Call on Labor Government to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
Philip White Adelaide FoE Notes June 7, 2026, https://adelaidefoe.org/call-on-labor-government-to-sign-and-ratify-the-treaty-on-the-tpnw/
In March, Friends of the Earth Adelaide sent a letter to Prime Minister Albanese calling for the government to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
At the end of May we followed up with a letter to several other (mostly South Australian) Labor politicians. We are hoping to bring pressure on the government in the lead up to the ALP National Conference. The Conference will be held from 23rd to 25th July 2026.
We wrote to Defence Minister Richard Marles, Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy, Foreign Minister Senator Penny Wong, Environment Minister Murray Watt, Senator Karen Grogan, Senator Don Farrell, Health Minister Mark Butler, Steve Georganas MP, Tony Zappia MP, Claire Clutterham MP, Senator Charlotte Walker and Senator Marielle Smith.
It has long been ALP policy to sign and ratify the TPNW, but, even though it has been in power since 2022, it is yet to do so.
We encourage our supporters to write before the ALP National Conference to politicians (and any other delegates that you know) requesting them to support the TPNW.
List of Senators – https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Senators/Senators_photos?party=287
List of Members of the House of Representatives – https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Members/Members_Photos?party=287
Refer also to the website of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)- https://icanw.org.au/
Philip White, Convenor
Submission to Select Committee on Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification)(Amendment of Indenture) Amendment Bill 2026
May 31, 2026, https://adelaidefoe.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Roxby-Downs-Indenture-Act-2026-copy.pdf
Summary: This brief submission covers Community concern over the Bill’s rushed inadequate
process, extended legal privileges to BHP interests, toxic mining waste, and continued threats to
Mound Springs & Great Artesian Basin waters.
Dear Sir/Madam
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Bill.
There is considerable community concern about the Roxby Downs (Indenture Ratification)
(Amendment of Indenture) Amendment Bill 2026’s rushed and inadequate process, the extension
of legal privileges to the mine owner BHP Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd’s interests, the
increase of mining leading to more toxic & radioactive waste, and the continued threats to the
Mound Springs and Great Artesian Basin waters.
This submission is very brief, because the time allowed for review and submission was ridiculously
short from 22 May to 1 June 2026 on such matters that are intended to last 50 years. It almost
appears like the committee are anti-democratic and don’t really want to hear from the residents of
South Australia on this topic. We also find it unbelievable that the Committee will report on 2 June
which is the day straight after submissions are due. How can the committee possibly read and
digest the contents of submissions in that short time?
Our particular concerns include:
1, The shortness of the timeframe for submissions and reporting of the committee should be
rectified by the Select Committee recommending a Public Inquiry with wide public interest Terms
of Reference and facilitate public hearings into the Bill, and the House of Assembly should require
this Inquiry. Such a Public Inquiry could be commenced in June and run for three months to
September 2026.
2 The Bill should be amended to comply with Article 29 section of the United Nations Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation and protection of the environment
and the productive capacity of their lands or territories and resources. States shall establish
and implement assistance programmes for indigenous peoples for such conservation and
protection, without discrimination.
States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous
materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free,
prior and informed consent.
According to the United Nations Declaration, mining and hazardous waste resulting from mining
(including radioactive waste) should not be imposed upon Aboriginal Traditional Owner’s land
without the free, prior and informed consent of all members of the affected community, rather
than a select token few community members.
- Regarding the water supply to the mine, the Bill should be amended to require the immediate
closing of Wellfield A and the closing as soon as possible of Wellfield B. Any expansion of the
Olympic Dam mine should be conditional on successful implementation of the Northern Waters
Project, which should be funded 100% by the mine owner BHP Olympic Dam Corporation Pty Ltd
and not the taxpayers of SA. Any further use of bore water from the Great Artesian Basin and the
River Murray should not be permitted in order to protect the Mound Springs and Great Artesian
Basin, and water taken from these sources should cease well before the planned date of 8 May
2036.
Yours sincerely
Robyn Wood
Friends of the Earth Adelaide
Greens warn nuclear submarines deal risks war with China as Albanese says Aukus ‘full-steam ahead’
David Shoebridge says Australia could become embroiled in a US war with China if purchase of Virginia-class attack submarines proceeds
Dan Jervis-Bardy, 7 June 26, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jun/07/greens-warn-nuclear-submarines-deal-risks-war-with-china-as-albanese-says-aukus-full-steam-ahead
Anthony Albanese has reiterated that Aukus is “full-steam ahead” after the Greens renewed calls to cancel the nuclear-powered submarines deal, which the minor party warned could draw Australia into a potential US war with China.
Debate over the security pact has resurfaced after the announcement that Australia would buy secondhand Virginia-class submarines from the US, rather than a mix of old and new vessels.
The Greens have seized on the development to re-prosecute the case for the government to abandon the multi-decade, $368bn agreement.
Appearing on ABC’s Insiders program on Sunday, the Greens’ defence spokesperson, David Shoebridge, said the focus of Australia’s military assets should be on defending the nation’s borders.
He suggested that could be done with conventional submarines and other weapons, rejecting the need for capabilities designed to operate “thousands of thousands of kilometres from our shore” – such as the nuclear-powered vessels.
Shoebridge said buying the Virginia-class submarines would make Australia an “interoperable” part of the US military, drawing the country into a potential conflict with China.
“Nuclear submarines are pretty much a disaster on every front,” he said.
“Why are we inviting ourselves to a US war with China by buying this weapons platforms and making our defence an interoperable part of the US?”
Shoebridge said the greatest strategic threat facing the country was not China’s military buildup or disruptions to key shipping lanes.
Rather, it was the risk of Canberra losing its sovereignty to Washington, as he said occurred with the revised deal to send three secondhand submarines to Australia.
The government this week insisted it was always its preference to buy so-called “in-service” Virginia-class submarines from the US, saving money on acquisition, maintenance and training costs.
Shoebridge said there was a still a window of opportunity for Australia to dump Aukus and buy conventionally armed submarines from countries such as Japan, South Korea or Sweden without leaving a capability cap after the retirement of the Collins-class vessels.
He claimed the US was the world’s least-reliable supplier of submarines given the slow rate of production from its shipyards.
Shoebridge’s suggestion that Australia could acquire a different class of submarine appears to jar with the Greens’ own defence policy, which proposes to axe “unstrategic projects” including the Collins-class program.
Albanese brushed off Shoebridge’s criticisms when asked about them later on Sunday, declaring Aukus was “full-steam ahead”.
“We won’t be taking advice on defence from the Greens political party with respect,” the prime minister said at a press conference in Caloundra on the Queensland Sunshine Coast.
“What we’ll be doing is providing Australia with the defence assets that we need. Our alliance with the US is an important one but we promote peace and security in our region and the relationship with China is a very constructive one.”
The Aukus agreement – which also includes the UK – is expected to be on the agenda when the defence minister, Richard Marles, and the foreign affairs minister, Penny Wong, hold talks with their British counterparts next week.
Marles and Wong are scheduled to meet with the UK defence secretary, John Healey, and the UK foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper on Wednesday as part of a round of talks in Britain and Europe.
The Australian ministers will also sit down with their German counterparts for the first meeting of its kind since 2021.
Wong will also meet the French foreign affairs minister in Paris and Marles will hold talks with his Finnish counterpart during the trip.
“While geographically distant, Australia and Europe’s interests are increasingly interconnected which is why we must focus our partnerships on reinforcing collective deterrence,” Marles said.
“In complex and uncertain times, the United Kingdom remains a critical partner for Australia and we continue to strengthen and modernise our partnership including through the Aukus partnership.”
Freedom Of Information to die? Albanese’s nuclear strike on transparency
Instead of handing the documents over the Government has challenged the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Court.
Who needs greater secrecy laws when you’ve got deep pockets funded by the very taxpayers’ they deny information to.
by Rex Patrick | Jun 7, 2026
So adamant is the Albanese Government to keep AUKUS nuclear waste plans secret, they initiated a Federal Court appeal to overturn an Administrative Review Tribunal transparency win. Rex Patrick reports.
Are we seeing another nail in the coffin of Freedom of Information and what is left of government transparency?
When ART Deputy President Britten-Jones handed down his decision in favour of disclosure he was adamant “there is a significant public interest in understanding policy decisions by Government in respect of nuclear waste management”.
He was quite convinced that the “best way to achieve [nuclear waste] social licence and trust is through transparency and not secrecy”.
But his very strong position was not enough to overcome Prime Minister Albanese’s secrecy obsession. In a very rare move, the Federal Government has appealed the Tribunal’s transparency decision to the Federal Court.
Political Sensitivity
It’s clear that the documents the Government was ordered to make public are politically sensitive. They may well be politically radioactive, but this is not an allowable reason under the Freedom of Information Act to refuse to release documents.
Britten-Jones stated in his decision:
I do not consider that there would be significant harm from disclosing geological information about a particular site even if it could be inferred that the site is either ruled in or ruled out from further consideration as a location for storage or disposal of nuclear waste.
At least one potential site for AUKUS waste is named in the documents.
In response to the Government’s pleadings for narrative control, Britton-Jones stated:
I can understand the [Government’s] preference for an orderly release of information but if the material was released, the Government would be able to provide its own context and the public would benefit from better understanding the process being undertaken.
He went on to declare:
Whilst there may be some inconvenient responses to the release of the information requiring Government action, the release would lead to and inform debate on a matter of public importance and it would increase scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government’s activities. These are factors in the public interest that favour giving access to the material in issue to the Applicant. In my view, these factors outweigh any of the concerns expressed by the witnesses for the Respondent.
The documents requested also include documents that Britten-Jones stated “might well be contentious and give rise to sensitivities’.
That’s all too much for government.
Instead of handing the documents over the Government has challenged the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Court.
The end of FOI?
The notice of appeal includes a request to the court that if the Government are successful,
“then I will have to pay their legal costs.”
I won the transparency battle in the Tribunal, and the Government now wants me to personally pay up to $150,000 if they win their appeal. With their very deep pockets (your money) they will likely engage a King’s Counsel to take on a bush lawyer.
In lodging the appeal and seeking costs against me the Government has ignored its own model litigant rules, which state that it can’t “take advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim”. The rules also state that “In certain circumstances, it will be appropriate for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth entity to pay costs (for example, for a test case in the public interest).”
Greens spokesperson for Justice, Senator David Shoebridge, was unimpressed on hearing of the proposed cost order:
“The Labor government has repeatedly made it clear that they are willing to use millions of public dollars to silence whistleblowers and hide the truth from the public.
“But even from them, this is fresh territory.”
“Threatening someone with a potentially crippling legal bill simply because they put a successful FOI through the system is bullying, plain and simple.”
In September last year the Albanese Labor Government tabled an FOI Amendment Bill in the Parliament with provisions that sought to dramatically expand Government secrecy. After a significant campaign by civil society groups, the Bill was booted from the Parliament by all non-government senators.
“Albanese’s secrecy grab failed.”
The appeal in this matter revives Albanese’s secrecy plans. It matters little what the law is, if a citizen fights and gets a good transparency decision from the Information Commissioner or the Administrative Review Tribunal the Government can just appeal it to the Federal Court and threaten legal costs. The regular citizen will have to walk away. They can’t risk a loss.
Bingo for the Government! Who needs greater secrecy laws when you’ve got deep pockets funded by the very taxpayers’ they deny information to.
Senator Shoebridge stated further,
“This is another ugly precedent in secrecy from the Albanese government, and this time it’s delivered with a side serve of intimidation. It’s really shameful stuff.”
The approach taken is a nuclear strike on transparency of government and could well mean an end to FOI fights. It’s the absolute antithesis of the new era of transparency Albanese promised before his was elected. Indeed, it’s a very different story now that he’s got his hands on the government’s legal armoury.
Investigating the Foolish: The AUKUS Public Inquiry is Announced
The inquiry proposes to answer a number of salient if self-evident questions. Will Australia, for instance, ever receive the sought and undeservedly celebrated submarines? Where and how will the toxic medium to high-level nuclear waste be stored? How many actual jobs will be created in Australia, and at what opportunity cost?
7 June 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/investigating-the-foolish-the-aukus-public-inquiry-is-announced/
Of the three countries involved in AUKUS, that most draining, useless and even pernicious of security pacts, Australia has been the only country indifferent, even scoffing, about the need for an inquiry into its merits. Unsurprisingly, both the US and UK inquiries have found much to merit the project – Australian taxpayer money has sluiced and soothed the submarine industrial base of both countries – but have also expressed concern about their respective production rates of nuclear-powered submarines.
While the first pillar of the agreement promises, with mighty emptiness, that the Royal Australia Navy will receive three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs), with the possible opportunity to acquire a further two, the prospect of their timely arrival looks increasingly doubtful. The recent developments at the Shangri-La Dialogue held in Singapore that these will be hand-me-downs from the US Navy already suggests the lack of regard Australian personnel and their slavish representatives are held in. Add to this a joint as yet undesigned UK-Australian SSN design that will use US technology, the chances that a fleet of these expensive hulks finding their way into the hands of Australian sailors looks damnably remote.
With the Canberra mandarins and political governors insisting that no official inquiry be conducted into AUKUS, it has fallen to those keen on a public inquiry to take up the mantle. The crowd-founded AUKUS Public Inquiry, coordinated by the Australian Peace and Security Forum (APSF), will be led by a number of commissioners, spearheaded by former federal environment minister and frontman for Midnight Oil Peter Garrett. Former MPs, retired military and naval officers (these include former chief of the Australian Defence Force Chris Barrie), strategists and academics, human rights lawyers and union leaders promise to feature in this inquiry into the unpardonably foolish.
In remarks made on launching the inquiry, Garret declared that AUKUS “was the most significant, and by far the most costly decision made in secret by an Australian government, tying us to two other sovereign governments, and taking out an extraordinary amount of taxpayers’ money on a proposition which has got a lot of distinct and very difficult complexities and potential problems lying up ahead.”
The inquiry proposes to answer a number of salient if self-evident questions. Will Australia, for instance, ever receive the sought and undeservedly celebrated submarines? Where and how will the toxic medium to high-level nuclear waste be stored? (Australia lacks a single facility suitable for that task.) How many actual jobs will be created in Australia, and at what opportunity cost? (The conservative estimate of AU$368 billion is a ruinous one when considering what other parts of the federal budget will suffer as a result.) Why does Australia find itself in a situation where it will potentially join a war with the United States against China, its largest trading partner? The two last questions go to the central soundness (or lack of it) regarding AUKUS: whether sovereignty will be jeopardised (a moot point: it already has been), and whether the pact will turn the country into a nuclear target.
Other subsidiary matters will also fall within the purview of the inquiry. Transferring nuclear technology in this manner not only sets a precedent of destabilising value but raises concerns about nuclear non-proliferation treaty commitments and the environmental costs arising from developing nuclear storage facilities. Governments in Australia have repeatedly failed to consult and engage local communities about such projects, which have usually stymied in failed negotiations and costly litigation. How the martial dictates of AUKUS risks corrupting the tertiary sector in terms of research and university institutions is also a worry, given the tentacular nature of the military-industrial-university complex seen in such countries as the United States. Money hungry university vice chancellors and their morally flabby inner circles can always be trusted to make their institutions and countries less secure if the price is right. Then comes that most relevant of considerations: “Were credible and less costly alternatives to AUKUS properly assessed before the decision was made in secret?”
Civil society groups have welcomed this long-awaited effort. “The AUKUS agreement was conceived in secret and continues to be shrouded in secrecy,” observed Rtd Army Major Cameron Leckie, spokesperson for the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN). “Australians deserve the truth about what they are paying for, what they are getting, and what risks this agreement carries for our sovereignty and security.”
In parliament, independent MP Allegra Spender raised a “Matter of Public Importance” demanding that the government “be transparent about the risks to the delivery of AUKUS and how Australia’s national and security interests will be protected especially in light of recent changes to contract terms.” There were also “emerging gaps in capability” arising from the Collins-class Life-of-Type Extension program, intended to supposedly drag out the deployment of boats beyond their retirement. Other parliamentarians, all independents, including Sophie Scamps, Dai Le, Zali Steggall, Nicolette Boele, Kate Chaney and Monique Ryan, also expressed similar reservations about AUKUS. Pithily, Ryan, who represents the Melbourne federal seat of Kooyong, called the crowdfunded independent inquiry into AUKUS “a national embarrassment” for the government: “it’s only a matter of time before we find ourselves crowdfunding for the submarines themselves.”
Even more heartily, there are rumblings of disquiet within the Australian Labor government about the pact. Former cabinet minister Ed Husic, whose career as a frontbencher was scrapped, if only temporarily, by the factional fanaticism of his own party, is demanding a fresh caucus vote on the agreement. “We are not going to get the deal that was promised,” Husic told Sky News. He suspected a straitjacketed deal were the submarines ever to arrive. “You know, you can almost imagine [the Americans] saying, ‘We give you these, you will do this with them’. And so there’s an active sovereignty question there.”
While his efforts to raise the issue on June 2 were dismissed by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy with the usual nonsense that AUKUS was more than just a submarine agreement, the number of dissenters are growing. May their numbers burgeon sooner rather than later.
The Virginia-class submarine deal exposes the real purpose of AUKUS
June 4, 2026, Mike Gilligan, https://pearlsandirritations.com/post/2026/06/australias-submarine-betrayal/
Dr Mike Gilligan worked for 20 years in defence policy and evaluating military proposals for development, including time in the Pentagon on military balances in Asia.
The shift to second-hand Virginia-class submarines exposes the deeper flaw in AUKUS: Australia is committing vast public funds to a capability designed around US strategic priorities rather than Australia’s own defence needs.
Yet another twist in Australia’s submarine fiasco has been disclosed by Defence Minister Marles. The United States has decreed it will sell us only used nuclear submarines of the Virginia class. Marles reportedly said that could mean financial savings short term, but not long run. As if he has ever revealed an instinct for efficiency in defence. No doubt Australians will experience another wave of waffle from the media, all of which misses th
Despite its crippling cost Marles has never explained what the Virginia class submarine is meant to do. Why has such an obvious ministerial obligation been evaded? Because it would reveal a sell-out of Australia’s security. And a massive direct underwriting of US defence budgets by Australian taxpayers – of say half a trillion of our dollars.
The Virginia class submarine is not a general-purpose vessel such as our Collins class. It is designed for supreme acoustic invisibility for a specific purpose – to find, track and attack submarines seen as a nuclear threat to the US mainland. That is the job which the US expects Australia’s submarines to do – effectively embedded into US military command – against China’s growing capacity to annihilate continental US from under the sea, anytime.e issue. What matters most about the AUKUS submarines has been concealed by this Minister throughout his tenure.
Why this role is of utmost priority for the US requires some explanation. Nuclear armed submarines, such as China possesses, present a uniquely difficult threat to the US homeland. Unlike the readily discernible launch locations of hostile land-based missiles, or from aircraft or sea-surface vessels, the submarine’s habitat and mobility make it largely invisible and impregnable across the vast ocean approaches to the US.
The US attempts to deal with this risk using specialised attack submarines (ie the Virginia), which can locate, track and destroy China’s nuclear submarines as they move into and around Pacific waters. This is one critical part of a mosaic of US self-protection measures, the effectiveness of which is eroding as China’s submarine production expands.
So, the hefty sacrifice which Australia’s taxpayers make to acquire new submarines is not for Australia’s benefit, but for defending continental US. Australia’s submarine needs are quite specialised and different, but simply ignored by Minister Marles. Australia is heavily gifting US defence spending while ignoring its own vulnerabilities, just as the President added another $500 billion to a trillion dollar defence budget. Now that the full horror of Marles’ tenure is established a Prime Minister would act.
Can one optimal pathway have two lanes? When it comes to AUKUS submarines, apparently yes
“Was the optimal pathway of last week actually not “optimal”? And if so, why was it called the “optimal pathway”?
Was the optimal pathway of last week actually not “optimal”? And if so, why was it called the “optimal pathway”?
By acting defence and national security correspondent Tom Lowrey, ABC News, Wed 3 Jun, 26
For an arm of the government tasked with a fairly straightforward mission — that is, fighting — Defence is famous for wrapping itself in impenetrable language.
Ships and planes are “platforms”, weapons are “capabilities”, soldiers are “personnel” and Australia’s road to running a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines is a “constrained optimal pathway”.
That optimal pathway has come in for plenty of scrutiny in the past few days.
The plan, as of last week, was for Australia to buy two “in-service”, that is, second-hand, submarines in 2032 and 2035, and a third brand-new submarine in 2038.
As of this week the plan is for Australia to buy three used submarines which the government is now arguing has been its preferred option all along.
Defence officials fronting up to estimates hearings this week have been copping questions on the surprise shift.
Was the optimal pathway of last week actually not “optimal”? And if so, why was it called the “optimal pathway”?
“You can absolutely have two constrained optimal pathways,” new Defence Secretary Meghan Quinn told Greens Senator David Shoebridge.
The exchange led Senator Shoebridge to accuse AUKUS of “not only damaging the public purse, but destroying the English language”.
Any economist will tell you constrained optimisation is taught in first year uni. It’s basically finding the best option with the cards you’ve been dealt.
But the exchange highlights the trouble the government is having explaining the changes it’s made and the risk to public confidence in Australia’s biggest ever defence project.
Substituting subs
Back when the “optimal pathway” was first announced in 2023, questions about the complexity of the plans were already being asked……………………….
The new Virginia class submarine would have arrived in 2038, and while details of exactly what it would have looked like aren’t known, it would likely have had some significant differences to its 2020s counterparts.
And the first Australian-made AUKUS submarine would have hit the water in Australia by 2042.
Marles has since argued Australia always held concerns about that plan and our preference from the outset was to acquire three in-service Virginia class subs to try and simplify things……………………..
Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy addressed the shift on Radio National Breakfast.
“Submarine availability [and] maintenance has improved in the US system, which means that the US Navy feels comfortable releasing a third in-service submarine,” he said.
“That means it’ll be cheaper and simpler for us to run.”
…………………….. For some Australians it might look like the government is arguing a ten-year-old Toyota Corolla (with a responsible owner, of course) is actually a better option than a brand new model straight off the lot.
….It’s getting more real. It’s costing much more money, up to $96 billion between now and 2036, shipyards are being built, and sailors are being trained.
AUKUS is also going to attract much more scrutiny.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-03/two-optimal-pathways-aukus-submarines/106755658
‘Capability that matters’: submarine switch played down
June 3, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/capability-that-matters-submarine-switch-played-down/
Australia receiving only used nuclear submarines from the US will not change the government’s commitment to the AUKUS pact, the foreign minister says.
The $368 billion plan originally had Australia receiving three nuclear submarines from the US – two used and one new Virginia-Class vessels – before building its own in Adelaide.
But after changes to the deal, Australia will now get three used submarines from the US.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong said it did not matter whether the submarines were used or new.
“Whether it’s two (used) and one (new) or three, it’s the capability that matters,” she told ABC Radio on Wednesday.
“We want three submarines to deal with, from the United States, to deal with a capability gap before the AUKUS submarines are to be delivered … that is the plan.”
Defence officials revealed at a federal budget inquiry Australia preferred to receive second-hand vessels from the US.
Defence secretary Meghan Quinn told the inquiry on Tuesday night a reworking of the AUKUS deal was a joint idea between Australia and the US.
“Australia’s position is that we would have always … had a preference for three in-service (submarines),” she said.
“There are many reasons why three in-service (submarines) would be simpler, lower-cost through the training of staff, the sustainment arrangements, the maintenance requirements, and all of those considerations.”
Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy said the change in the AUKUS deal did not mean a fundamental altering of the security pact.
“It will be cheaper, simpler to manage, and it’s been confirmed by the Pentagon overnight,” he told ABC Radio.
“We’ll get submarines … about six years into their 33-year life cycle. They’ll be cheaper, they’ll be really effective at that stage, and we’ll be acquiring the most capable nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines in the world.”
Mr Conroy said Australia would save a “considerable” amount by not acquiring a new submarine, but did not disclose the cost.
He denied the used submarines would be more costly to maintain in the long term.
Ed Husic is casting doubt on the prospect of the submarines ever being delivered to Australia.
The comments come after Labor backbencher and former minister Ed Husic called for the government to rethink the multibillion-dollar plan.
Mr Husic said on Tuesday the deal also had to be rethought due to America becoming a more unreliable ally.
“You do wonder whether or not we will get the deal, even the reconfigured one that we have got,” the western Sydney MP told reporters at Parliament House.
Senator Wong said the backbencher was entitled to his view on AUKUS.
“It is in the best interests of our country for this project to continue to proceed. We believe it is necessary for Australian security and we believe chopping and changing will only set the country back,” she told ABC TV.
Hegseth Orders Pacific Allies To Arm For China War
This turns reality upside down. China is not surrounding the United States. The United States is surrounding China.
Australia is also building a submarine construction yard at Osborne in South Australia. Assembly of the first domestically built submarine is expected to begin in the early 2030s, with delivery projected in the early 2040s. The program binds Australia’s military future to U.S. war planning for decades.
June 5, 2026, Gary Wilson, Struggle – La Lucha. https://scheerpost.com/2026/06/05/hegseth-orders-pacific-allies-to-arm-for-china-war/
U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth went to Singapore on May 30 with an order for Washington’s allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific: spend more on war or face consequences.
Hegseth used China as the pretext to demand that U.S.-aligned governments spend more on war, buy more weapons and bind their militaries more tightly to Washington.
At the annual Shangri-La Dialogue, Hegseth told defense ministers, military chiefs and diplomats that U.S. military power had carried the region for too long. “The era of the United States subsidizing the defense of wealthy nations is over,” he said. “We need partners, not protectorates.”
That is the language of empire collecting rent.
Washington arms the region. It bases troops across it. It commands the alliance structure. Then it demands that every subordinate government reshape its budget to fit U.S. war plans.
Hegseth said the U.S. expects its allies and partners to raise military spending to 3.5% of gross domestic product — the same demand the Trump administration has pressed on NATO. Governments that comply will move to “the front of the line” for arms sales, intelligence sharing and military-industrial cooperation, he said. Those that refuse will face “a clear shift in how we do business.”
This is not “burden sharing.” It is a demand that governments turn more workers’ wages into missiles, submarines, drones, warships and bases. Every percentage point added to military spending means less for housing, health care, schools, pensions and disaster relief.
Hegseth claimed there was “rightful alarm” over China’s military buildup and warned against “a Pacific dominated by any hegemon.”
Hegseth said the U.S. expects its allies and partners to raise military spending to 3.5% of gross domestic product — the same demand the Trump administration has pressed on NATO. Governments that comply will move to “the front of the line” for arms sales, intelligence sharing and military-industrial cooperation, he said. Those that refuse will face “a clear shift in how we do business.”
This is not “burden sharing.” It is a demand that governments turn more workers’ wages into missiles, submarines, drones, warships and bases. Every percentage point added to military spending means less for housing, health care, schools, pensions and disaster relief.
Hegseth claimed there was “rightful alarm” over China’s military buildup and warned against “a Pacific dominated by any hegemon.”
This turns reality upside down. China is not surrounding the United States. The United States is surrounding China.
China again declined to send its defense minister to the Shangri-La Dialogue. Beijing was represented instead by a delegation led by PLA Major General Meng Xiangqing, who pointed to the concrete threats Washington and its allies are advancing in the region: Japan’s military expansion and AUKUS, the U.S.-British-Australian submarine pact.
Meng tied Japan’s buildup to history. He noted that 2026 marks the 80th anniversary of the opening of the Tokyo Trials, which condemned Japanese militarism after World War II. He questioned whether a country that has not fully reckoned with that legacy has any standing to lecture Asia about defense cooperation.
That was the point Washington wants covered up. U.S. imperialism now needs Japan — the former colonial and military oppressor of much of Asia — as a forward base for confrontation with China.
Japan’s cabinet has approved a record defense budget exceeding 9 trillion yen, roughly $58 billion, for fiscal 2026. The budget funds long-range strike missiles, drone systems and next-generation fighter development. The buildup marks a major break from Japan’s postwar “exclusive self-defense” doctrine, long understood as limiting Japan’s military to defensive operations.
Washington is not worried about the return of Japanese militarism. It is encouraging it, so long as that militarism is tied to U.S. strategy against China.
The military map Hegseth pointed to is the First Island Chain — the arc running from Japan past Taiwan to the Philippines along China’s eastern coastline. Washington calls this “deterrence by denial.” In plain language, it means using bases, fleets, missiles, war exercises and allied governments to hem China in, with Taiwan turned into a forward position in U.S. war plans.
On the sidelines, Hegseth met Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro and pledged stronger military cooperation along the First Island Chain. The two governments pointed to the latest Balikatan war exercise, which brought troops from Australia, Japan, Canada, France and New Zealand onto Philippine soil.
Hegseth praised South Korea for pledging to spend 3.5% of GDP on its military. He praised the Philippines for a 12% increase. He commended Japan for accelerating its “defense transformation.” He cited Australia for deeper integration with U.S. forces.
In every case, the praise was for governments moving their budgets, industries and armed forces closer to U.S. war planning.
Meng also targeted AUKUS, the military pact among the U.S., Britain and Australia formed in 2021. Its central project is equipping Australia with nuclear-powered attack submarines.
On the sidelines of the forum, the three AUKUS partners revised the submarine plan. Australia had been expected to buy at least two used Virginia-class submarines and one new one. Under the revised plan, it will buy three secondhand Virginia-class submarines from the U.S. instead.
Australia showed the pressure beneath Hegseth’s praise. Canberra has already announced that military spending will rise to 3% of GDP by 2033, with about $10 billion more over four years and $38 billion over the decade. But that still falls short of Hegseth’s 3.5% demand.
This is how the Pacific war buildup works in practice: Australian workers pay, U.S. shipyards and weapons firms collect, and the Pentagon tightens its grip on the region.
Australia is also building a submarine construction yard at Osborne in South Australia. Assembly of the first domestically built submarine is expected to begin in the early 2030s, with delivery projected in the early 2040s. The program binds Australia’s military future to U.S. war planning for decades.
China has condemned AUKUS as stoking bloc-to-bloc confrontation in the Pacific. Meng’s remarks made clear that Beijing sees it as part of the same encirclement strategy behind the First Island Chain buildup.
Washington’s direction is clear.
The Shangri-La Dialogue is not a peace conference. It is an annual assembly of military planners and arms buyers. Hegseth’s speech was its keynote sales pitch.
A brief history of Australia eating shit on AUKUS.
Australia remains undeterred in ‘welcoming’ AUKUS setbacks left, right and centre.
Charlie Lewis, Jun 3, 2026,
https://www.crikey.com.au/2026/06/03/aukus-setbacks-submarines-defence-richard-marles/
Defence Minister Richard Marles met with US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth in Singapore over the weekend to announce a “streamlining” of the AUKUS deal, under which Australia will buy three used Virginia-class submarines rather than two used and one new, as was initially agreed.
Under questioning from the shadow defence minister James Paterson in Senate estimates on Tuesday, Defence Secretary Meghan Quinn said, actually, this was what Australia had wanted all along: “Australia’s position is that we would have always … had a preference for three in-service (submarines).”
Labor’s former industry minister Ed Husic, more able to speak his mind after his post-election ousting, didn’t agree with this take, telling the media: “This deal has changed.”
Husic may be waiting a while if he’s hoping for a rethink. As Australia’s history demonstrates, our government has been willing to swallow a lot without its loyalty to the alliance being the least bit shaken.
It started as it meant to go on. On September 15, 2021, Scott Morrison, Joe Biden and Boris is Johnson — the respective world leaders at the time of Australia, the US and the UK — announced the $368 billion trilateral AUKUS deal.
Morrison spoke of how the submarine pact represented the countries’ mutual “enduring ideals and shared commitment to the international rules-based order” (a commitment that somehow looks even shakier now than it did then). It would later be revealed that Morrison had preemptively caved on local construction, reducing the previous requirement that 60% of the submarines be built in Australia to 40%.
Biden responded by forgetting Morrison’s name. “Thank you, Boris. And I want to thank that fella Down Under. Thank you, pal. Appreciate it, Mr Prime Minister.”
A side note: Morrison’s now irreparable reputation as a habitual liar (something that only malcontents like us seemed to have previously cared about) was sealed by AUKUS. A month after the deal was announced, French President Emmanuel Macron, whose own submarine arrangements with Australia were torn up to make way for AUKUS, told a press pack that he knew Morrison had lied to him.
Adding to the general sense of humiliation, Biden hung Australia out to dry, claiming that he was “under the impression that France had been informed” of the changes.
The sense that its arrangements with Australia weren’t exactly front of mind for the US was reiterated in February 2025 when newly reelected president Donald Trump was asked about AUKUS and had to be reminded what the program was.
In August last year, Richard Marles’ office said in a statement that he would be travelling to the United States that week, where, in Washington, D.C., he would meet with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and other senior administration officials.
Except that wasn’t true: despite Marles’ posting of an illusory photo, the Pentagon made it very clear that “there was not a meeting” and that it was “a happenstance encounter”.
The next month, Anthony Albanese would do little better: during his visit to the US, unable to secure a proper meeting with Donald Trump, he was reduced to collaring the president for a selfie.
A meeting was eventually held between Trump and Albanese in October, but the Australian humiliation was not done. A Sky News Australia journalist made sure the topic of then US ambassador Kevin Rudd’s previous criticism of Trump came up, and the abiding memory of the meeting would be Trump, surrounded by nervous giggles, telling Rudd, “I don’t like you either, and I probably never will.”
In April 2025, the newly elected Labour government in the UK launched an AUKUS parliamentary inquiry. In June, the Trump government followed suit, with Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby appointed to conduct the review.
And that was FINE, said Marles: “Our engagement with the Trump administration and across the full political spectrum in the United States has shown clear and consistent support for AUKUS. We look forward to continuing our close cooperation with the Trump administration on this historic project.”
Marles hadn’t, we can only assume, read Colby’s actual views on AUKUS going into the review, which stated that “the benefits are questionable and the viability is also questionable”. In July, Colby announced that the initial deadline of 30 days would not be met.
When asked if this is cause for concern, Albanese insisted: “No, it’s not surprising that that would be the case, and it’s something we expected, something like that. We expected a review from an incoming government, just like the Keir Starmer government did. We expect that those things take longer than just 30 days.”
In September 2025, the review was still not done. Richard Marles told ABC’s RN Breakfast that the US review was a good thing, actually: “As I’ve said repeatedly, we welcome this. It’s an opportunity to look at how we can move forward with AUKUS, how we can improve and do it better.”
In April this year, the UK defence committee delivered its review, finding, among other things, serious issues with worker shortfall in key production areas and a timeframe of at least 20 years to make the necessary upgrades to the Royal Navy to sustain its current boats and the new AUKUS vessels.
The government insisted it was “really comfortable that AUKUS is on track”.
But among all of these moments of humiliation, our favourite is that which must have befallen the Department of Defence official who pitched the “nuclear-powered submarine propulsion challenge” for high schools.
It was a combination of propaganda and child labour that would have been remarkably tone deaf at the best of times, but it went a step further, launching on the worst possible week to try to make kids think about submarines: when the Titan submersible suffered a “catastrophic implosion” and instantly killed all five passengers on board.
Charlie Lewis is Crikey’s reporter-at-large, focusing on politics, culture, history and the US. Got a tip? Contact him securely on Signal @clewis.25.
Australian flotilla survivors describe ordeal after Gaza mission
By Jane Salmon | 4 June 2026. https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/australian-flotilla-survivors-describe-ordeal-after-gaza-mission,21133
A humanitarian mission may have ended at the border, but for some Australian participants, the ordeal was only just beginning, writes Jane Salmon.
WHEN ACTIVIST Neve O’Connor boarded a humanitarian flotilla bound for Gaza, she knew there was a possibility she might be stopped.
What O’Connor did not expect, she says, was that the most frightening moments would come after the mission was over.
“Just when we thought we were safe, the beatings started again,” the Melbourne student and community organiser recalls.
O’Connor is among a group of Australian participants in the Global Sumud Flotilla who have returned home alleging they were subjected to violence, intimidation and degrading treatment following the interception of their aid mission.
The flotilla was attempting to deliver food, medicine and baby formula to civilians in Gaza. Participants say they were detained after the vessel was intercepted and have since spoken publicly about what they describe as a pattern of physical, psychological and sexual abuse during their detention.
Now, as lawyers, medical professionals and human rights advocates gather testimony from those involved, participants are revealing details of what they say happened in the final hours before they were deported.
For O’Connor, those memories begin at the airport. After days in detention, she believed the ordeal was finally ending. Instead, she alleges the violence intensified.
O’Connor says:
“Before I could speak to Australian representatives, I was grabbed and dragged away.”
According to O’Connor, participants were prevented from communicating with consular officials and were physically forced through the airport toward their departing aircraft.
She describes a truly unsettling scene.
People were allegedly shoved, kicked and struck as they were moved through the terminal and across the tarmac. O’Connor says she witnessed punches and elbows to the backs of people’s heads, repeated hair-pulling and participants being tripped as they walked.
One woman, O’Connor alleges, was thrown into a wall with such force that her elbow split open.
O’Connor says she herself was thrown into a door before being tripped and stomped on:
“I fell and several men stomped on me while I was on the ground.”
The alleged assault, O’Connor claims, continued right up to the stairs of a waiting aircraft.
For participants, the airport experience has become one of the most troubling aspects of their journey, occurring at the point when many believed they would finally be leaving danger behind.
O’Connor said:
“This is how Israel said goodbye to people whose only crime was trying to deliver food, medicine and baby formula to starving civilians.”
Participants argue that what they experienced was not limited to one location or one group of officials.
Instead, they allege that abuse occurred throughout the detention and deportation process and involved multiple layers of authority, including soldiers, immigration officers, police, prison guards and airport personnel.
That consistency, they argue, raises broader questions about how humanitarian activists were treated after being detained.
The Australians are also asking questions about their home country’s response.
Some participants say they were unable to communicate freely with consular representatives before departure and are seeking clarification about what Australian officials knew of their treatment during the transfer to the airport.
The questions did not end when the flight landed.
Several participants report being detained and searched upon arrival in Australia. They say mobile phones were confiscated and that they were instructed to provide passwords under threat of legal consequences.
For some, the experience was deeply unsettling.
Fellow participant Juliet Lamont said:
After everything that happened overseas, to be treated like terrorists or extremists rather than humanitarians was shocking.
Australians deserve answers about what happened when survivors came home. Serious questions remain about the treatment of Australians both overseas and upon their return.
The allegations come at a time of intense international scrutiny of Gaza and growing public debate over the treatment of humanitarian activists attempting to challenge restrictions on aid deliveries.
For O’Connor, however, the issue is ultimately personal. Raised believing in fairness and the value of human life, she says the devastation in Gaza compelled her to act rather than remain a distant observer. She rejects the idea that courage is simply enduring hardship. Instead, she sees it in collective acts of solidarity.
O’Connor says:
“Strength and bravery don’t look like grim endurance. They look like people choosing to sail toward Gaza because they refuse to let despair win.”
The Global Sumud Flotilla is calling for accountability over the allegations and has requested a meeting with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
Whether that meeting eventuates remains unclear.
What is certain is that, for those who returned home carrying both physical injuries and difficult memories, the voyage did not end when the boat was stopped.
For many participants, the journey is now entering a new phase — one focused not on reaching Gaza, but on seeking answers about what happened after they tried.
Jane Salmon is a refugee advocate whose family has benefitted greatly from the NDIS. You can follow her on Twitter @jsalmonupst
The Hand-Me-Down Alliance: Australia, AUKUS and Op-Shop Submarines
3 June 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/the-hand-me-down-alliance-australia-aukus-and-op-shop-submarines/
One can never accuse the Australian political palette of being too demanding, let alone attentive. When it comes to matters of defence, that palette is happy to be deceived, remaining credulous to the notion it is sensitive to good taste and observant of flavours. When it comes to alliances, this especially so. As for the AUKUS agreement, it was clear that the Australian establishment was simply incapable of tasting anything in the way of the rancid or putrid. Of the three participating countries in this doomed ménage à trois – the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia – it was the last of the trio that has been left providing the most while receiving the least.
Centred on two pillars of poor understanding and unequal exchange, the AUKUS agreement is mouldering in unenviable disgrace. The first pillar envisages (dare on use the current tense?) the purchase of SSNs (nuclear-powered submarines) of the Virginia-Class from the United States that may run into three boats, possibly even two additional ones. According to the fatuous and vacuous Australian Submarine Agency’s assessment, the “acquisition will eliminate any capability gap and increase the 3 nations [sic] (Australia, UK and US) ability to deter aggression and contribute to peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific.” Eventually, the SSN-AUKUS, a hybrid of UK design, US technology and Australian gristle, will also be added to the fleet, a prospect bound to give few joy.
But the docile and the doltish in Canberra do not seem alert to the grumbling mood in Washington that any transfer of these hulks would only take place on exclusive American terms. Doubt about Australian worthiness in using such boats in a war with China if called upon (call it want of skill, call it reluctance); and doubts about the rate of production back home (the annual rate of two Virginia SSNs remains tardily elusive), has made the very idea of conveying such vessels to Canberra improbable.
The latest discussions by US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles and UK Defence Secretary John Healey, held on the sidelines of the International Institute of Strategic Studies Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, also confirms that the boats, should they ever arrive, will be of the optional, rather than optimal shop variety. They will be second hand goods with a shorter life span and less troubling to let go of by the US Navy. Give the Aussies the hand-me-downs. They’re worth it.
A May 30 joint statement from the ministers was a tedious, tortuous garble that did little to hide the fact that Australia has been degraded and sent packing to the cooler. “The Deputy Prime Minister and Secretaries welcomed the proposed approach to streamline Australia’s acquisition of Virginia-class submarines (VCS), simplifying chain management, operational and maintenance requirements and maximizing cost efficiencies. This approach would enable Australia to acquire three in-service VCs in lieu of a mixture of new and in-service VSs variants.” Without a smidgen to go on, the trio also claimed that “significant progress in the design and delivery of SSN-AUKUS, which will provide the UK and Australia with an advanced warfighting capability” had been made.
It is worth recounting the stages of cloddishness that culminated at this current pass. In 2023, the Australian government accepted the position that the US would sell it three Virginia-class boats in the early 2030s, with the following observation: “The first two will be used but refurbished Block 4 boats with 23 years of remaining life and the third will be a brand new stretched Block 6 boat fitted with the 84-foot-long payload of greatly increased weapons loads.”
Instead of expressing rage and disgust at this diminution of worth, the Australian defence minister has accepted the revised plans with beaming, coprophagic glee. Appended to the stained grin are explanations worthy of immediate sinking. Not having three second-hand SSNs would have seen a situation of one new Virginia-class SSN operating alongside in-service Collins-class submarines and the new SSN-AUKUS boats. This unpardonably dreamy nonsense, anticipating that all three boat varieties would be sharing the sea at the same time, at least allowed Marles to yearn for a simpler world of equipment. The word “simple,” it would seem, is his favourite word of the moment. In remarks to reporters, he observed that a “simpler pathway” had presented itself. “It will mean that the Virginia-class submarine that we are acquiring will be all of the same type of. And I cannot overstate the significance of that, both in terms of the submariners who are operating them, but also the people who are working on them to sustain those submarines.”
In Australia, the opposition defence minister, James Patterson, had least had the decency to demand “a proper explanation from the government – more than just a single sentence in a joint statement.” The Greens Senator David Shoebridge, was less accommodating to the servile capitulation from Marles. “We’re not just over a barrel with the United States – we have literally said to them they can name the price, they can give us the biggest lemon in the fleet – three of them – and Richard Marles will give that blank cheque to the US.”
All the signs of demented decay and facile strategic thinking are there in this pact. The need to extend the life of the Collins-class submarines. The likelihood that the United Kingdom will be unable to stomach its side of the bargain. The continued bleeding of the Australian purse for American and British submarine building. And the deeply troubling sense that, when the time comes, the United States will go to war with China, expecting Australia to muck in. Given that Canberra has contrived and connived to turn Australia into an increasingly attractive garrison for adversaries to target, the room for escaping the orbit of an avoidable catastrophe, be it financial or military, is rapidly shrinking. Marles is unabashed by it all. “Chasing simplicity is at the heart of why we have pursued this.” A simplicity that well qualifies for the “bloody fool” category, one soon to be explored by a public inquiry that promises to be a real hoot.
Will AUKUS keep us safe – at what cost?
AUKUS Public Inquiry, 2 June 2026, Canberra, https://newshub.medianet.com.au/2026/06/will-aukus-keep-us-safe-at-what-cost/155928/
For the first time, the Australian community will have the opportunity to investigate the controversial and secretive AUKUS defence pact. Today, five esteemed Australians will launch a nationwide Public Inquiry into AUKUS at Parliament House, Canberra. From diverse backgrounds and disciplines, but united in their commitment to transparency, democracy and the defence of Australia, Peter Garrett, Carmen Lawrence, Chris Barrie, Leanne Minshull and Karina Lester will head the public inquiry into AUKUS beginning today. Full Commissioner profiles can be viewed here.
There has never been a more critical time to get the truth about AUKUS and what it means for our nation. The Federal Government is planning to spend $368 billion-plus of our taxes on nuclear-powered submarines – the largest defence spend in our history — without answers to basic questions such as: will Australia receive the submarines we’re paying for on time and on budget; where will the high-level nuclear waste generated by the subs be stored; how many Australian jobs will be created and at what cost, and crucially, will this project keep us safe — or turn us into a nuclear target?
Lead Commissioner Peter Garrett said,
“AUKUS is by far the most expensive and complex undertaking ever entered into by any Australian Government and yet the opportunity to question, debate and decide has been taken out of the hands of the parliament and the people. A Public Inquiry into this massive spend of taxpayer’s money is long overdue.”
Commissioner Admiral (Retd) Chris Barrie AC said,
“As Chief of the Defence Force in the late 90s and early 2000s, I investigated the proposition of acquiring nuclear powered submarines for Australia but there was little interest in it then and we all need to know why suddenly, there is huge interest, secrecy and money available for the AUKUS submarines today. That’s what this Inquiry is for.”
Commissioner Dr Carmen Lawrence said,
“A basic requirement of any functioning democracy is transparency from our Government. It is simply not credible that the Federal Government can take nearly $400 billion from the Australian people, make private deals with US and UK technology companies and foreign governments to access the Australian mainland and our data, and then tell us not to ask questions. Australians would never accept that, and nor should we. That’s why this Inquiry is vital.”
Yankunytjatjara woman and Commissioner Karina Lester said.
“For decades Aboriginal people of this country have had nuclear weapons tested on our traditional lands, we have been pressured to be the solution to nuclear waste. Our traditional lands have been mined on and our communities continually pressured by an industry that has harmed us for generations. What is Australia’s plan to manage the nuclear waste under this AUKUS Agreement? Will Australia be taking in nuclear waste from the UK and the US under this agreement? We fear it will be our mobs and our countries that is expected to take it. And once again, no one has bothered to talk to us. We have the lived experience and that’s why First Nations voices are crucial to this Public Inquiry.”
Commissioner Leanne Minshull said,
“The projected cost of $368 billion for AUKUS is hard to conceptualise. Think about Australia’s biggest wealth fund, set up in 2006. After 20 years of squirreling away money and banking investment returns, the future fund is now worth $337 billion. The cost of AUKUS would wipe out these generational savings and then some.If we are to spend the equivalent of our national savings, on a single project, the benefit needs to be clear and overwhelming. What won’t we be able to fund? How many jobs will be created from this project? Where will those jobs be? In a tight labour market, how will those jobs be filled? Will they divert skills from other national priorities like building residential homes? Will these jobs be the worst targeted, most expensive in Australian history?”
This nation-wide inquiry into AUKUS will seek answers to a number of critical questions. The Terms of Reference can be found here and the website here. The Inquiry will be taking written submissions and conducting hearings across Australia.
AUKUS Public Inquiry media contacts:
Phil Davey 0414 867 188, phil@mountainmedia.com.au
Julie Macken 0400 925 217
AUKUS. From ‘best’ we’ll never get to second hand subs
Meanwhile, Defence Minister Richard Mares maintains the facade. He’s either dishonest or dumb. Time will tell which one it is.
by Rex Patrick | Jun 1, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/aukus-from-best-well-never-get-to-second-hand-subs/
Defence Minister Marles announced a change to the AUKUS submarine program: second-hand subs! What’s the scam?
The scam is, at an enormous cost of (at least) $368B, we now only get second-hand subs from the US while we wait for the promised nuclear subs on the never-never.
In May 2023, Admiral Mead, the head of the Australian Submarine Agency, told the Senate that the first two Virginia-class subs that would be transferred to Australia would be second-hand, and the remaining subs would be brand new. He repeated it a year later.
But the reality is and always has been different. The US is only building about 1.2 subs per annum and needs to get to a built rate of 2.0 to meet US needs, and 2.3 to meet theirs and ours. They have no way of getting there.
We’ve sent $2.8B non-refundable taxpayers’ dollars to the US over the past two years to try to shift the build rate dial, and it’s done nothing, other than drain our Treasury.
Anyone who bothers to read the US Congressional Research Service’s advice to Congress on AUKUS knows we will not get subs from the US. Anyone who has bothered to read the recently released UK Parliamentary report on AUKUS knows we will not get subs from the UK.
The Albanese Government has embarked on an all-eggs-in-one-basket program where,
“the US hens are not laying enough eggs, and the UK chooks are headless?.
Meanwhile, Defence Minister Richard Mares maintains the facade. He’s either dishonest or dumb. Time will tell which one it is.
Rex Patrick is a former Senator for South Australia and, earlier, a submariner in the armed forces. Best known as an anti-corruption and transparency crusader, Rex is also known as the “Transparency Warrior.”
Royal Commission under fire for excluding Palestinian perspectives
Many have noted that Zionism has become like Nazism, imprisoning, killing and torturing the Palestinians.
Worldwide, many Holocaust survivors and their children have been horrified by and denounced Israel for its treatment of Palestinians. Many Jewish people with family connections to the Holocaust have marched in the streets carrying Palestinian flags and banners.
By Lyn Bender | 1 June 2026, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/royal-commission-under-fire-for-excluding-palestinian-perspectives,21114
The Royal Commission into Antisemitism has sparked debate over free speech, protest rights and the place of Palestinian perspectives in public discourse, writes Lyn Bender.
IS CONCERN for Palestine and the Palestinian people the new McCarthyism?
Named for the Republican Senator who spearheaded (literally) the hunting down of suspected communist “infiltrators” and “sympathisers”, within the film industry, educational institutions, the government and even the army. No stone was left unturned in the search to uncover this threat to America.
The current identification of antisemitism as any criticism of Israel bears a stark resemblance to the search for the communist peril.
Protesting genocide has become a criminal offence in parts of Australia. People in Australia can be arrested for peacefully protesting ethnic cleansing and war crimes.
Thus far in the current Royal Commission into Antisemitism, the accused – by inference, Palestinians – cannot bear witness or plead their case.
The Australian Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN), a peak Palestinian body, has been denied permission to present at the Commission.
The Crucible, written in 1953 by Arthur Miller, reflected the communist purge in America of that time. Anyone could stand accused by the House Un-American Activities Committee of being communist sympathisers. Hundreds of those in the film industry lost their jobs or were boycotted by association. This list included Charlie Chaplin, who became an exile from America.
The Crucible is a play about the hysteria generated in a community in 1693 in Salem, America, regarding accusations of witchcraft. The Salem witch trials were an allegorical device used by Miller.
The Bondi shootings were a terrible trauma for the Jewish community, especially those directly impacted. But the insistent call for a royal commission was a massive error. The shock and fear had not been processed, nor had the motivation of the alleged assailants been investigated. In fact, the Commission may be hampered by this being a case under investigation.
Bondi is an iconic Aussie meeting place for many Australians.
Bondi belongs to all Australians.
The surfers, the swimmers, the lifesavers, the joggers, the sunbathers, the tourists lured by its beauty and those who come to enjoy a coffee overlooking its waters may all lay claim to Bondi. But Bondi’s unique status as a safe place for all has been assaulted. That is a deep wound.
Despite its clearly narrow agenda, I decided to offer a submission to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism.
I struggled with the decision to make a submission to this Royal Commission, but felt compelled to add my voice as a Jewish person who is horrified by the suppression and failure even to acknowledge Palestinian suffering.
In fact, it seemed that somehow the protests against the genocide of the Palestinians were being unjustly implicated in this terrible act. Despite the facts thus far known, that no Palestinians were involved in the massacre, the measures against protestors intensified, especially in NSW.
Protesters have also been criminalised in Britain.
Police became heavier-handed with protesters. The media cited the protests but seemed less interested in highlighting what the protests were about. Bombing and displacement in Gaza and settler violence that we could see on our iPhones every day.
Phrases became officially condemned. Saying “Free Palestine” could get you banned or moved on. It was more acceptable to utter almost any curse other than intifada. Intifada is Arabic for shaking off or resisting. Which human would not wish to rid themselves of a brutal apartheid occupation? If a person states this idea, they are accused by the Israeli narrative machine of being supporters of Hamas or antisemitic or both. If you are Jewish, you are denounced as a self-hating Jew or traitor.
Some appearing at the Commission have claimed that the display of the Palestinian flag traumatises them.
Transgenerational trauma is on display.
I can attest both personally and in my previous practice as a psychologist that transgenerational trauma is a psychological phenomenon. Growing up in a traumatised community or family imparts the trauma. Fears, beliefs and responses can be passed on non-verbally and behaviourally as well as verbally.
For some, trauma may lead them to have empathy for the suffering of others. For others, they may seek to become like the aggressor to escape victimhood. Bruno Bettelheim (who had been imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps) and other analysts named this as identification with the aggressor. It’s a defence mechanism of those in traumatic and extremely powerless situations.
Many have noted that Zionism has become like Nazism, imprisoning, killing and torturing the Palestinians.
Worldwide, many Holocaust survivors and their children have been horrified by and denounced Israel for its treatment of Palestinians. Many Jewish people with family connections to the Holocaust have marched in the streets carrying Palestinian flags and banners.
I found the boundaries specified for submitting almost squeezed me as the writer into delineating incidents of antisemitism. The saving grace was the question of social cohesion and how this might be impacted.
I responded that, firstly, I had received far more abuse and “antisemitism” from Zionists and pro-Israel Jewish people.
My view is that the Royal Commission is harming social cohesion. Claiming that criticism of Israel is antisemitic, as proposed by the Envoy, Jillian Segal, is actually crazy. That in failing to allow the “accused” Palestinians a voice at the Commission, it has fostered extreme social disunity.
I was not able to say all that I knew mattered. Even participating in this Commission feels as though I am part of a corrupted process.
My experience growing up in a community of Holocaust survivors was that we were indoctrinated, as in the U.S., with the belief that Israel was part of Jewish identity, a place of safety for Jewish people. That Israel could do no wrong. Jewish people were entitled to the land from the river to the sea.
Oh, the irony that Palestinian supporters are criminalised for using that expression. The absurdity of the assertion that Jewish people of European background somehow have the right of return while the Indigenous people expelled in the 1948 Nakba do not.
I am a supporter of the Jewish Council of Australia, which advocates for human rights for all and is opposed to the maltreatment of all abused groups, including Australia’s Indigenous people.
The absurdity of asserting that Jews are somehow one homogenous group.
But as I imbibed in my Jewish education, it is forbidden to kill. It is forbidden to steal. But Israel proudly proclaims its right to do both.
Claiming these atrocities on behalf of all Jewish people may account for a perceived rise in antisemitism.
Finally, we are all diminished when a tragedy, such as the Bondi shootings, is weaponised for political purposes.
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
30 July – WEBINAR (Free) – Is Nuclear Power the Solution to Climate Change? https://my.acaw.org.au/event/acaw-is-nuclear-power-the-solution-to-climate-change
18:30 – 19:45 ACST
19:00 – 20:15 AEST
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 