Australia must rethink AUKUS and assert its sovereignty
16 July 2025 AIMN Editorial, By John Sherman , https://theaimn.net/australia-must-rethink-aukus-and-assert-its-sovereignty/
Australia stands at a crossroads, facing mounting pressure from an AUKUS partnership that increasingly compromises its sovereignty. The trilateral agreement with the United States and United Kingdom, initially framed as a strategic alliance to bolster regional security, has evolved into a complex web of demands that risks binding Australia to U.S. interests for decades. This shift raises serious concerns about our foreign policy autonomy and economic relationships with key trading partners, particularly China.
The original AUKUS framework promised mutual benefit, but recent U.S.-driven stipulations have tilted the balance, treating Australia as a subordinate rather than an equal partner. Australians are expressing a growing unease: AUKUS is now a leash on our independence. The agreement’s expanding scope now threatens to dictate Australia’s foreign policy, potentially straining ties with Asia-Pacific neighbours vital to our economy. This is not the partnership we signed up for.
Defence Minister Richard Marles must take a firmer stance. His apparent acquiescence to these demands undermines Australia’s interests. If he cannot renegotiate terms that prioritise our sovereignty, he should step aside for leadership capable of navigating this complex geopolitical landscape. Australia deserves a minister who can assert our position as a confident middle power, not one tethered to U.S. policy.
The Trump administration’s approach, as seen in its dealings with African nations, offers a cautionary tale. Countries like Nigeria and South Africa have rejected similar U.S. agreements laden with restrictive conditions, opting instead for partnerships that respect their autonomy. Australia should take note. Our alliances must serve our national interests, not entangle us in great-power rivalries that destabilise the region.
Global challenges – climate change, resource scarcity, and economic recovery – demand unity, not division. Australia must champion a future where nations collaborate as equals, not as pawns in a superpower’s strategy. By reevaluating AUKUS and asserting our independence, we can lead by example, fostering a world that prioritises collective progress over zero-sum conflicts. The time for bold, principled leadership is now.
Australia Unveils Plan To Fight “Antisemitism” By Crushing Free Speech.
Caitlin Johnstone, Jul 11, 2025, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/australia-unveils-plan-to-fight-antisemitism?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=168051227&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
As Australia’s dear friend Israel announces its plan to move Gaza’s entire population into concentration camps to prepare them for deportation and murder them if they refuse, the Australian government is laser-focused on tackling the problem of — you guessed it — antisemitism.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese made a big spectacle of announcing a new strategy to combat Australia’s completely fictional epidemic of “antisemitism” on Thursday, waving around a 20-page plan which is being denounced nationwide as a Trumpian agenda to stomp out free speech in advancement of the interests of the state of Israel.
The author of the plan is Jillian Segal, a career Israel lobbyist born in apartheid South Africa who was named Australia’s first Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism by the Albanese government last year. Segal has had an established record of defending and supporting Israel’s genocidal atrocities in Gaza. Her husband John Roth directs one of the major funders of Advance, a climate denying right wing lobbying group which helped kill Australia’s Indigenous Voice to Parliament in 2023.
Segal’s plan is being slammed as “Trumpian” by free speech advocates because it advocates implementing the US president’s policy of cutting off federal funding for universities and other public institutions deemed to be promoting the spread of antisemitism, which of course in effect means protesting against the actions of the Israeli government. Segal writes that she personally “will work with government to enable government funding to be withheld, where possible, from universities, programs or individuals within universities that facilitate, enable or fail to act against antisemitism.”
Segal calls for all public institutions to be forced into espousing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which has been opposed around the world for its conflation of criticism of Israel with hateful actions toward Jews. Under the IHRA definition it is considered antisemitic to claim that Israel is a racist endeavor, or to compare Israel’s abuses to those of Nazi Germany — both of which are entirely legitimate criticisms which should be put forward far more often than they are.
Here is a summary of the full scope of Segal’s plan written up by the ABC’s Tom Crowley:
- Education — a greater role for the Envoy to resource and educate the community, schools, businesses and public institutions about antisemitism and to embed an understanding of antisemitism in law enforcement, government agencies and the school curriculum.
- Universities — call to withhold public funding to universities or those within them deemed to “facilitate, enable or fail to act” on antisemitism, and an inquiry into “clusters” of antisemitism if encampments continue into 2026.
- Media — a new role for the Envoy to encourage media organisations to “avoid accepting false or distorted narratives” and encourage public broadcasters to “accurately and positively” represent Jewish history and culture and make programs that support “social cohesion”.
- Arts — a recommendation that there be protocols for arts festivals and organisations to respond to antisemitic incidents, with public funding able to be withheld similar to universities.
- Policing — a permanent standing arrangement for law enforcement agencies to co-operate on investigating antisemitism, similar to the Avalite taskforce set up after the Adass synagogue attack.
- Online hate — stronger regulation of online hate speech and algorithms, and the ability to support “trusted voices” to refute antisemitism on social media, plus a review of hate speech laws.
- Migration — screen visa applicants for antisemitism and ensure the Migration Act effectively facilitates visa cancellations for antisemitism.
As you can see, Segal is demanding the authority to exert control over pretty much every major aspect of Australian society. She is claiming she wants to do this to combat antisemitism, but everyone knows she actually wants to do this to promote the interests of Israel, because that’s what these things always mean in practice.
Segal’s plan claims that “manipulated narratives in the legacy media” are driving antisemitism and accuses the Australian press of “misinformation”, asserting that “publicly funded media organisations should be required to uphold clear editorial standards that promote fair, responsible reporting to avoid perpetuating incorrect or distorted narratives or representations of Jews.”
Segal says that under her plan she will “monitor media organisations to encourage accurate, fair and responsible reporting and assist them to meet their editorial standards and commitment to impartiality and balance and to avoid accepting false or distorted narratives.”
Asked on the ABC on Thursday to list some of the changes that she would make to the reporting of public news broadcasters, Segal adamantly refused to give a single example, despite being repeatedly pressed to do so by the ABC’s Sarah Ferguson.
The following morning Segal was interviewed on the ABC’s Radio National Breakfast and pressed on the same issue, where she finally relented and gave one single example of absolutely breathtaking ridiculousness.
“Six months ago or so,” Segal said, “the ABC ran a story repeatedly about a hospital in Gaza that had been bombed. And there was incomplete information, as there is only perhaps information emanating from Hamas, but it was alleged to be, the ABC reported as fact, that it had been bombed by Israel. And then horrified people were upset and the Jewish community was looked at with disgust and worse. And then it turned out indeed that it was not bombed by Israel, that it had been from Gaza itself, and it had been a bomb that had fallen short.”
Segal appears to be referring to one of the early bombings of the al-Ahli Arab Baptist Hospital, which occurred not six months ago but in October of 2023. Israel and various western institutions claimed the hospital was accidentally bombed by Palestinian forces while analysts like Forensic Architecture say the attack came from Israeli forces, accusing Israel of peddling misinformation about the strike. Since that time Israel has deliberately demolished Gaza’s health infrastructure with hundreds of attacks on healthcare facilities, and the al-Ahli Hospital has been bombed no fewer than eight separate times.
Segal’s one and only example is a perfect illustration of the kind of extreme bias she wants to impose upon Australian consciousness, which obviously has no place in a free society.
The fraudulent antisemitism panic in Australia has been reinvigorated by two events last week that were seized upon with shrieking hysteria by the mainstream press, none of which showed any signs of an antisemitism crisis in our nation.
As Paul Gregoire explains for the Sydney Criminal Lawyers blog, Australia is being whipped up into a frenzy by the conflation of one incident in which a Sydney man set fire to the doors of a Melbourne synagogue with a different and completely legitimate act of anti-genocide activism.
The synagogue attacker is yet another story of a shady individual with no known record of antisemitic ideology or pro-Palestinian sentiment perpetrating an apparent antisemitic attack, following a long stretch of supposed antisemitic incidents which turned out to have been staged by organized crime operatives with no ideological motive.
This one dubious story of a man committing an actual crime against an actual Jewish place of worship has been obnoxiously mentioned in the same breath as another unconnected incident by the entire Australian political/media class all week. Protesters gathered at the Miznon restaurant in Melbourne to demonstrate against the establishment’s Israeli co-owner, who is also the spokesperson for the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation where Israeli soldiers admit they’ve been massacring starving civilians seeking food. A fight broke out with a group from the restaurant across from Miznon who the protesters say instigated the attack and who are clearly seen assaulting the pro-Palestinian activists in the available video footage.
The entire so-called “antisemitism crisis” in Australia is like this. The overwhelming majority of it is just people criticizing Israel and trying to do what they can to stop the live-streamed genocide they’ve been watching on their screens every day for two years, which is then deliberately conflated with the actions of a few fringe actors with frequently suspicious motives.
“Antisemitism” means criticism of Israel. That’s just what it means now. It used to mean something else, but years of bad faith actors using that word in the most dishonest ways imaginable to defend the most horrific things you’ve ever seen has changed the definition. It is no longer possible to separate that word from this sustained campaign of mass deception.
It’s the genocide. People are mad at the genocide. They don’t hate Jews, they hate genocide. This was explained quite nicely the other day by Jack Mirkinson, who wrote the following about the controversy surrounding musical duo Bob Vylan’s chants of “Death to the IDF” at Glastonbury Festival last month:
“Left unmentioned in any of this freakout is the context in which it is taking place. Why was Bob Vylan talking about Palestine right now? Why was a giant crowd of people so receptive to these comments? Why has this become such a totemic issue?
“The answer will not shock you. It’s because Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza for nearly two years.
“That’s it! That’s why. People don’t like genocide, and when they see a country committing genocide, they stop liking that country so much. If the genocide ended, a lot of people would be less mad at Israel than they are right now.
This isn’t rocket science. But — and this is the crucial thing — because our world’s leading politicians and media outlets fundamentally don’t see opposition to the genocide as a legitimate viewpoint to hold, they can’t quite comprehend what is happening all around them.”
That’s it. It’s the genocide, stupid. That’s all this has ever been about. I wish I could force every pundit, politician and journalist in Australia to listen to these words.
Why Zionist Influence in Australia Silences Truth.
13 July 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Denis Hay, https://theaimn.net/why-zionist-influence-in-australia-silences-truth/
Description
Explore how Zionist influence in Australia’s shapes our politics and media while silencing Palestinian voices and enabling war crimes.
Introduction: The Silence That Screams
In the blistering heat of a Sydney summer rally, a Jewish Australian protester raised a sign: “Not in My Name – Justice for Gaza.” The woman’s voice trembled as she spoke: “I grew up thinking Zionism was just loving Israel. Now I realise it’s become a shield for injustice.”
Her words echo the growing concerns about Zionist influence in Australia and its role in stifling open debate on the Palestine-Israel conflict.
That trembling voice speaks for many. But why do Australian politicians stay silent? Why does mainstream media gloss over the deaths of Palestinian children, yet amplify outrage when Israel is criticised? The answer lies in the entrenched, well-funded power of the Zionist lobby in Australia – a force that not only shapes foreign policy but suppresses dissent and legitimises war crimes.
This article explores how Zionist influence in Australia operates, why so many politicians enable it, and how a growing number of Jewish and non-Jewish Australians are speaking out.
What Is Zionism and Why Does It Matter in Australia?
Zionism began as a Jewish nationalist movement in the late 19th century advocating for a Jewish homeland in Palestine. After the establishment of Israel in 1948, it evolved into a political ideology justifying the Israeli state’s actions, including occupation, displacement, and militarisation.
In Australia, Zionism is embedded in influential Jewish organisations, media representation, and foreign policy. It’s less about cultural identity and more about unconditional political allegiance to Israel.
Zionist influence in Australia continues to shape key foreign policy decisions, despite mounting evidence of human rights abuses.
Who Supports Zionism in Australia?
The Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA)
The ZFA is the umbrella body representing Zionist organisations across Australia. It liaises with Israeli government agencies and coordinates national advocacy. Its lobbying efforts are aimed at securing bipartisan support for Israel and silencing criticism.
The ZFA plays a significant role in maintaining Zionist influence in Australia’s political discourse.
AIJAC and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ)
AIJAC is the most politically connected Zionist lobby group in Australia. It funds international trips for politicians and journalists, including the controversial Rambam Israel Fellowship.
ECAJ operates as the public face of the Jewish community, but its statements overwhelmingly support Israeli government narratives, even during military assaults on Gaza.
Bipartisan Political Support
Both Labor and Liberal parties regularly attend ZFA and AIJAC events. Public statements from both parties often affirm Israel’s “right to defend itself,” even when such actions include bombing residential buildings in Gaza. This bipartisan alignment suggests a troubling detachment from international law and public sentiment.
It also reflects how deeply Zionist influence in Australia has penetrated major political institutions.
Silencing Dissent: How the Zionist Lobby Controls the Narrative
Weaponising Antisemitism
Critics of Israeli policies, including Jewish Australians, are often labelled antisemitic. This tactic deters meaningful debate and chills freedom of speech. The IHRA definition of antisemitism, adopted by several institutions, blurs the line between racism and political critique, aiding the suppression of pro-Palestinian voices.
This mechanism is one of the key ways Zionist influence in Australia suppresses accountability.
Media Control and Bias
Mainstream Australian media platforms rarely feature Palestinian voices. Coverage disproportionately focuses on Israeli casualties while framing Gaza’s suffering as collateral damage. This imbalance stems from pressure by pro-Israel lobbyists and the desire to avoid backlash.
This reflects the broader pattern of Zionist influence in Australia’s media landscape, where pro-Palestinian narratives are often excluded.
Case Study – ABC’s Censorship
In 2023, the ABC was accused of quietly removing segments that showed Palestinian civilian suffering. Internal sources claimed it was done to avoid political “complications.” This act mirrors the broader media reluctance to confront Israeli abuses.
The Political Cost of Speaking Out
Zionist influence in Australia makes it politically dangerous for elected officials to speak out. Politicians who challenge Zionist orthodoxy often face swift retribution:
- Greens members criticising Israel are smeared as antisemitic.
- Labor backbenchers who question Gaza bombings are sidelined.
- Diplomat Francesca Albanese faced calls for resignation after condemning Israeli apartheid.
This silencing reinforces conformity and deters future political courage.
Australia’s Foreign Policy and Tacit Support for War Crimes
Diplomatic Silence on Gaza
Despite over 35,000 Palestinians killed since October 2023, Australia’s government has failed to call for a ceasefire or demand accountability. Statements are carefully worded to avoid offending Israel.
Trade and Military Partnerships
Australia imports surveillance technology and weapons from Israeli firms like Elbit Systems – many of which have been tested on Palestinians under occupation. Elbit Systems, Israel’s largest private arms company, markets its equipment as “battle-proven,” highlighting their use in Gaza and the West Bank.
In February 2024, Elbit was awarded a $917 million contract through Hanwha Defence Australia to supply sensors, protection, and firepower systems for new infantry fighting vehicles. This forms part of a broader $3.6 billion defence agreement with the Australian Government.
Previously, the Australian Defence Force had removed Elbit’s Battle Management System in 2021 over data security concerns, yet new contracts continue without public consultation or ethical review.
Human rights groups, including APAN and BDS Australia, have condemned these deals, arguing they support technologies used in potential war crimes and contribute to the oppression of Palestinians. Despite these objections, the Australian government remains committed to its defence partnerships with Elbit.
Human Rights Double Standards
Australia routinely condemns China’s human rights abuses but stays silent on Gaza. This hypocrisy undermines our credibility as a rights-respecting nation.
Not All Jews Support Zionism
Jewish Council of Australia
Founded in 2024, this body challenges the claim that Zionism represents all Jews. It supports Palestinian freedom, opposes racism and colonialism, and promotes open debate.
Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow
Internationally, groups like JVP and IfNotNow mobilise Jewish voices against Israeli apartheid. They protest, educate, and campaign for justice – from New York to Melbourne.
Neturei Karta and Ultra-Orthodox Opposition
Some ultra-Orthodox Jews reject Zionism on religious grounds, arguing that a Jewish state must not exist before the coming of the Messiah. These voices offer rare but critical perspectives.
Where Is the Public Outcry?
Despite tens of thousands of Australians attending Free Palestine rallies, federal politicians remain inert. Public will is not translating into political action – why?
- Lobby pressure
- Fear of backlash
- Media framing
This democratic disconnect highlights a deeper crisis: our leaders are more responsive to powerful lobbies than to the people who elect them.
It also illustrates how Zionist influence in Australia often overrides democratic accountability.
Conclusion: It’s Time to Break the Silence
Zionist influence in Australia is real, entrenched, and deeply harmful – not just to Palestinians, but to our democracy. When politicians remain silent in the face of genocide, they are not neutral – they are complicit.
We must hold our leaders accountable. We must challenge media complicity. And we must amplify the voices calling for peace, justice, and human dignity.
Federal Labor is taking up powers to impose AUKUS N-sub nuclear wastes on communities across SA, WA and the NT:
Democratic Rights and Public Safety are compromised by AUKUS Regulations Section.105, an untenable override of State & Territory laws that prohibit nuclear waste storage.
Public Submission by Mr David Noonan B.Sc., M.Env.St, -to AUKUS ‘Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations – public consultation’ 12 July 2025 https://nuclear.foe.org.au/wp-content/uploads/Noonan-AUKUS-N-sub-regulations-to-override-SA-laws-July-2025.pdf
Contents:
Overview p2
The public has a ‘Right to Know’ who is targeted for storage of High-Level nuclear wastes 3
Indigenous People have a UN recognised Human Right to Say No to nuclear wastes 4
Regulations Section 105 overrides SA, NT and WA prohibitions on nuclear waste storage 5
Port Adelaide Enfield Council opposes AUKUS N-sub waste storage at Osborne 6
Premier Rann passed Laws that prohibits the storage of nuclear reactor waste at Osborne 7
Recommendations, in public interest disclosures required by Defence 8
As to my Relevant Background 9
Re: Democratic Rights and Public Safety are compromised by AUKUS Regulations Sec.105,
an untenable override of State & Territory laws that prohibit nuclear waste storage.
An array of key Public Interests are at stake across SA, NT and WA as a consequence of draft
AUKUS Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025 and in particular Section
105 State and Territory laws that do not apply in relation to a regulated activity.
I provide public input along with Recommendations as disclosures required by Defence (p.8) on
public interest matters pertaining to the Regulations, some of my relevant background to these
issues as a long-term environment, nuclear and public interest campaigner is cited (p.9).
Integrity, transparency, and accountability are key to public confidence in governance in
Australia. The AUKUS nuclear submarine (N-sub) agenda repeatedly fails these standards. The
AUKUS Regulations are the pointed end of an unfolding federal Labor agenda to take up powers
to impose unwelcome and illegal AUKUS N-sub nuclear wastes on our communities. AUKUS
Regulations Section 105 further undermines public confidence and trust in government.
The public has a ‘Right to Know’ who is targeted for storage of High-Level N-sub nuclear wastes.
Over three years into AUKUS: Why is there still not even an announced N-waste siting process?
An uncosted liability in AUKUS N-sub nuclear wastes is being imposed on all future generations
through the Regulations Section 105 over-ride of State and Territory Radiation Safety and
nuclear waste related laws. As a consequence, communities across SA, the NT and WA face a
future as primary targets for a federal imposed AUKUS High-Level nuclear waste storage site.
Community health and nuclear safety regards AUKUS N-subs is to be taken over by a nonindependent military nuclear regulator, set in ‘conflict of interest’ reporting to the Defence
Minister – to replace the independent civilian ARPANS Agency that reports to Health Minister.
Nuclear risks to community safety warrant full transparency, accountability and public interest
disclosures. The storage of N-sub so called ‘Low Level’ radioactive wastes at Osborne has been
rejected by the Port Adelaide Enfield Council (12 Nov 2024, p.213-218). It is an illegal act under
the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 as amended by Labor Premier Mike Rann.
These AUKUS Regulations are to override SA Law and to override the will of the people in SA.
The AUKUS Regulations place the Safety, Health and Welfare, and democratic Rights and
Interests of targeted Australian communities and Indigenous People at risk and unacceptably
compromise’s the protection of the Environment in which they live. The Regulations specifically
fail to recognise and respect Indigenous People’s UN recognised Human Right to Say No to
imposition of hazardous materials, re AUKUS N-sub nuclear wastes, on their lands.
Defence should realise civil society across SA, NT and WA will actively oppose an unacceptable
imposition of intractable nuclear wastes in Australia, what-ever the source. High-Level nuclear
waste is a dangerous and undemocratic imposition on all future generations.
The untenable state of AUKUS N-sub nuclear waste issues demonstrates why an AUKUS
military nuclear regulator can-not be trusted to protect the public interest.
The public has a ‘Right to Know’ who is targeted for storage of High-Level nuclear wastes:
Minister Richard Marles MP has still not made a promised ‘announcement’, said to be by early
2024, on a process to manage High-Level nuclear waste and to site a waste disposal facility, he
saying “obviously that facility will be remote from populations” (ABC News 15 March 2023).
Best safety practice requires a storage site to be identified before acquisition or generation of
High-Level nuclear wastes. AUKUS requires a site before purchase of a N-sub in early 2030’s.
The national press (11 August 2023) reports the Woomera rocket range is understood to be a
‘favoured location’ for storage and disposal of nuclear sub wastes (“Woomera looms as
national nuclear waste dump site including for AUKUS submarine high-level waste afr.com).
Political leaders in WA, Qld and Vic have already rejected a High-Level nuclear waste disposal
site. SA’s Premier has so far only said it should go to a ‘remote’ location in the national interest.
A ‘Review’ of the Woomera Prohibited Area was announced by Minister Marles MP: “to ensure it
remains fit for purpose and meets Australia’s national security requirements” – to read also as
AUKUS requirements. Public input to that Review has opposed an AUKUS N-waste storage.
Federal Labor can-not claim to have a ‘social license’ for Defence to operate on AUKUS in SA,
NT and WA while failing to inform affected communities of the AUKUS nuclear risks, the
cultural, environmental & socio-economic impacts they face in siting for nuclear waste storage.
The public and Traditional Owners have rights to full disclosure of nuclear risks and impacts in
advance of this flawed Regulatory process that assumes a right to impose High-Level nuclear
waste storage in SA, NT or WA through override of democratic laws prohibiting such wastes.
Nuclear wastes are a threat to the democratic rights of a people to decide their own future.
Storage of nuclear wastes is known to compromise the Safety and Welfare of the people of SA,
that is why it is prohibited by the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000. The Objects
of this Act set out the fundamental public interests that are at stake:
“The Objects of this Act are to protect the health, safety and welfare of the people of
South Australia and to protect the environment in which they live by prohibiting the
establishment of certain nuclear waste storage facilities in this State.“
This Defence regulatory process must declare in advance whether or not Defence will commit
to comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Article 29
provision of Indigenous People’s Rights to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” over storage or
disposal of hazardous materials, including nuclear wastes, on their lands.
I refer this Defence process to consider “The Politics of Nuclear Waste Disposal: Lessons
from Australia”, a Report by Dr Jim Green and Dimity Hawkins AM, Published by the Asia-Pacific
Leadership Network (January 2024). Labor’s AUKUS agenda is failing to learn these lessons.
There is an onus on this Defence regulatory process to see that it doesn’t add to a sad history of
nuclear disrespect for Indigenous Human Rights and Interests across SA, the NT and WA.
Indigenous People have a UN recognised Human Right to Say No to nuclear wastes:
Traditional owners Human Right to Say No to imposition of nuclear wastes must be respected.
The AUKUS N-sub agenda triggers the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (UNDRIP, adopted by United Nations, Sept 2007) in Indigenous People’s Article 29
Rights to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” over storage or disposal of hazardous materials
on their lands. AUKUS N-sub nuclear wastes absolutely are ‘hazardous materials’.
These Regulations should be framed in accordance with the Recommendations of the Federal
Inquiry Report (Nov 2023) into the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and
respect Chair of the Inquiry, Indigenous Labor Senator Patrick Dodson’s clear views, stating
“the Commonwealth Government ensure its approach to developing legislation and
policy on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be consistent
with the Articles outlined in the UNDRIP”.
It is concerning Labor has so far failed to act on key Rec. No.6 of that UNDRIP Inquiry, stating:
“The Committee recommends that the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011
(Cth) be amended to include the UNDRIP in the definition of ‘human rights’, so that it be
formally considered when scrutinising legislation.”
Transparency is a minimum public interest standard to expect from a Federal Government.
The intensions of the Labor Federal Government AUKUS N-sub agenda, and of the Regulations in governing N-sub wastes, must be made clear: does Labor support or intend to override the
Rights of Indigenous Australians under the UNDRIP Article 29 to “Free, Prior and Informed
Consent” – as a Human Right to Say No – over Storage of AUKUS N-sub wastes on their lands?
Issues of Indigenous Rights verses imposition of AUKUS N-sub wastes have been repeatedly
raised without response. For instance, my public input to the 2023 Defence Review and to an
Inquiry into the AUKUS Bill that led to these Regulations called for needed transparency:
Defence should become transparent over proposed Navy High-Level nuclear waste
disposal, policy, siting process, rights and legal issues. Defence should commit to
respect and to comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples Article 29 provision of Indigenous People’s rights to “Free, Prior and Informed
Consent” over storage or disposal of hazardous materials on their lands.
The Labor Federal Government has long standing questions to answer, see “AUKUS nuclear
waste dump must be subject to Indigenous veto” (by Michelle Fahy, May 2023):
“Bipartisan secrecy and Defence’s poor record with Indigenous groups at Woomera are
red flags for consultations over an AUKUS nuclear waste dump. Human rights experts
say government must establish an Indigenous veto right.”
The draft AUKUS Regulations unacceptably disregard Indigenous Peoples UN recognised
Right to Say No to the imposed storage of AUKUS N-sub nuclear waste on their land.
Regulations Section 105 overrides SA, NT and WA prohibitions on nuclear waste storage:
Federal Labor is taking powers to impose AUKUS nuclear waste on SA, or on the NT, or on WA.
The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulations 2025 sets out Section 105 State and
Territory laws that do not apply in relation to a regulated activity to override State & Ter Laws.
The Draft Explanatory Statement (DOCX, 145.38 KB (p.73) explains Section 105 as (extract):
Subsection 105(1) prescribes, for the purposes of section 135 of the Act, the
subsections of the provision which prescribes the laws of States and Territories that do
not apply in relation to a regulated activity. …
Subsection 105(3) provides that any provision of any other State or Territory law that
regulates nuclear activities is prescribed and do not apply in relation to a regulated
activity. This means that the laws prescribed in subsection 105(2) are expressly
excluded and do not apply in relation to regulated activities; and that any parts of any
other laws of States or Territories that also regulate nuclear activities do not apply to
regulated activities, as defined by the Act.
The note under subsection 105(3) clarifies that such provision of a law includes
provisions regulating the disposal of nuclear waste, the handling or storage of nuclear
material or material contaminated with radiation, or the design, construction, operation,
decommissioning or disposal of nuclear facilities.
Subsection 105(4) clarifies that subsection 105(3) does not apply to a provision of a law
that is predominately for the purposes of regulating work or occupational health and
safety, or protecting the environment.
The Parliamentary Report “Current prohibitions on nuclear activities in Australia: a quick
guide” (May 2024) provides an overview of current prohibitions on nuclear activities under SA,
NT and WA laws that protect community from the risks and impacts of nuclear wastes:
The Nuclear Waste Transport, Storage and Disposal (Prohibition) Act 2004 (NT) prohibits the
construction and operation of nuclear waste storage facilities, as well as the transportation of
nuclear waste for storage at a nuclear waste storage facility in the NT (Sec.6 & 7). Nuclear waste
is defined as including waste material from nuclear plants or the conditioning or reprocessing of
spent nuclear fuel (Sec.2). …
The Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act 2000 (SA) prohibits the construction or
operation of a nuclear waste storage facility, and the import to SA or transport within SA of
nuclear waste for delivery to a nuclear waste storage facility (Sec.8 & 9).
The Nuclear Waste Storage Facility (Prohibition) Act prohibits the SA Government from
expending public funds to encourage or finance the construction or operation of nuclear waste
storage facilities (Sec.13). The Act would also require the SA Parliament to hold an inquiry into
the proposed construction or operation of a nuclear waste storage facility in SA authorised
under a Commonwealth law (Sec.14). …
The Nuclear Waste Storage and Transportation (Prohibition) Act 1999 (WA) also prohibits the
storage, disposal or transportation in Western Australia of certain nuclear waste, including
waste from a nuclear plant or nuclear weapons (Sec.7 & 7 A, nuclear waste is defined in Sec.3).
Port Adelaide Enfield Council opposes AUKUS N-sub waste storage at Osborne:
Federal and State Labor Governments failed to engage the Port Adelaide Enfield Council (PAE)
on their plan for decades of ongoing storage of AUKUS N-sub nuclear reactor radioactive
wastes at Osborne, see Minutes of an PAE Ordinary Council Meeting 12 Nov 2024 (p.5-6).
11.1 Questions on Notice – Cr. den Hartog – Nuclear Waste Storage
Question 1. Has there been any correspondence or other communication between
Council staff and or any elected member(s) and the Federal or State Government or
Federal or State Government department regarding a dedicated nuclear waste facility at
Osborne under the AUKUS Law?
Answer To the best of our knowledge there has been no correspondence or
communication of this specific nature.
… Question 3. If a nuclear waste facility is established at Osborne, what is the
legislative responsibility of the Council regarding community safety and well-being?
Answer Given the regulations under the Bill have yet to be publicly released, it is still
unclear what legislative responsibilities under the new legislation would rest with
council, if any.
However, councils are charged with many aspects of the health, safety and well-being
of people under existing legislation. The Local Government Act, Public and
Environmental Health Act and Environment Protection Act are examples of legislation
that prescribe Council’s role and responsibilities about community safety and wellbeing. Local Government’s legislated powers in areas related to nuclear power weapons and defence are limited, but under existing legislation councils can advocate on issues relevant to their communities needs and concerns. This is one of the central premises of the draft PAE Decision Making Framework for AUKUS, which is being considered as part of tonight’s Council agenda.
Commendably, PAE decided to advocate on their communities needs & concerns over AUKUS
and decided to oppose storage of low-level radioactive waste at Osborne, see the PAE Council
Recommendations passed at the Ordinary Council Meeting – 12 Nov 2024 (Agenda p.213-218):
Recommendations:
The nuclear safety component of AUKUS in particular demands community
engagement. It is therefore recommended that Council write to the relevant local State
and Federal MPs and Ministers advising them of Council’s
- position that any applications for licencing for the management, storage or disposal of
radioactive waste ‘facilities’ and ‘activities’ at the AUKUS operations at the Osborne
Naval Shipyard should be subject to full community engagement; and, - opposition to the permanent storage or disposal of low-level radioactive waste and,
any temporary or permanent storage or disposal of medium and high-level radioactive
waste in the AUKUS facilities at Osborne Naval Shipyard. (p.217-218)
However, the AUKUS Regulations disrespects PAE’s opposition by taking up powers to
impose radioactive waste storage at Osborne regardless of the will of the local community.
Premier Rann passed Laws that prohibits the storage of nuclear reactor waste at Osborne:
Hon Mike Rann AC CNZM, Premier of SA from March 2002 through to 2011, passed Labor
amendments to expand public interest protections in nuclear reactor waste prohibitions in SA.
Federal Labor’s intended decades of storage of AUKUS N-sub reactor radioactive wastes at
Osborne, promoted by current SA Labor State Government, is illegal – against the Law – in SA.
Following years of silence and secrecy from federal and state Labor over the illegality of their
plans for N-sub waste storage at Osborne, the AUKUS Regulations 2025 are to override our legal
protections in SA and take up powers to impose N-sub waste storage at Osborne by decree.
AUKUS Minister Richard Marles, Defence, local federal MP the Hon Mark Butler the Minister for
Health (also responsible for the ARPANS Agency) and local state MP the Hon Susan Close the
Minister for Environment & Water and Deputy Premier in SA, should explain this to community.
They all have an onus to explain the legal context and consequences of passage of the AUKUS
Regulations 2025 in a federal override of long-standing public interest protections in SA Law.
In 2000 the SA Liberal Premier John Olsen showed leadership in legislating to prohibit the
import, transport, storage and disposal of ‘nuclear waste’ derived from nuclear reactor
operations, using a definition prohibiting High-Level and Intermediate Level radioactive wastes.
This was a response to PM Howard targeting SA for storage of ANSTO nuclear fuel wastes.
This SA Law, the will of the Parliament and the people, still stands and applies to legally prohibit
the storage of AUKUS N-sub nuclear reactor High-Level and Intermediate Level wastes that
Minister Marles may seek to target SA with, with a reported focus on the Woomera Area.
In 2002 the incoming SA Labor Premier Mike Rann showed leadership in legislating to expand
the range of prohibitions on ‘nuclear waste’ derived from nuclear reactor operations to also
cover ‘Low Level’ radioactive wastes (that can require isolation for up to 300 years).
Storage of N-sub nuclear reactor ‘Low Level’ radioactive wastes at Osborne is illegal in SA Law.
Minister Marles AUKUS Regulations 2025 Section 105 is intended to override and set aside
these key public interest SA Laws passed under the leadership of Liberal & Labor Premiers.
In the near term, Minister Marles wants to use the proposed draft AUKUS Regulations 2025 to
impose storage of so called ‘Low Level’ radioactive waste at Osborne, and in the long-term
Minister Marles wants the option to impose storage of AUKUS High-Level wastes onto SA.
Q: where is the political leadership today from the State Labor Government in response to this?
It is undemocratic of a Federal Labor Government to seek to override State and Territory laws,
that protect the Health, Safety and Welfare of the People and the Environment in which they
live, so as to impose the hazards, risks and impacts in storage of AUKUS N-sub nuclear wastes.
Recommendation:
The undemocratic AUKUS Regulations “Section 105 (3) State and Territory laws that do not
apply in relation to a regulated activity” that is intended to take up powers to impose N-sub
nuclear reactor wastes which are currently illegal in SA, in the NT, and in WA, must be
withdrawn by the AUKUS Minister Richard Marles MP and by Defence.
Recommendations:
Recommendations by David Noonan comprise public interest disclosures that are required by Defence for an informed, transparent and accountable process on AUKUS Regulations 2025.
1. Civil Society faces federal imposition of untenable AUKUS N-sub nuclear waste storage.
Defence must respect affected Australian communities and Indigenous People’s ‘Right to Know’ the nuclear risks they face in imposed AUKUS nuclear waste storage facilities:
1.1 Defence must declare its intention to over-ride the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 to impose AUKUS N-sub reactor nuclear waste storage at Osborne, Port Adelaide.
1.2 Defence must publicly disclose which Australian regions and Indigenous Peoples are currently under consideration for imposed siting and compulsory land acquisition for an AUKUS High-Level nuclear waste storage, and which – if any – existing Defence lands are included in the regional short list that is currently being prepared across SA, the NT and WA.
1.3 Defence must become accountable over the future and fate of the Woomera Area, understood in national media to be a ‘favoured location’ for storage and disposal of AUKUS Nsub nuclear waste (“Woomera looms as national nuclear waste dump site including for AUKUS submarine high-level waste afr.com AFR 11 August 2023).
1.4 Defence must declare its reserved right to override the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000 through powers in the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Act 2024 Section.135 “Operation of State and Territory laws” to impose an AUKUS nuclear waste dump on outback lands and unwilling community in SA, by decree through these AUKUS Regulations.
2. Indigenous People have a UN recognised Human Right to Say No to nuclear wastes.
Defence should respect the clear views of Indigenous Labor Senator Patrick Dodson and act to make the AUKUS Regulations consistent with the Recommendations of a Federal Inquiry Report (Nov 2023) into the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, stating:
“the Commonwealth Government ensure its approach to developing legislation and policy on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people be consistent with the Articles outlined in the UNDRIP”.
2.1 Defence must provide a clear disclosure as to whether or not they will commit to respect and comply with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Article 29 provision of Indigenous Peoples Rights to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent”, as a Right to Say No, over storage or disposal of hazardous materials on their lands – in this case AUKUS HighLevel & Intermediate Level nuclear waste storage.
3. The undemocratic AUKUS Regulations “Section 105 (3) State and Territory laws that do not apply in relation to a regulated activity” that is intended to take up powers to impose Nsub nuclear reactor wastes which are currently illegal in SA, in the NT, and in WA, must be withdrawn by the AUKUS Minister Richard Marles MP and by Defence.
As to my Relevant Background:
In 30 years’ experience scrutinising environment & nuclear public interest issues and providing
public input and Recommendations on nuclear waste matters pertinent to these Regulations:
The Australia-Tuvalu climate migration treaty is a drop in the ocean
Australia has offered a lifeline to the people of Tuvalu, whose island is threatened by rising sea levels. But the deal comes with strings attached – and there will be millions more climate migrants in need of refuge by 2050
By New Scientist, 2 July 2025, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26635502-900-the-australia-tuvalu-climate-migration-treaty-is-a-drop-in-the-ocean/
A lifeline has been extended to the people of Tuvalu, a low-lying Pacific nation where rising sea levels are creating ever more problems. Each year, Australia will grant residency to 280 Tuvaluans. The agreement could see everyone currently living in Tuvalu move within just a few decades.
Effectively the world’s first climate migration agreement, the Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union will also provide adaptation funds to help those who stay behind.
Is this a model for how climate migration can be managed in an orderly way, before disaster strikes? Far from it. To get this deal, Tuvalu must allow Australia a say in future security and defence matters. Few other countries are likely to agree to similar terms.
Tuvalu’s population is also very small. Taking in around 10,000 climate migrants would be inconsequential for a country of 28 million like Australia. Worldwide, it is estimated that between 25 million and 1 billion people might be forced to move by 2050 because of climate change and other environmental factors. Where will they go?
Many argue that the wealthy countries that emitted most of the carbon dioxide that is warming the planet have a moral duty to help people displaced by climate change. But these kinds of discussions have yet to be translated into the necessary legal recognition or acceptance of forced climate migrants. On the contrary, many higher-income nations seem to be becoming more hostile to migrants of any kind.
There has been a little progress in setting up “loss and damage” funds to compensate lower-income countries for the destruction caused by global warming. This could help limit the need for climate migration in the future – but the money promised so far is a fraction of what is required.
The most important thing nations should be doing is limiting future warming by cutting emissions – but globally these are still growing. Sadly, the Falepili Union is a drop in the ocean, not a turning of the tide.
Australians recruited for Israel’s ‘weaponised aid’ project in Gaza
by Yaakov Aharon | Jul 1, 2025 , https://michaelwest.com.au/australians-recruited-for-israels-weaponized-aid-project-in-gaza/
A Melbourne company is recruiting Australians to work on a mysterious Israeli and American-backed aid project in Gaza. Could it be the infamous Gaza Humanitarian Foundation?
An ad posted by Claymore Personnel – named after an anti-personnel landmine – promises that successful candidates will “be looked after.”
Workers will have accommodation expenses in Israel covered, operate in American-led teams, and receive payment in US dollars.
While it remains impossible to verify exactly who Claymore is working with, the shortlist of aid agencies that fit Claymore’s description ranges from bad to worse.
There is precisely one self-described ‘aid agency’ thriving in Gaza right now, and that is the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). Fogbow lags in a distant second place.
The Israeli and American governments back both agencies; both agencies rely on private security contractors to distribute aid; both agencies’ founders are American military and intelligence officials; both have been implicated in massacres at Gaza aid sites.
This month alone, at least 450 have been killed and 3500 injured while waiting for food at sites operated by GHF, a Mossad and CIA-backed front.
Looking for adventure?
Before GHF had begun its Gaza operations on May 27, it was already the subject of condemnation in a joint statement issued by aid agencies. The letter condemned GHF as “a dangerous and politicised sham” and “a blueprint for ethnic cleansing”.
Claymore posted ads on seek.com and on its official website on May 28, a day after GHF hit the ground. The first batch of recruits left for Gaza two weeks later.
Reports of massacres at sites of American-led aid projects did not dampen Claymore’s spirits. Its mission to recruit carried on throughout June, with the ad saying workers deployed to Gaza will have a “3-month contract with strong potential for multiple extensions”.
While most aid sites in Gaza were closing down, prospects for Claymore’s partners were expanding. “A large humanitarian distribution centre is now operating in Gaza”, Claymore’s ad said.
The recruitment agency sought Australian labourers, truck drivers, and forklift operators willing to work for low wages paid in USD ($3250-$6000 monthly). Successful candidates enjoyed full travel sponsorships. The ad on Claymore’s website assured applicants that there would be no police checks. The seek.com ad said otherwise.
On each workday, the workers would be provided with “secure transport” from Israeli accommodation to worksites at “secure zones” in Gaza.
MWM spoke to Senator Mehreen Faruqi, the Greens Spokesperson for International Aid, who condemned “any so-called ‘humanitarian’ effort that operates at the whim of the genocidal Israeli military”.
“I’m concerned that Australian companies appear to be inserting themselves into a brutal system where ‘aid’ is delivered at gunpoint, guarded by soldiers and private contractors, while starving Palestinians are forced to risk their lives just to access basic supplies.”
Chasing ghosts
Tracking yesterday’s leftover footprints at Bondi Beach is easier than following Claymore’s digital footprints.
The LinkedIn profile of the company’s sole director, Tanya Molloy, provides no information beyond her role at the small business, which was founded in 2023. Trusted aid agencies and union officials told MWM on background they were not aware of Claymore, nor of any project it may be associated with in Gaza.
The recruitment agency’s address is listed as CSS Partners, a small accounting firm in Keilor East, Victoria. MWM called CSS’s landline and asked to be put through to Claymore. The receptionist said they were not aware that Claymore had listed its address as CSS Partners, and that the company’s relations were with an accounting firm to a client.
An associate of MWM visited the address listed on government records as Claymore’s principal place of business in Altona North, Victoria.
“It is in a large, remote industrial area,” was the report back from the Altona North office. “There is no sign or even a number on a door. I think it’s empty.”
Playing mum against dad
Tanya Molloy lives with Claymore’s secretary, the American-born Calum McEwan, in a suburban Melbourne townhouse.
When MWM asked Molloy who Claymore was working with, she was coy.
“Claymore Personnel is a recruitment agency only — we are not involved in the political, logistical, or operational aspects of any aid delivery. We supply skilled workers for overseas roles, and once placed, our involvement ends. We’re not affiliated with any government, military, or aid organisation.”
Due to the sensitivity of the work and the well-being of those on the ground, I won’t be commenting further.”
Further statements by Molloy deny any association with GHF.
If nothing else, Claymore’s footsteps follow the lead of GHF, which also lists its address as an abandoned warehouse in Delaware, USA.
Text messages leaked to MWM raise doubts about Molloy’s firm assertion that Claymore has no association with GHF.
“The company the candidates will be working for is JK International – jkiglobal.com”, Calum McEwan said, in a response to a concerned humanitarian last month.
When the recipient of the texts asked McEwan if JK International works for GHF, McEwan responded “I don’t have this information.”
Claymore’s ad says it is “the only Australian contact point for this operation”, after being “personally engaged by [an] international logistics group”.
JK International is a global logistics and shipping company based in Tennessee, USA. Its business partners include the USA’s Department of Homeland Security and Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, as well as Israel’s largest shipping company, Zim – a key player in the global weapons supply chain.
Supply and demand
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is wanted for arrest by the International Criminal Court for charges of war crimes, including ‘starvation of civilians as a method of warfare’.
Rather than heeding calls to obey international law, Israel has doubled down. Israel says it has no obligation to provide aid to Palestinians, given its allegations that Hamas steals aid at gunpoint and has infiltrated the United Nations.
Israel’s parliament passed sweeping restrictions on aid agencies working in Gaza. UNWRA and UNICEF were banned from delivering aid into the Occupied Palestinian Territory, in breach of orders issued by the International Court of Justice.
Any worker or organisation that has expressed the wrong political opinions will be refused entry by Israel. Background checks will ensure workers have never made statements that “delegitimise” Israel or question its identity as “a Jewish and democratic state” ($).
Each Palestinian who receives aid is also vetted to ensure they have no connections, according to Israel’s standards, to a Palestinian resistance group.
A government statement said these changes guarantee aid is distributed “in a manner aligned with Israel’s national interests”.
Funding criminal gangs in Gaza
Instead of trusted agencies, aid is increasingly provided by American private military contractors, as well as Israeli-backed gangs.
Earlier this month, Israeli opposition figure Avigdor Lieberman revealed that Mossad and the Ministry of Defence were arming and funding criminal gangs in Gaza. Further reports reveal security at GHF aid sites is provided by mercenaries from Safe Reach Solutions, a firm founded by former CIA officers.
These reforms weaponised aid to undermine Hamas on a grassroots level.
After reports that Israeli Forces massacred Palestinians at a GHF site in Rafah, Israel released footage that it claimed showed Hamas fighters were responsible. In fact, the footage depicted a different massacre, at a different GHF site, committed by Israeli-backed gangs as they stole aid.
Government declines to answer
Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi called on the Albanese Government to “urgently clarify whether it has had any involvement in authorising or facilitating this project, and whether it has provided any diplomatic, logistical or intelligence support to Claymore Personnel or related actors.”
“DFAT has a clear responsibility to ensure any Australian-linked aid effort operates fully in line with international humanitarian law,” Faruqi said. “That includes not participating in a system where aid is used as a tool of control and oppression.”
Several international humanitarian law organisations cosigned a letter yesterday expressing concern about Gaza’s privatised “humanitarian” operators.
The letter issues a warning to all those involved with GHF — including states, companies, and contracted workers – of their potential liability for complicity in genocide.
MWM spoke to Lara Khider, acting executive director of the Australian Centre for International Justice, which was among the organisations that signed the letter.
“Any recruitment of civilians into areas of conflict or occupied territory must be approached with the utmost caution and transparency,” Khider said. “Particularly where international humanitarian law and the risk of complicity in grave breaches of international law may be engaged.”
“It is imperative that Australian nationals and entities exercise due diligence and avoid any involvement that could directly or indirectly support or legitimise unlawful conduct.”
Another government official told MWM that state funding is directed toward United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and the Red Crescent – but refused to answer if the government supported Claymore or its associates.
MWM asked the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) if it was aware of – and approved – Claymore’s aid project.
To say DFAT dodged the question is to compliment it unfairly for showing grace and dexterity.
“Any Australian travelling overseas for employment should ensure they are not in breach of Australian law and follow all travel advice on Smartraveller,” a department spokesperson said.
To DFAT’s credit, Smartraveller is clearer in its profile on Gaza and Israel: “Do not travel.”
Shayne Chester contributed to research.
Interviewed Israeli soldiers claimed their commanders ordered them to shoot civilians collecting aid at GHF sites. The Military Advocate-General then instructed the IDF to investigate these reported war crimes.
A Vassal’s Impulse: Australia Backs US Strike on Iran
The Australian position, along a number of European states, also failed to acknowledge the General Conference Resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (in particular GC(XIXI)/RES/444 and GC(XXIV)/RES/533) declaring that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency.”
29 June 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/a-vassals-impulse-australia-backs-us-strike-on-iran/
The initial statement from Australian government sources was one of constipated caution and clenching wariness. Senator Penny Wong’s time as head of the Department of Trade and Foreign Affairs has always been about how things come out, a process unsatisfyingly uncertain and unyielding in detail. Stick to the safe middle ground and sod the rest. These were the cautionary words of an Australian government spokesperson on June 22: “We have been clear that Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile program has been a threat to international peace and security.”
That insipid statement was in response to Operation Midnight Hammer, a strike on three nuclear facilities in Iran by the US Air Force, authorised by US President Donald Trump on June 22. With such spectacular violence came the hollow call for diplomatic prudence and restraint. There was an importantdifference: Tehran, not Israel or Washington, would be the subject of scolding. Iran would not be permitted nuclear weapons but jaw jaw was better than war war. “We note the US president’s statement that now is the time for peace,” stated the spokesperson. “The security situation in the region is highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy.”
Within twenty-four hours, that anodyne position had morphed into one of unconditional approval for what was a breach of the United Nations Charter, notably its injunction against the threatened or actual use of force against sovereign states in the absence of authorisation by the UN Security Council or the necessity of self-defence. “The world has long agreed Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, and we support action to prevent this. That is what this is,” accepted Wong.
This assessment was not only silly but colossally misguided.It would have been an absurd proposition for the US to make the claim that they were under imminent threat of attack, a condition seen as necessary for a pre-emptive strike. This was a naked submission to the wishes of a small, destabilising and sole (undeclared) nuclear power in the Middle East, a modern territorial plunderer celebratory of ethnonational supremacy.
The Australian position, along a number of European states, also failed to acknowledge the General Conference Resolutions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (in particular GC(XIXI)/RES/444 and GC(XXIV)/RES/533) declaring that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency.”
Wong also misrepresented the circumstances under which Iran was told they could negotiate over their nuclear program, erroneously accepting the line from the Trump administration that Tehran had “an opportunity to comply”. Neither the US diplomatic channel, which only permitted a narrow, fleeting corridor for actual negotiations, nor Israel’s wilful distortion of the IAEA’s assessment of Iran’s uranium enrichment plans and prevarication, ever gave chance for a credible resolution.Much like the calamitous, unlawful invasion of Iraq in 2003 by a crew of brigand nations – the merry trio of US, UK and Australia stood out – the autopilot to war was set, scornful of international law.
Wong’s shift from constipated caution to free flow approval for the US attack, with its absent merits and weighty illegalities, was also a craven capitulation to the warmonger class permanently mesmerised by the villain school of foreign relations. This cerebrally challenged view sees few problems with attacking nuclear facilities, the radioactive dangers of doing so, and the merits of a state having them in the first place.
The US attack on Iran found hearty approval among the remnants of the conservative opposition, who tend tospecialise in the view that pursuing a pro-Israeli line, right,wrong, or murderous, is the way to go. Liberal Senator and former Australian ambassador to Israel, David Sharma, thought the Albanese government’s initial response “underwhelming and perplexing,” claiming that support for this shredding of international law “a straightforward position for Australia to adopt.” Sharma is clearly getting rusty on hislaw of nations.
His side of politics is also of the view that the attacked party here – Iran – must forgo any silly notion of self-defence and retaliation and repair to the table of diplomacy in head bowedhumiliation. “We want to see Iran come to the negotiating table to verify where that 400 kilos of enriched uranium is,” stated a very stern opposition home affairs minister, Andrew Hastie. “I’m very glad to see that Penny Wong has essentially endorsed our position and I’m glad we have bipartisanship on this.”
Australia’s response has been that of the weary poltroon. Little has been asked about Canberra’s standout complicity in assisting the US imperium fulfil its global reach when it comes to striking targets. The role of the intelligence signals facility in Pine Gap, cutely and inaccurately called a joint venture, always lends its critical role to directing the US war machine through its heavy reliance on satellite technology. Wong, when asked about the role played by the facility in facilitating the attacks on Iran, had little to say. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was also cold towards disclosing any details. “We are upfront, but we don’t talk about intelligence, obviously. But we’ve made very clear this was unilateral action taken by the United States.”
At least on this occasion, Australia did not add its forces to anillegal adventure, as it all too wilfully did in 2003. Then, Iraq was invaded on the spurious grounds that weapons of mass destruction not only existed but would somehow be used either by the regime of Saddam Hussein or fictional proxies he might eventually supply. History forever shows that no such weapons were found, nor proxies equipped. But the Albanese government has shown not only historical illiteracy but an amnesia on the matter. Unfortunately, it’s the sort of amnesia that has become contagious, afflicting a goodly number of Washington’s satellites, vassals and friendly states.
Time for Australia to sign non-nuclear treaty
Tilman Ruff says support for the “illegal and unwarranted” US military action in Iran has damaged Australia’s global reputation, and ratifying the treaty would help to repair its credibility.
The Australian co-founder of a Nobel Prize-winning advocacy group says it is time for Labor to honour its promise, while in opposition, to ratify the UN’s nuclear weapons ban treaty.
The Saturday Paper, By Kristina Kukolja, 28 June 25
Australia has long been at the forefront of global efforts towards the containment of nuclear threats. Now, in the wake of the American military strikes on Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency says the global nonproliferation system is on the brink of collapse. Australian campaigners are calling on the government to step up its advocacy for nuclear disarmament.
“It’s an alarmingly dangerous time – the nonproliferation regime is under severe threat,” says Dr Tilman Ruff, who is co-founder of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a Nobel Prize-winning advocacy group founded in Australia.
He calls the United States attack on Iran a “frightening escalation” that dealt a “body blow to the peaceful nonproliferation regime … which was already in a parlous state”.
Ruff says Australia must urgently show it is serious about nuclear disarmament by signing and ratifying the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Now in its second term, the Labor government has yet to act on a commitment it made while in opposition to sign and ratify the treaty. Ruff is concerned the US is putting pressure on the Albanese government not to sign. He says ICAN has been told that ratification of the treaty hasn’t been raised in cabinet, and it must be. “The issue needs prime ministerial leadership,” Ruff says.
“The reasons for the delay are American pressure and the displeasure that the US would indicate when Australia does this.”
He says support for the “illegal and unwarranted” US military action in Iran has damaged Australia’s global reputation, and ratifying the treaty would help to repair its credibility.
“Australia joining the TPNW would be of global significance, especially if it became the first nuclear weapons supporting and assisting ally of a nuclear-armed state to do so. It would be the most effective way we could support peace and nuclear disarmament, prevent nuclear war and reinforce the rule of law.”
Australia has maintained a strong bipartisan nuclear nonproliferation stance for decades. The Whitlam Labor government established the Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO) more than 50 years ago. It was a Coalition foreign affairs minister, Alexander Downer, who took the test ban treaty to the United Nations General Assembly in 1996, and Australia now has the third-biggest network of stations monitoring for signs of nuclear testing in the world…………………………………………………………………….
Australia’s decision to join AUKUS has raised questions in the Pacific about its ability to meet its own obligations, as a signatory to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, also known as the Treaty of Rarotonga.
“Pacific peoples feel a great sense of betrayal from what Australia did,” says Fiji-based Epeli Lesuma, a demilitarisation campaigner with the Pacific Network on Globalisation.
“Australia uses a term in Fiji called the ‘Vuvale’ partnership, which means ‘family’. ‘Vuvale’ and ‘Pacific family’ are thrown around by people in Canberra, but the sentiment behind it is hollow – particularly when you think about what Australia did with AUKUS.”
Lesuma says AUKUS is a danger to the Pacific because it will potentially bring nuclear-powered submarines into the region and has pushed island nations into the geopolitical competition between the US, China and Australia.
“The Australian government chose to betray all of us by exposing us to greater nuclear risk and nuclear violence, submarines cutting through the Pacific Ocean – creating a bigger target on our backs.”
“There is no trust,” agrees Samoan-born Maualaivao Maima Koro, a Pacific security expert at the University of Adelaide. She says Pacific nations are looking to Australia for leadership on nuclear issues, in a region that – decades on – is still living with the health and environmental harms of nuclear testing by France, Britain and the US.
“Pacific leaders have the view that Australia will step up because it is the country that can. It is the country with the means, alliances and exposure to do so,” says Koro.
“The idea of Australia’s responsibility to the Pacific Islands Forum is that you can advocate for the interest of the region – but it’s not happening. Pacific Island states want Australia to commit to the Rarotonga treaty and uphold it.” https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/defence/2025/06/28/time-australia-sign-non-nuclear-treaty
Why Voters Reject Richard Marles US War
27 June 2025 AIMN Editorial By Denis Hay
Description
Richard Marles US war has anti-war voters turning against him. Learn why peace, sovereignty, and democracy are at stake in 2028.
Introduction
Darwin, 4:42 a.m., June 2025. KC-46 tankers lift off from RAAF Base Darwin, refuelling U.S. bombers returning from a strike on Iranian nuclear sites. Veteran Ron McKinnon, 71, stares from his porch. “Here we go again,” he mutters, haunted by his service in Iraq.
Just hours later, Defence Minister Richard Marles appears on ABC News: “Australia stands shoulder to shoulder with our ally.” Foreign Minister Penny Wong echoes him. But the public mood is shifting fast, as concerns over the Richard Marles US war agenda grow louder.
Agitate: The Iran strike has deepened fears of entanglement in endless U.S. wars.
Solution: Voters now demand a sovereign, peaceful defence policy – and they’re ready to make it an election issue.
PROBLEM – Public Trust Collapse Over U.S. Military Alignment
1. Polls Signal a Sea Change
• 40% of Australians now believe we should distance ourselves from the U.S. (Lowy Institute, 2025)
• Only 26% say we should follow the U.S. into military conflicts.
• 74% oppose involvement in a future war with Iran or China, reflecting a growing rejection of the Richard Marles US war direction.
2. The Trigger: Iran Strike
Australia’s support for the June 2025 U.S. strike on Iran shocked many voters. While the government called it a “measured response,” Australians viewed it as another unjustified conflict.
3. Personal Voices
Ella Tait, an ICU nurse from Newcastle, recalls messaging her brother at RAAF Tindal: “Are you being deployed?” He didn’t reply for hours. Online, #MarlesWarMachine trended as thousands shared anti-war posts.
“We save lives in hospitals, not bomb people across the world,” Ella said.
4. Strategic Concerns
• Pine Gap may have been used to assist the Iran targeting
• Darwin and Tindal bases make Australia a first-strike target in future retaliations
• Experts warn Australia’s role in U.S. wars increases – not decreases – our risk
Consequences of Following the U.S. War Machine
1. Economic Trade-Offs
• AUKUS subs will cost taxpayers $368 billion over 30 years
• Meanwhile, public housing, health, and disaster funding suffer under the financial burden of the Richard Marles US war priorities.
• Australia’s dollar sovereignty means we don’t need to choose war over welfare, but our leaders are
2. Voter Backlash
• Greens, Teals, and Independents have made “Peace Vote” pledges
• In 18 marginal electorates, candidates are calling for War Powers reform
• Many voters say: “If Marles won’t represent peace, we’ll find someone who will”, a clear repudiation of the Richard Marles US war stance.
3. Moral Injury
Every new conflict escalates demand for veterans’ services.
• Defence-linked trauma spikes 19% during combat support operations
• Public sympathy for veterans turns into public anger at those who sent them
“It’s not anti-troop to be anti-war,” says veteran Ron. “It’s anti-stupidity.”
A Peace-First Defence Strategy
1. Use Australia’s Monetary Power for Peace
As a sovereign currency issuer, Australia can fund:
• Fire & flood resilience
• National mental health services
• Cyber defence and coastal radar
No foreign wars required.
2. Model Countries
• Costa Rica abolished its military in 1948 and outperforms neighbours on education & health
• Austria maintains military neutrality and invests heavily in civil defence
• Ireland avoids entangling alliances yet contributes to UN peacekeeping missions, offering a powerful contrast to Richard Marles US war framework.
3. A Legislative Blueprint
A new, independent body could investigate and publicly review Pine Gap’s involvement in past conflicts such as the Iraq and Iran strikes, both tied to Richard Marles US war alignment.
Peace Policy Roadmap: A legislative alternative to Richard Marles US war approach, focused on sovereignty, diplomacy, and the public good.
• Defence of Australia Act – Bans combat beyond 1,000 nm (1,852 km) without a referendum
• War Powers Tribunal – Reviews Pine Gap’s role in Iraq & Iran
• Universal Housing & Health Fund – Redirect defence funds toward social programs
• Pacific Peace Office – Expands diplomacy and soft power in the region
Voter Toolkit
TheyVoteForYou.org.au – Track MPs’ war‑powers votes…………………………………………………………………https://theaimn.net/why-voters-reject-richard-marles-us-war/
Plutonium Levels in Sediments Remain Elevated 70 Years After Nuclear Tests
June 24, 2025,
https://www.marinetechnologynews.com/news/plutonium-levels-sediments-remain-650328
Researchers from Edith Cowan University (ECU) in Australia have confirmed plutonium levels in sediment up to 4,500 times greater than the Western Australian coastline.
Three plutonium-based nuclear weapons tests were conducted at the Montebello Islands in the 1950’s, which introduced radioactive contamination to the surrounding environment. The first nuclear test, coded Operation Hurricane, had a weapon’s yield of some 25kT, and formed a crater in the seabed, while the second and third tests, dubbed Operation Mosaic G1 and G2, had weapons yields of around 15kT and 60kT, respectively.
The three tests released radioactive isotopes including plutonium, strontium (90Sr) and caesium (137Cs) into the surrounding marine environment.
“Plutonium is anthropogenic, which means that it doesn’t exist on its own in nature. The only way it is introduced into an environment is through the detonation of nuclear weapons and from releases from nuclear reprocessing plants and, to a lesser extent, accidents in nuclear power plants,” said ECU PhD student and lead author Madison Williams-Hoffman.
“When plutonium is released into a coastal setting in the marine environment, a significant fraction will attach to particles and accumulate in the seabed, while some may be transported long distances by oceanic currents.”
The region is not inhabited by humans and has not been developed, however it is visited by fishing boats, so collecting data on the levels of contamination in the marine environment is important.
Currently, the protected island archipelago and surrounding marine areas also reside within the Montebello Islands Marine Park (MIMP). The MIMP is ecologically significant due to the presence of numerous permanent or migratory species, and its high-value habitat is used for breeding and rearing by fish, mammals, birds and other marine wildlife.
The water and sediment quality within the MIMP are currently described as ‘generally pristine’, and it is fundamental to maintain healthy marine ecosystems in the region.
The concentrations of plutonium at Montebello Islands were between 4 to 4,500 times higher than those found in sediment from Kalumburu and Rockingham from the Western Australian coastline, with the northern area of the archipelago, close to the three detonation sites, having four-fold higher levels than the southern area.
The concentrations of plutonium found in the sediment at Montebello Islands were similar to those found in the sediment at the Republic of Marshall Islands (RMI) test sites, despite 700-fold higher detonation yields from nuclear testing undertaken at RMI.
Plutonium is an alpha emitter so, unlike other types of radiation, it cannot travel through the skin and is most dangerous when ingested or inhaled.
The research was undertaken by Williams-Hoffman, under the co-supervision of Prof. Pere Masqueand at ECU and Dr Mathew Johansen at ANTSO.
Trump’s rap sheet is long, but this may top them all
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not blown the whistle as claimed by the Australian government, nor has the UK or our European allies.
any resolution to condemn the bombing of Iran will be vetoed by the US , presumably with the support of Australia
The Age, Geoffrey Robertson , 24 June 25, – (print version)
Although few may bother to point this out, Trump has just committed a crime much worse than all the others on his rap sheet.
It is the war crime of aggression- the “supreme” war crime, according to the judgement at Nuremberg. It is constituted by using armed force against a felloe United Nations member with such “character, gravity and scale” that it violates the UN charter prohibition on one member country attacking another. A “spectacular military success, the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities may have been, but it was, as a matter of international law, no different from Russia’s attack on Ukraine, or the George W Bush Tony Blair, John Howard invasion of Iraq. These a all cases of a breach of the world order agreed after the last war and likely to encourage emulation.
This is not about saving Iran, or the danger of making Putin look better. If any government in the world deserves to be destroyed, it is the mullahs without mercy in Iran. Many of them were involved in the mass slaughter of political prisoners in1988 – the worst crime against POWs since the Japanese death marches. – and ever since their record of killing peaceful protestors, women and dissidents has been disgusting. Iran has bankrolled terrorist organisations and wagedpropaganda wars against the Big (US) and Little (UK) Satan, but it has not invaded Israel or done anything to America to justify its aggression.
Were some hypothetical war crimes court ever to get its hands on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it would reduce his sentence by taking Iranian provocation into account – but the man would still be guilty as charged. He could not argue self-defence, which requires the threat defended against to be reasonably proximate. The threat of Iran building and using nukes is much further away than the threat of Israeli submarines, said to be already stationed within range of Tehtan.
It is not even clear that Iran is close to building a nuclear weapon – several dozen countries also signatory to the nuclear weapons treaty by which they forswear any such development. could build nukes within a few months. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not blown the whistle as claimed by the Australian government, nor has the UK or our European allies.. And just like Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” there is no reason to think Iran has completed a project that in fact started under .the Shah in the 1970s.
Only last wee, Trump said in effect to the Ayatollah, in the tone of a gangster “Wee know where you live”, but he promised the cleric he would be safe “for now” and gave him two weeks. He bombed three days later (This is a man on whose word Australia has just made a down payment for AUKUS).
The true disaster of Trump’s attack is that it is another nail in the coffin of the rules-based world order that provided some protection for international pdeace and security since it was put in place in 1945.
It is now unfit for its purpose declared in the UN Charter to stop the slaughter of war. The General Assembly is a talking shop, while all power resides in the permanently poleAxed Security Council which cannot function because of the big power veto.
Resolutions for peace in Ukraine are vetoed by Russia, for peace in Gaza they are vetoed by America on behalf of Israel, and any resolution to condemn the bombing of Iran will be vetoed by the US , presumably with the support of Australia.
Besides, the problem with Iran goes beyond nuclear weapons. It’s a conflict between the rights of its people and the wrongs of its dictatorship. That is a conflict that only its people can resolve, however much the West may wish to help.
Trump has already made a mockery of US law, from which his Supreme Court has declared him immune. Hewill now make a mockery of international law, roo.
Geoffrey Robertson KC is an expert in international and human rights law. He is the author of Mullahs Without Mercy and Crimes Against Humanity.
Why is Australia Supporting the US Attack on Iran?
24 June 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Denis Hay https://theaimn.net/why-is-australia-supporting-the-us-attack-on-iran/
Description
Why is Australia supporting the US attack on Iran despite no proven nuclear threat? Explore the truth behind the alliance and why our national interest is at stake.
Introduction: The Flashpoint
Location: Parliament House, Canberra – just hours after the US launched strikes on Iranian facilities.
The Prime Minister steps up to the podium. Flashbulbs pop. He says solemnly, “We support action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”
But there’s a problem: Iran does not have nuclear weapons. Nor has the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found proof of an active nuclear weapons program. Yet, Australia is once again supporting US attack on Iran, despite lacking credible evidence.
By supporting the US attack on Iran, Australia reinforces a troubling trend of endorsing military aggression based on disputed intelligence.
This article delves into the underlying reasons behind this decision, separating rhetoric from reality.
The Problem: Why Australia Is Supporting the US Attack on Iran
A History of Following Washington
Since Vietnam, Australia has followed the US into conflicts: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. The justification is often “shared values”, but the outcomes? Displacement, destabilisation, and destruction.
“We’re not a central player,” the PM insists. Yet, we continue to echo Washington’s every move.
No Proof, Yet Full Support
The IAEA has repeatedly said there’s no verified Iranian nuclear weapons program. Iran enriched uranium to 60%, but weapons-grade is 90 %+. Still, our leaders claim this is reason enough for supporting the US attack on Iran, even without definitive proof.
What Was Actually Hit?
According to US sources, the strikes targeted “nuclear-related sites”. But independent verification is scarce. And our Prime Minister won’t confirm whether Pine Gap or other Australian resources were involved. This silence raises concerns that supporting the US attack on Iran also involves more profound complicity behind the scenes.
The Consequences of Obedience
Civilian Risk and Global Fallout
Imagine being an Australian working in Tehran. One day, you’re sending postcards home. Next, you’re rushed to the Azerbaijani border under armed escort. Over 3,000 Australians were left scrambling.
“We’re evacuating staff,” Foreign Minister Wong said. “Airspace is closed.”
Damaged Diplomacy, Rising Insecurity
Supporting the US attack on Iran damages Australia’s credibility as an independent voice in global affairs. We’re seen less as an independent nation and more as a military proxy. This makes us, and our citizens, potential targets.
The Illusion of Peace Through Bombs
Our leaders claim they “support de-escalation.” Yet, they support an illegal airstrike that has only escalated tensions.
Peace isn’t achieved through provocation – it’s forged through diplomacy.
Double Standards in Nuclear Politics
The Real Nuclear Threats: Israel and the USA
While Iran is accused of developing nuclear weapons without proof, Israel, a state with confirmed nuclear warheads, faces no sanctions or inspections. Worse still, Israel continues to violate international law, commit human rights abuses, and face allegations of war crimes. Yet, it is never threatened with airstrikes.
The United States remains the only country in history to use nuclear weapons in war, dropping them on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Despite indications that Japan was already seeking surrender, the bombs were deployed, not just to end the war, but as a geopolitical message to the world.
Many historians now consider the attacks to have been militarily unnecessary and politically motivated.
“You don’t stop a nuclear war by attacking countries that don’t even have nuclear weapons. You stop it by holding those with them accountable.”
US Militarism: A Global Record of Havoc and Misery
From Vietnam to Iraq, Libya to Syria, and coups in Latin America and Africa, the United States has caused immense suffering worldwide. Their justification – “freedom” and “democracy” – rarely materialises for the people left behind.
Australia’s uncritical support not only aligns us with this destruction, but it also makes us complicit.
A Foreign Policy True to Australia’s Interests
Uphold International Law, Not Just Alliances
Australia must reaffirm its commitment to the UN Charter, which permits the use of military force only in self-defence or with the approval of the Security Council. Unilateral aggression is illegal.
Prioritise Evidence Over Allegiance
Before expressing support for military action, the Australian Government must demand verifiable intelligence. Without proof, there should be no participation – military or moral.
Transparency About Pine Gap and Involvement
Pine Gap plays a critical role in US surveillance and drone strikes. Citizens have a right to know whether their country is taking actions that violate international law.
Leverage Our Dollar Sovereignty
Australia issues its own currency, meaning we are not financially dependent on any foreign state. We can afford to fund independent diplomacy, peace building, and humanitarian aid rather than militarism.
“We are not broke. We are not beholden. Let’s act like it.”
The Price of Following, The Power of Leading
For decades, Australia has marched in step with the United States, often at the cost of our principles, safety, and independence.
This time, we are supporting the US attack on Iran, a strike on a country accused of a crime without evidence, risking war, instability, and the lives of Australians abroad.
Yet, we have the means, through monetary sovereignty, public accountability, and diplomacy, to reject supporting the US attack on Iran and shape a better, more independent path. We need the political will to make the choice.
Q&A Section
Q1: Was Iran about to build a nuclear weapon?
A: The IAEA has confirmed Iran has enriched uranium to 60%, which is not weapons-grade. There is no verified evidence of an active nuclear weapons program.
Q2: Could Australia have refused to support the strike?
A: Yes. Australia is a sovereign nation that can choose an independent foreign policy. We were not compelled to support a strike, especially without legal backing.
Q3: What role does Pine Gap play in US operations?
A: Pine Gap is a joint US-Australia intelligence base. While our leaders avoid specifics, it’s widely known that Pine Gap supports surveillance and targeting data for US military operations, including drone strikes.
Aukus will cost Australia $368bn. What if there was a better, cheaper defence strategy?
Jonathan Barrett and Patrick Commins, Guardian, 15 June 25
As questions swirl around the nuclear submarine deal, some strategists are pushing for an alternative, ‘echidna’ policy that focuses less on offensive capability
As Australia’s nuclear submarine-led defence strategy threatens to fray, strategists say it’s time to evaluate whether the military and economic case of the tripartite deal still stacks up.
The defence tie-up with the US and UK, called Aukus, is estimated to cost up to $368bn over 30 years, although the deal could become even more costly should Donald Trump renegotiate terms to meet his “America first” agenda.
The current deal, struck in 2021, includes the purchase of three American-made nuclear-powered submarines, the construction of five Australian-made ones, as well as sustaining the vessels and associated infrastructure.
Such a price tag naturally comes with an opportunity cost paid by other parts of the defence force and leaves less money to address societal priorities, such as investing in regional diplomacy and accelerating the renewable energy transition.
This choice is often described as one between “guns and butter”, referring to the trade-off between spending on defence and social programs.
Luke Gosling, Labor’s special envoy for defence and veterans’ affairs, last year described Aukus as “Australia’s very own moonshot” – neatly capturing both the risks and the potential benefits.
Opportunity cost
Sam Roggeveen, director of the Lowy Institute’s international security program, says there are cheaper ways to replicate submarine capabilities, which are ultimately designed to sink ships and destroy other submarines.
These include investing in airborne capabilities, more missiles, maritime patrol aircraft and naval mines, he says.
“If you imagine a world without Aukus, it does suddenly free up a massive portion of the defence budget,” says Roggeveen.
“That would relieve a lot of pressure, and would actually be a good thing for Australia.”
Roggeveen coined the term “echidna strategy” to argue for an alternative, and cheaper, defence policy for Australia that does not include nuclear-powered submarines.
Like the quill-covered mammal, the strategy is designed to build defensive capabilities that make an attack unpalatable for an adversary. The strategy is meant to radiate strength but not aggression.
“The uncertainty that Aukus introduces is that we are buying submarines that actually have the capabilities to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles on to an enemy land mass,” says Roggeveen.
“That is an offensive capability that’s ultimately destabilising. We should be focusing on defensive capabilities only.”
Those advocating for a more defensive approach, including Albert Palazzo from the University of New South Wales, point out that it is more costly to capture ground than it is to hold it…………………..
Social cost
…………………..Saul Eslake, an independent economist, says higher defence spending is coming at a time of substantially higher demands on the public purse across a range of areas, from aged care, to disability services and childcare………………………..
Political cost
While expert opinion divides over whether nuclear-powered submarines are the best strategic option for Australia’s long-term defence strategy, there’s a separate question over whether the submarines will be delivered……………………………….. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/15/aukus-will-cost-australia-368bn-what-if-there-was-a-better-cheaper-defence-strategy?fbclid=IwY2xjawLHNQpleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFyMEl3YVlwYXlzdE5HaUFzAR7t2VVyRqzmPs-WhsC_dhvz9susqUAqTdxsascsmPSKfkWBQ93MS4DJ24z_9Q_aem_lR5byRgSjQDcUUkIsx-k0w
Australia backs US strikes on Iran while urging return to diplomacy
Australia’s explicit expression of support for the strikes goes a step further than allies including the UK, Canada and New Zealand
By political reporter Tom Crowley ABC News 23 June 25
In short:
Australia has given its support to US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities but has repeated calls for de-escalation to avoid a wider war.
Penny Wong said Australia had not received a request for assistance and declined to speculate on how any request would be met.
What’s next?
A National Security Meeting was held in Canberra on Monday morning.
Australia has given its support to US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities but has repeated calls for de-escalation to avoid a wider war.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on Monday Australia was in favour of action to prevent Iran getting a nuclear weapon, echoing comments made earlier on Monday by Foreign Minister Penny Wong.
“The world has long agreed Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, and we support action to prevent that. That is what this is,” the PM told reporters.
The government initially adopted a more cautious tone, declining to give its explicit support.
Senator Wong said Australia had not received a request for assistance and emphasised the US action was “unilateral” when asked whether Pine Gap, a shared military facility, had been engaged.
While the PM and foreign minister declined to speculate on the response to any such request, Mr Albanese said Australia was “deeply concerned” about the prospect of escalation, placing the onus on Iran.
“We want to see diplomacy, dialogue and de-escalation … Iran had an opportunity to comply, they chose not to and there have been consequences of that,” he said.
Earlier, Senator Wong cited a UN watchdog finding that Iran had acquired enriched uranium at “almost military level”.
“The key question for the international community is what happens next … It’s obviously a very precarious, risky and dangerous moment the world faces,” she said.
The National Security Committee, comprised of key ministers, met in Canberra this morning.
Australia’s explicit expression of support for the strikes goes a step further than allies including the UK, Canada and New Zealand, although all three countries have emphasised the risk of Iran gaining nuclear weapons.
Opposition supports strike, Greens opposed
The Coalition supported the strikes on Sunday and also says it does not want further war, but has put the onus on Iran to negotiate peace.
“We want to see Iran come to the negotiating table to verify where that 400 kilos of enriched uranium is,” Andrew Hastie told ABC Radio National……………………………………..
Dave Sharma, a Liberal senator and former Australian ambassador to Israel, said the government’s response was “underwhelming and perplexing” on Sunday and that support for the strikes “should be a straightforward position for Australia to adopt”.
The Greens are against the strike, with defence spokesperson David Shoebridge calling Donald Trump a “warmonger” and demanding Australia clarify it will not get involved.
“You cannot bomb your way to peace … and the people who are always going to pay the price are the ordinary people on the street,” he said.
……………………………………………….. Five Eyes partners respond
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer spoke to Mr Trump via phone, emphasising the “grave risk” of Iran’s nuclear program and placing the onus on Iran “returning to the negotiating table as soon as possible”, according to a readout of the call.
A joint statement from the UK, France, Germany and Italy urged Iran not to “take any further action that could destabilise the region” but did not include an explicit position on the strike.
The New Zealand government has “acknowledged” the strike, and called for diplomacy, Foreign Minister Winston Peters saying “ongoing military action in the Middle East is extremely worrying”.
Canadian PM Mark Carney said Iran should not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon and that the US strike “was designed to alleviate that threat”, but stopped short of explicitly endorsing it and called for “all parties” to return to the negotiating table. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-23/australia-backs-us-strikes/105448088
AUKUS collapse offers Australia the chance to navigate an innovative future.
(Cartoon by Mark David / @MDavidCartoons)
By Alan Austin | 23 June 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/aukus-collapse-offers-australia-the-chance-to-navigate-an-innovative-future,19859
Donald Trump’s likely abandonment of the AUKUS contract offers the Albanese Government a welcome reprieve from a costly folly, as Alan Austin reports.
THE USA LOOKS LIKE it is abandoning the controversial AUKUS contract signed by the miserably inept Morrison Government in its dying days.
The corrupt and incompetent U.S. President Donald Trump wants out. He has proven to the world that the only projects he strongly supports are those that enrich himself and his companies directly. Australia, with other Westminster nations, refuses to pay direct bribes to individual national leaders — as it should.
Now showing advanced cognitive decline and a failing grip on reality, Trump has effectively signalled the contract’s demise by calling for a formal review by Defence Under Secretary Elbridge Colby. Colby has long been a vocal AUKUS critic and will probably recommend cancellation.
Sound reasons to abandon AUKUS
The first pillar of the deal between Australia, the UK and the USA is for the Americans to supply Australia with nuclear-powered attack submarines for its defence, starting with three Virginia-class submarines in the early 2030s.
The second pillar is collaboration between the three nations on new military technology. These include undersea capabilities, artificial intelligence, electronic warfare and advanced cyber, hypersonic and counter-hypersonic capabilities.
Colby’s argument against the AUKUS deal is simply that the USA doesn’t have enough submarines for their own needs and can’t build them fast enough to have any to spare in the foreseeable future. That is true. The current U.S. Administration is the least competent in its history.
Other AUKUS critics have more compelling reasons for its abandonment. The most cogent of these, articulated by former prime ministers Paul Keating and Malcolm Turnbull and others, is that nuclear subs supplied by the USA will necessarily be operated by American personnel and automatically commandeered by the U.S. military in the event of hostilities between the USA and China, over Taiwan or any other conflict.
It would be disastrous for Australia’s relationship with China and other nations, Keating argues, to be dragged into such a war.
Resources lost forever
If AUKUS collapses, Australia has little chance of getting back the billions already invested.
Among the countless failures of the monumentally inept Morrison Coalition Government was leaving out of the contract any penalties for defaults.
In any event, the lifelong criminal grifter currently running the White House has never felt obliged to fulfil contracts, however legally or morally binding.
The losses to Australia as a result of the incompetence of the Coalition from 2014 to 2022 now amount to hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars, including the billions paid out for AUKUS so far.
These simply have to be accepted as penalties citizens must bear for the abject stupidity of those who elected such a hopeless rabble to try to run the country.
Visionary naval future
If AUKUS fails and Australians write off the losses, they can then grasp this as an opportunity to pursue advantageous alternatives.
The future of underwater naval warfare increasingly appears to be in unmanned underwater vessels (UUVs). Australia is well-placed to build these for its own purposes and then sell them to regional neighbours and beyond.
This may seem a quantum leap for shipbuilding in Australia, but it can be accomplished.
Australia proved to the world it could build the Collins-class submarines during the Hawke/Keating period and has successfully procured other military ordnance since then.
In its first term, the Albanese Government began its investment in small UUVs. Australian marine vessel manufacturer Anduril Australia, a subsidiary of the American Anduril Industries, is already building a modest UUV which it calls Ghost Shark.
Although technical information is restricted, military monitor The War Zone has revealed details of the partnership involving Anduril, the Royal Australian Navy (R.A.N.) and the Defence Science and Technology Group.
A Ghost Shark prototype, according to The War Zone, has a 3D-printed exterior, weighs 2.8 tons, is 5.6 metres long and can operate at a depth of 6,000 metres for ten days. Advanced AI technology enables autonomous operations.
The R.A.N. hopes to get three UUVs suitable for both military and non-military missions between 2025 and 2028.
Challenges for the future, beyond Ghost Shark, are for vessels capable of higher speeds, deeper dives, longer missions, greater stealth and more advanced assignments, including accurate delivery of lethal weapons.
If Australia’s current submarines can be replaced with technologically advanced UUVs, costs will be much lower and risks to personnel dramatically reduced. This may allow Australia to cut military spending overall.
Potential partnerships
Australia does not have the resources to build UUVs alone. Just as the Collins-class submarines were built collaboratively with Swedish shipbuilder Kockums, new ventures will require partners.
Possibilities, besides American firms like Anduril, are many. Current UUVs in service include Germany’s Greyshark, France’s XLUUV and vessels from Japan and South Korea.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s discussion topics with his Canadian counterpart, Prime Minister Mark Carney, at last week’s G7 meeting included Canada joining AUKUS. That’s another possible partner.
Grounds for optimism
Australia has shipyards in South Australia and the solid experience of designing, building and maintaining the Collins-class submarines from the 1980s to the present.
Australia enjoys the goodwill of all neighbouring nations, has no current engagement in any conflict and sees no threats on the horizon.
Australians have banished the destructive Coalition parties from any chance of forming government for the foreseeable future.
So, to borrow a line from Michael J Fox in The American President, let’s take this 94-seat majority out for a spin and see what it can do.
Out of pocket and stranded: What happens if Trump pulls out of AUKUS | Four Corners Documentary
1 This month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
– go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
Antinuclear 