It has been a massive exercise over the last year. The Jewish community has spent millions of dollars, and many millions more in pro bono legal and non-legal work. This was to make sure that our voice is heard properly, both inside and outside the Commission, and to ensure that the Commission has run as well as it can.”
MWM asked ECAJ about whether any of ECAJ’s large government grants had been used on the Royal Commission work but got no response.
No stone unturned
On November 19, the Israel-based Jerusalem Post Group’s first Asia-Pacific Summit, will be held in Sydney. It will feature many Israeli speakers including Israel’s president Isaac Herzog’s wife Michel Herzog online, the Israeli ambassador to Australia, former senior IDF members as well as President of Zionist Federation of Australia, Jeremy Liebler.
The focus is on countering hostility to Israel and building business links, something which many Australians do not support, not because they are antisemitic but because they are anti-genocide.
Then 10 days later, the 2026 CAM conference for mayors and councillors will be held in Sydney. These events reinforce the global messaging of SECCA, WJC and J50.
They are designed to add extra impetus for calls to impose Segal’s agenda leading up to the first anniversary of the Bondi massacre and prior to the release of the Report of the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion in December.
“Segal’s overreach into all aspects of our civil life“
is not just angering human rights activists and those who are unfairly being labelled as antisemitic but large sections of Australian society who increasingly do not support Israel and do not want to be policed at the service of this rogue state.
PM Anthony Albanese buckled to pressure in creating the position of antisemitism envoy and made a striking error in appointing the Israel lobby’s choice, Segal, to that position.
As anger grows about her appointment, it’s time to reassess the legitimacy of the position itself in light of the facts surrounding its creation. We have existing anti-discrimination legislation and strong National Anti-Racism Framework guidelines that are yet to be implemented.
Bending to US, Israel and the local Israel lobby’s demands will only intensify public anger.
Former defence chief urges rethink of Australia’s relationship with China
Rob Harris November 4, 2026, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/too-risky-too-costly-aukus-should-be-scrapped-finds-peter-garrett-led-inquiry-20261104-p61bbt.html
Australia must rethink its relationship with China rather than blindly follow the United States into a disastrous military confrontation, former defence force chief Chris Barrie has warned as part of a review demanding the federal government overhaul its signature security strategy.
The retired admiral delivered the warning at the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday as he joined former Labor minister Peter Garrett to launch a scathing report calling for the immediate cancellation of the $368 billion AUKUS nuclear submarine pact, arguing it threatens Australian sovereignty and risks dragging the nation into a war with China.
The inquiry calls for the nuclear submarine program to be scrapped, a royal commission into AUKUS, the suspension of US submarine operations near Perth and a fundamental overhaul of Australia’s defence strategy and relationships with Washington and Beijing.
“Whatever way you want to look at the future in this region, by 2050, China will be the world’s largest power, the world’s greatest power,” Barrie said. “I don’t see any evidence of global aspirations and global dominance aspirations that we’ve seen out of the United States. And that’s why I worry about the contest between the United States and China.”
Barrie, who led the Australian Defence Force from 1998 to 2002, said Australia needed to better its relationship with Beijing and invest far more heavily in diplomacy rather than allowing its strategic priorities to be dictated by Washington.
Barrie, who recalled travelling through China with the head of the People’s Liberation Army during his time as defence chief, said Australia needed a more sophisticated understanding of Beijing’s strategic ambitions.
The retired admiral said Australia’s tendency to lecture Beijing publicly had damaged relations, and warned against viewing China’s rise solely through the prism of American strategic competition.
“I think we need to recalibrate the way we deal with China,” he said, suggesting Australia’s embassy in Beijing should become its second-largest diplomatic mission, if not the largest.
His intervention came as a union and community-backed public inquiry accused successive Coalition and Labor governments of committing generations of taxpayers to an extraordinarily expensive defence program without adequately examining its costs, feasibility or consequences for Australia’s independence.
The report, Surrendering Australia: The AUKUS Deception, concluded the submarine acquisition program was unlikely to deliver on its promises and could leave the Australian Navy without an effective submarine fleet. It labelled the program the “worst, riskiest and most costly” defence decision made by an Australian government.
The inquiry’s findings challenge the bipartisan consensus behind AUKUS, which the Albanese government maintains is essential to Australia’s long-term defence capability and deterrence in the Indo-Pacific.
Garrett, the Midnight Oil frontman, lashed the absence of meaningful debate within his own party over AUKUS, saying the evidence presented to commissioners had reinforced his original concerns about the deal.
“My major objection to AUKUS in the first instance was that there was no debate,” Garrett said.
“Where was the vigorous debate in the caucus? Where was the vigorous debate in the cabinet? We don’t have any sense that there’s been a debate.”
Garrett said the enormous cost, the failure to account for the safe storage of radioactive waste and the terms of the agreement had convinced him the program was fundamentally flawed.
“Your conclusion after looking at it and hearing from expert advice is that it is a complete absolute crock.”
The report, which backs longstanding criticisms from former prime ministers Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull, calls for a comprehensive national security strategy and accuses both major parties of surrendering critical defence decisions to foreign powers.
Among the 17 recommendations, the inquiry recommended urgently developing a cheaper alternative to replace the ageing Collins-class fleet, while reviewing the separate AUKUS agreement on advanced defence technologies. It also calls for an Australian National Audit Office investigation into its costs.
Work on the AUKUS submarine construction facilities at Adelaide’s Osborne naval precinct should halt, while Australian submariners should stop being seconded to American vessels, the report argues.
The report also warns that the US and Britain could walk away from the agreement without delivering the promised submarines while retaining billions of dollars for their shipbuilding industries.
It also questions whether the delivery timetable is achievable and warns that attempting to operate three different classes of submarines could place intolerable pressure on Defence personnel and resources. Australia is scheduled to receive its first US-built Virginia-class nuclear submarine in 2032, with a subsequent boat arriving every four years until the sovereign fleet is operational. The first Australian-built SSN-AUKUS vessel is slated to enter service in 2042.
The public inquiry, convened by the Australian Peace and Security Forum, received more than 1000 written submissions and heard evidence over 10 days across eight cities, with its organisers raising $220,000 to fund the exercise.
A government spokesperson brushed off the inquiry, noting AUKUS had already faced extensive parliamentary scrutiny and remained vital in tackling the nation’s toughest strategic challenges since World War II.
Defending the project’s multi-billion-dollar cost, the spokesperson said the partnership was designed to bolster the Australian Defence Force’s strike power.
“We need to support the development of an ADF with a much greater capacity to project so we can defend Australia and contribute to regional security and stability,” they said.
The government also said the pact would create roughly 20,000 direct jobs across industry, defence, and the public sector over the next three decades.
Independent public inquiry report finds AUKUS nuclear submarine ambitions are ‘unachievable’
4 November 2026 | By Andrew McLaughlin https://psnews.com.au/independent-public-inquiry-report-finds-aukus-nuclear-submarine-ambitions-are-unachievable/188112/
A public inquiry into the trilateral AUKUS construct has released its Commissioner’s Report into one of Australia’s most controversial defence projects ever, the planned acquisition by the Royal Australian Navy of nuclear-powered attack submarines.
Titled Surrendering Australia, the AUKUS Deception, the report says the AUKUS Pillar I agreement between Australia, the UK and the US for nuclear submarines from these countries to be rotationally based in Western Australia from 2027, for Australia to buy up to five Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines from the US in the 2030s, and for Australia to build new submarines of a British design in the 2040s should be scrapped.
The report says, since the AUKUS agreement was announced in 2021, the government has declined to thoroughly review the agreement, and hasn’t explained in detail how it advances Australia’s interests or better protects us.
“They have avoided answering fundamental questions about the costs and risks associated with AUKUS and have simply not answered the key question: ‘why AUKUS?’” it reads.
“Similarly, MPs from the major parties have brushed aside community concerns and avoided their responsibility to seriously debate in the parliament Australia’s largest ever defence acquisition program – estimated at over half a trillion dollars when the cost of nuclear waste disposal is included.
“After carefully considering all the material presented to us – over 10 days of hearings around Australia and more than 1000 submissions – we concluded that AUKUS is the worst, riskiest and most costly defence decision ever made by an Australian government,” it says.
“Neither the submissions we received nor the hearings we conducted uncovered any convincing foundations for AUKUS.”
The inquiry found the planned delivery schedule for the Virginia-class submarines and the follow-on SSN-AUKUS boats was “at best, problematic, and most likely unachievable”.
“What is more, successive governments have never adequately explained the need for nuclear-powered attack submarines in preference to submarine types with a more defensive capability and better suited to Australia’s regional waters.”
It said Australia had already spent about $9.2 billion to shore up the defence industrial bases of the US and UK and to start building a submarine shipyard in Australia, and that a further $50 billion was planned to be spent before any submarines are delivered.
“Extraordinarily, the lopsided agreement means the UK and US could walk away without delivering any submarines while retaining the billions of dollars we are providing to support their submarine building industries. Australia would have no redress,” it says.
In addition to these doubts, the report also cited unexplained costs, a declining trust in government here and in the US and a growing overreliance on the US, questions over Australia’s sovereignty over the submarines, a lack of strategic justification premised on what it says are false assertions of an increased risk of war with China, and long-term high-level nuclear waster storage and disposal problems, as reasons not to proceed.
Coordinated by the Australian Peace and Security Forum (APSF) and funded through crowd sourcing, the inquiry was launched on 3 June with the goal of conducting open hearings into the proposed $368 billion project.
The inquiry was headed up by former Labor minister and Midnight Oil frontman Peter Garrett, and included fellow commissioners former WA Labor premier and federal Labor minister Dr Carmen Lawrence, former Chief of Navy and Chief of Defence Force Admiral Chris Barrie (Ret’d), the co-CEO of the Australia Institute Leanne Minshull, and Yankunytjatjara woman Karina Lester.
“This is a once in a generation, if not once in a century, serious level decision-making exercise by Australian governments plural,” Garrett said at the launch. “The Australian people need to be a part of it.”
Over the four months of the inquiry from June to September, hearings were held in Melbourne, Fremantle, Adelaide, Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong, Brisbane, and Canberra. In total, the hearings heard from more than 150 witnesses, while more than 1000 written submissions were received.
“The Australian Peace and Security Forum, supported by several trade unions and community groups, combined to establish a public inquiry into AUKUS, relying on crowdfunding and grants,” the report reads
“With terms of reference agreed, the inquiry accessed information available on the public record from the three AUKUS partners and invited submissions and testimony from experts and citizens.
Presentations were made by former politicians including former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, former Labor ministers for foreign affairs Professor Gareth Evans and Bob Carr, former Labor deputy prime minister and defence minister Kym Beazley, and former Coalition defence minister Christopher Pyne and defence industry minister Linda Reynolds.
Current politicians who presented included ACT independent Senator David Pocock, NSW Greens Senator David Shoebridge, and Tasmanian MP Andrew Wilkie, WA independent MLA Johanthan Huston, WA Greens MLC Sophie McNeill, SA Greens MLC Melanie Selwood, Newcastle Deputy Lord Mayor Charlotte McCabe and Greens Councillor for Newcastle Siobhan Isherwood.
The government’s failure to appear and present comprehensive information on, and the reasons for, the AUKUS pact, and to answer the many serious questions asked by constituents was telling, and represents a failure in public accountability,” the report says.
1 This month
Read the Public Inquiry Report, the Commissioners’ report, Surrendering Australia: The AUKUS Deception is available to download for free at aukuspublicinquiry.com. Or just watch the replay of the National Press Club Luncheon.
4 November – Will AUKUS keep us safe – at what cost?
the Commissioners of the AUKUS Public Inquiry present their findings at the National Press Club of Australia in Canberra. iview.abc.net.au/show/national-press-club-address
Submissions to the federal government’s new draft framework close on the 13th November 2026.
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
