The people and environment of South Australia must be protected from Federal imposed storage of AUKUS High-Level nuclear waste:
by David Noonan Independent Environment Campaigner 10 Nov 2025.
South Australians have a Right to Say No to undemocratic Federal imposed storage of AUKUS
High Level nuclear waste in our State. All Federal MPs & Senators from SA, Members of the SA
Parliament and candidates for the SA State Election on 21st March should declare their position:
Q: Will you accept or reject Federal imposed storage of AUKUS nuclear waste in SA?
The Federal Government quietly took up new AUKUS Regulations (2 Oct) as powers to impose
AUKUS wastes by override of State laws that prohibit nuclear waste storage in SA, NT and WA.
AUKUS Regulation 111 “State and Territory laws that do not apply in relation to a regulated
activity” names and prescribes our SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000. The
Objects of this key SA Law set out what is at stake: “To protect the health, safety and welfare
of the people of SA, and the environment in which they live” from nuclear waste storage.
Federal Labor’s draconian powers to compromise public health, safety and welfare protections
in SA Law, lacks social licence, are an affront to civil society, and damages trust in governance.
This is also a threat to Indigenous People with a cultural responsibility to protect their country.
Community expects our State Labor Government to give a clear State Election commitment to
protect SA from the risks and impacts of untenable and illegal AUKUS High Level nuclear waste
storage, see “The lethal legacy of Aukus nuclear submarines will remain for millennia – and
there’s no plan to deal with it” (The Guardian, 10 August 2025, interview with Prof Ian Lowe).
Labor has a further key leadership test ahead of our Election: to commit to support Indigenous
People’s human rights, set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples Article 29 (UNDRIP 2007), to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” over storage of
hazardous materials on their lands. AUKUS wastes absolutely are hazardous materials!
a Question for Premier Peter Malinauskas: Will you respect and support Indigenous Peoples
Rights to Say No to Federal siting of AUKUS nuclear waste storage on their country in SA?
Call for full disclosure on a N-waste siting process after Labor breaks its commitment:
The public has a Right to Know what regions are being targeted for storage of High-Level
nuclear wastes. A secretive ongoing Defence review “to identify potential nuclear waste
disposal sites” (ABC News March 2023) must be made public ahead of the SA State Election.
AUKUS Minister Marles has broken his commitment to announce a process by early 2024 to
identify a site to dispose of AUKUS High-Level nuclear wastes. The failure by Defence to set out
any process – other than to take up powers to impose nuclear wastes – is unacceptable.
REPORTER: Is a high-level nuclear waste dump the price that South Australia will have to pay
for the jobs that go to the state? (Minister Marles Press Conference 14 March 2023)
MARLES: Well, as I indicated there will be a process that we will determine within the next 12
months for how the site will be identified. You’ve made a leap there, which we’re not going to
make for some time. It will be a while before a site is ultimately identified. But we will within the
next 12 months establish a process for how we walk down that path.
It is now over 4 years since Federal Labor agreed with Morrison’s AUKUS nuclear sub agenda.
SA Labor to let ‘national security interests’ decide siting for AUKUS nuclear waste?
National press reported the Woomera Area to be a ‘favoured location’ for storage and disposal
of nuclear sub wastes back in August 2023 (“Woomera looms as national nuclear waste dump
site including for AUKUS submarine high-level waste afr.com). WA, Qld and Vic political leaders
have rejected a High-Level nuclear waste disposal site in their States, with WA suggesting the
Woomera Prohibited Area in SA: “would be one obvious location within the Defence estate,
however, we will await the outcomes of the federal review” (SMH 15 March 2023).
Premier Malinauskas has so far only said AUKUS nuclear waste should go to a ‘remote’ location
in the “national security interest” (see “Site for high-level nuclear waste dump under AUKUS
deal must be in national interest, SA premier says” ABC News 15 March 2023).
The Premier’s “Office for AUKUS” (Letter, 7 Oct 2025) accepts “safe and secure disposal” of
High-Level nuclear waste, including spent fuel, produced when subs are decommissioned. The
Office says no decision has been made on a location but declines to reveal what is underway,
expresses no concerns over unprecedented nuclear waste storage or ‘social license’, and
expects “community acceptance” (in SA?) for a nuclear ‘disposal solution’:
“I can confirm that no decision has been made on a location within Australia for the
disposal of intermediate, or high-level radioactive waste from nuclear-powered
submarines. Determining suitable locations and methods for safe and secure disposal
will take time, but Australia will do so in a manner that sets the highest standards … and
which builds community acceptance for a disposal solution.”
SA is left in the dark, without a say, as an ongoing target for an AUKUS nuclear waste dump.
AUKUS is to store US origin nuclear wastes from 2nd hand Virginia Class subs in Australia:
AUKUS aims Australia take on second-hand US Virginia Class nuclear powered subs in the early
2030’s loaded with up to a dozen years of US origin military High-Level nuclear waste and fissile
Atomic-Bomb fuel accrued in operations of US Navy High Enriched Uranium nuclear reactors.
Swapping an Australian flag onto this US military nuclear reactor waste places an untenable ‘for
ever’ burden on all future generations to have to cope these US nuclear wastes.
Scenario: an AUKUS nuclear dump imposed on SA, High-Level military waste shipped into
Whyalla Port to go north, nuclear subs to be ‘decommissioned’ at Osborne Port Adelaide.
Whyalla Port is back on a nuclear waste target range. How else could AUKUS nuclear waste get
to a storage site in north SA? The Woomera Area is expected to be on a regional short list for an
AUKUS dump, requiring nuclear waste transport routes across SA. Port Adelaide community has
a Right to Say No to nuclear decommissioning plans for expanded Osborne submarine yards.
SA politicians must protect SA and rule out both an untenable AUKUS nuclear dump and
decommissioning nuclear subs and nuclear reactors at Osborne or else-where in SA.
SA must respect Traditional Owners Human Rights to Say No to imposition of nuclear wastes.
The SA public have Rights to full disclosure and for politicians to have to declare their positions,
We need an informed public debate ahead of our State Election. Silence by our political leaders, while a path is paved toward nuclear decisions, makes a nuclear waste dump future more likely.
Info: see Rex Patrick & “AUKUS waste in perpetuity”, and David Noonan in Pearls and Irritations
Follow the money. A radioactive farce of failed land purchases
Rex Patrick | Dec 1, 2025, https://michaelwest.com.au/follow-the-money-a-radioactive-farce-of-failed-land-purchases/
The Federal Government is refusing to release any details of the land purchase for radioactive waste management. Rex Patrick follows the money trail.
n 2023, the current Minister for Resources confessed to the Senate that the Department of Industry, Science and Resources (DISR) had spent $108.6 million not finding a place for a National Radioactive Waste Management Facility (NRWMF).
In July 2023, Federal Court Justice Natalie Charlesworth set aside a November 2021 declaration made by then Minister Keith Pitt that Napandee, a 211-acre property near Kimba in SA, was to be the future site of the NRWMF. Pitt’s declaration for this site was nine years in the making, but he and the Department had botched the site selection process.
Not the way to select a facility
If you wanted to select a site for a national facility to store radioactive waste, you’d look to the storage requirements, including technical, environmental, geological (such as earthquake tendency), social, and indigenous cultural and heritage considerations. And then you’d look for sites that met all those requirements.
That’s not what DISR did.
In September 2012, the Government released a notice of intention to conduct a nationwide request for land owners to nominate land for the NRWMF. The official call for nominations was conducted between 2 March and 5 May 2015.
A sweetener was added to entice landowners; the successful land seller would get four times the market value. It was quite an extraordinary proposition – it wasn’t as though the Government was intending to compulsorily acquire land from an unwilling seller.
But, why not? The geniuses who concocted the plan in DISR knew only too well that the extra money was just taxpayers’ money.
Buy, and then sell back
On 26 November 2021, the Government declared land in Napandee, owned by the Baldock family*, would be the site for the facility.
Minister’s Decision (Source: DISR)
Three days later, the Minister issued a press release stating the Government had acquired the land.Minister’s Decision (Source: DISR)
Three days later, the Minister issued a press release stating the Government had acquired the land.Minister’s Decision (Source: DISR)
Three days later, the Minister issued a press release stating the Government had acquired the land.
MWM is trying to get access to the land sale contract and the purchase price, using FOI. But access to it has been refused. You paid, but are not allowed to know.
The FOI decision is now the subject of challenge, where the Information Commissioner will be the adjudicator.
Last week, the Minister for Resources also refused to answer a formal “how much” question asked by Senator Lambie.
Local scuttlebutt is that the Department spent $10m of taxpayers’ money buying that land – almost 8 times the market value. The refusal by the Department and the Minister to give sale price answers under FOI or, respectively, to the Senate adds suspicion that this is correct.
Local scuttlebutt is that the Department spent $10m of taxpayers’ money buying that land – almost 8 times the market value. The refusal by the Department and the Minister to give sale price answers under FOI or, respectively, to the Senate adds suspicion that this is correct.
Or when the Department of Infrastructure acquired the Western Sydney Airport ‘Leppington Triangle’ land for $30m, when it was only valued at $3m.
Maladministration or something more sinister?
It’s unheard of that the Senate would be denied past expenditure information on land at Napandee.
The Government has surely overpaid for the site, even after meeting their own unexplained ‘4x price’ rule, by $4 million, but possibly by $9 million if the scuttlebutt is correct.
At best, the Government has engaged in a farce. The Department knew that the path they had taken to select Napandee was flawed.
On 1 February 2020, Senator Matt Canavan, who preceded Pitt as the Minister for Resources, announced Napandee as the site to host Australia’s NRWMF. But the Canavan decision was informal.
Realising the process would be found wanting by a Court, the Government changed tack and on 13 February 2020 introduced legislation into the House of Representatives that would have the Parliament select Napandee as the site.
Representatives that would have the Parliament select Napandee as the site.
On 6 March 2020, a senior departmental official, Sam Chard, met with the Mayor of Kimba, during which he said words to the effect that (as recorded in Justice Charlesworth’s decision) ,
“parliamentary scrutiny would replace the mechanism for legal challenge under the NRWM Act.”
MWM can’t publish for legal reasons – but you can read about it here).
DISR and the Government thought they were onto a winning solution because the proposed legislation would shut down the option of challenging the decision in a court (Courts can’t overturn the decisions of Parliament unless they are unconstitutional). The problem was the Senate refused to pass it. So, they went back to the original plan, and Minister Pitt formally made the ministerial site decision on 26 November 2021.
What the FOI has revealed is an extraordinary fact – the land was actually purchased on 11 November 2021, 15 days before Pitt made the decision that it was the Minister’s chosen site.
* Editor’s note: MWM makes no allegation of wrongdoing by the Baldock family. They are merely a beneficiary of DISR maladministration or of their farce.
The Moral Hazard of Being US Deputy-Sheriff
6 December 2025 David Tyler , https://theaimn.net/the-moral-hazard-of-being-us-deputy-sheriff/
In a secure room in Washington last week, Australian officials watched what the world would soon see.
A small Venezuelan fisherman’s tinnie drifts, already incinerated by a first missile. Two survivors cling to a piece of the wreckage. A pause. Then a second flash. A missile is aimed at the living, not the vessel. Eleven men die. US officials insist it was legal. Congress wants answers. The survivors are dead either way. It is an act of primitive, barbaric cruelty. The purpose is to erase witnesses and to send a message of terror as a deterrence.
That second strike; the notorious “double tap” has a long historical precedence. It is now under investigation as a potential war crime, authorised by the same US defence secretary Australia is binding itself to more tightly than at any time since 1945. This is what AUKUS really entangles us with: not an abstract “rules-based order,” but a command chain learning to live with killing those who survive.
Hannah Arendt warned that “most evil is done by those who never make up their minds to be good or evil.” Australia is drifting into that moral fog; without even pretending to know the difference.
Our Hands Are Not Clean
When the footage broke, six US lawmakers, all military veterans, reminded troops they must refuse illegal orders. President Trump’s response? Their comments were “seditious behaviour, punishable by death.” His team later softened his threat, but the FBI still moved to interview the six.
No strike operators are under investigation. The dead Venezuelans are not discussed. The controversy, incredibly, is whether Americans are allowed to warn other Americans not to commit war crimes.
Australia, moreover, is not just an innocent onlooker to a Trump’s gung-ho vigilantism, a state which shoots first and asks questions after. We have ADF personnel embedded in US commands that carry out attacks of this kind. We host Pine Gap, described by senior intelligence analysts as a premier US targeting facility in the southern hemisphere, linking satellites to weapons systems across the Middle East and Asia. We tell ourselves we host it for “security.” In practice, we help aim weapons we never authorised, and cannot refuse.
It is not the brutality that shocks the alliance; it is the dissent.
Asymmetry on Steroids
AUKUS was sold as strategic maturity; an insurance policy against an uncertain Indo-Pacific. Instead, it could become a transfer of sovereignty disguised as procurement. Australia pays up to AUD 368 billion for nuclear submarines that may not arrive until the 2040s. Ships we can neither crew, service nor fuel.
Even then, we may service American boats before our own. The Parliamentary Library analysis makes clear the technology transfer remains subject to US export controls. We do not buy independence; we buy a permanent maintenance job.
Washington gains unfettered access to Australian ports, deeper control of our deterrence posture, and logistical reach into Asia. Canberra gets second-hand privileges wrapped in secrecy.
As Bernard Keane has observed, Labor governs as though office is something to occupy, not use. The result is an alliance that treats American commercial and military interests as interchangeable, while our interests and needs are politely deferred.
The Pattern Is Becoming Impossible to Ignore
In just two weeks:
- The administration signalled openness to watered-down Nvidia AI chip sales to China, over the objections of US China hawks who argued they could bolster Chinese military capacity.
- A leaked plan for Ukraine’s reconstruction envisaged turning frozen Russian assets into profit streams for US-led venture funds; Europeans were expected to accept territorial loss and pay a commission for the privilege.
- Trump stalled sanctions against a Chinese spy agency implicated in extensive hacking to protect an upcoming trade trip to Beijing.
In each episode, intelligence and human rights concerns are bent around the same question: What makes money now?
Imagine if Canberra behaved as crassly. When Australia signs quiet deals with Beijing, we call it “strategic naïveté‘. When Washington does it, we call it “the alliance.”
Australia Has Agency – or It Has Nothing
This is not an argument for abandoning the alliance, but for removing the leash. A self-respecting partner demands:
- Transparency: Parliamentary oversight of defence commitments, including rules of engagement affecting Australian personnel and facilities.
- Reciprocity: Partnerships beyond one power; ASEAN, India, Japan, South Korea, the EU, not an exclusive dependence.
- Sovereign capability: Shipbuilding and cyber defence that serve Australia first, not as a service station for US fleets.
- Moral Limits: If allies breach international law, we do not close our eyes; we close our ports.
Blind obedience is not strategy. It is outsourcing judgment. Surrendering autonomy.
The Choice Is Not Between America and China
Canberra’s defenders of AUKUS love a false dilemma: independence equals Beijing. They mistake sovereignty for treason. Malcolm Fraser warned of this decades ago, describing Australia as a “client state.” We have since upgraded ourselves; to a nuclear client state, paying interest on promises.
Independence is not abandonment. It is partnership without servility. It is the ability to say no. If a second strike on drowning men does not trigger such a boundary, nothing will.
The real danger is no longer foreign power. It is our refusal to imagine ourselves without permission.
Choose Leadership Before It’s Chosen For Us
The Caribbean footage will fade. The legal arguments will thicken. The bodies will be forgotten. What will remain is the alliance, tighter than ever, and a government too cautious to ask what we might be agreeing to on our behalf.
Gough Whitlam once feared Australia would become a nation of “toadies and bludgers” trading sovereignty for illusion. That future arrives quietly. It arrives not with invasion, but with permission slips. It arrives when the second flash on a foreign sea is someone else’s problem, and ours only if we ask.
Albanese must choose leadership while we still have a choice to make.
Labor backs ‘practical’ nuclear disarmament, Wong says
Anthony Albanese’s top diplomat has addressed a key question on Labor’s nuclear stance after a high-level defence official dropped a bombshell.
Joseph Olbrycht-Palmer, December 4, 2025 , https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/labor-backs-practical-nuclear-disarmament-wong-says/news-story/71ab3526def44ff9505452fb55bbc9f2
Labor backs “practical” efforts to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles across the world, Anthony Albanese’s top diplomat has said after a senior defence official revealed a naval base in Western Australia could host nuclear-armed US submarines.
Greens senator David Shoebridge on Thursday peppered Foreign Minister Penny Wong with wide-ranging queries during Senate estimates.
Among them was why Defence Minister Richard Marles refused to “endorse” the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in an interview last month, as Senator Shoebridge characterised it.
He said it “caused deep despair” among nuclear weapons abolitionists “who have been pushing for this treaty for years”.
“Does the Albanese government support the Treaty to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons?” Senator Shoebridge asked.
Senator Wong said Labor was “engaging constructively on the evidence on the TPNW” but that existing frameworks were the best bet.
“Our party has a very proud history of championing practical – I emphasise that – practical non-proliferation and disarmament efforts internationally,” she said, adding that Labor is “steadfast in our support for the NPT”.
“The Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is the cornerstone of global disarmament and non-proliferation.”
Recognising the “devastating consequences for humanity” bore by nuclear arms and concerns around the use of artificial intelligence in nuclear command systems, Senator Wong said the NPT offered the “best pathway to advance non-proliferation and disarmament”.
Signing the TPNW would block Australia from hosting any US military nuclear assets, counteracting the Prime Minister’s offer to Donald Trump in October of expanding port access for the US’ roaming Virginia-class submarines.
The submarines are the nuclear-armed vanguard of the US Navy.
During Senate estimates on Wednesday, Department of Defence Deputy Secretary Hugh Jeffrey was asked whether US submarines docking at Western Australia’s HMAS Stirling would be armed with nuclear capabilities.
Mr Jeffrey would not rule it out.
“The United States is very clear about the Australian government’s treaty obligations and our policy on those (nuclear) weapons,” he said.
“We respect the United States’ position of neither confirming nor denying.”
NewsWire has contacted Mr Marles’ office for comment.
US submarines carrying nuclear weapons could dock in Australia despite ban, Senate told.
Defence secretary appears to contradict previous assurances from Penny Wong that only conventionally armed submarines will visit Australian ports under Aukus deal.
Ben Doherty, 5 Dec 25, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/dec/05/us-submarines-nuclear-weapons-australia-aukus
US submarines carrying nuclear weapons could dock at Australian bases, defence officials have told the Senate, and the Australian government and people would not know.
Senate estimates heard fierce debate over whether US Virginia-class submarines – set to “rotate” through Australian ports from 2027 as part of the contentious Aukus agreement – could carry nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are prohibited in Australia.
Defence department officials told senators there was “no impediment” to submarines armed with nuclear weapons visiting Australia, insisting that any such visit would not breach Australian or international law.
The US maintains a policy of “strategic ambiguity” around its nuclear deployment and it refuses to confirm or deny whether aircraft or seagoing vessels capable of carrying nuclear weapons are, in fact, carrying a nuclear warhead.
That ambiguity would apply to US submarines that might dock at Australian ports, as it now does to nuclear-capable B-52 bomber aircraft landing at RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory, which is being upgraded to be able to accommodate more US bombers.
“We respect the United States position of neither confirming nor denying,” the Australian defence department secretary, Greg Moriarty, told the Senate.
But anti-nuclear campaigners and some senators argue that the evidence to the Senate undermines Australia’s non-proliferation commitments and risks making the country “a launchpad for nuclear war”.
They also say the acquiescence to US ambiguity over its nuclear weapons contradicts the foreign affairs minister’s assurance in a 2023 speech that only conventionally armed submarines would visit Australia.
“The US has confirmed that the nuclear-powered submarines visiting Australia on rotation will be conventionally armed,” Penny Wong told the National Press Club.
Sign up: AU Breaking News email
US Virginia-class submarines are to begin rotating through Australian ports – part of pillar one of the Aukus agreement – from 2027, before Australia buys then builds its own nuclear-powered, conventionally armed submarines.
The US Congress approved funding in 2024 for a new submarine- and ship-launched nuclear missile – the first new US nuclear weapon since the end of the cold war. The SLCM-N weapon is slated to be operational within a decade and Vice-Admiral Johnny Wolfe has told Congress that the weapons program is “focused on the integration of SLCM-N into the Virginia-class submarine”.
The South Pacific nuclear free zone treaty – known as the Treaty of Rarotonga and to which Australia is a party – prohibits the “stationing” of nuclear weapons in Australia (and the broader South Pacific zone). But Australia maintains that a US submarine, potentially armed with nuclear weapons, is not prohibited from visiting an Australian port.
Bernard Philip, assistant secretary of international policy at the Department of Defence told the Senate Australia would comply with its treaty obligations, which were also understood by the US.
“The United States does not station nuclear weapons in Australia,” he said. “Stationing nuclear weapons in Australia is prohibited by the South Pacific nuclear free zone treaty, to which Australia remains committed.
“There is no impediment under the Treaty of Rarotonga and the Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons to the visit of dual-capable foreign platforms to Australia’s territory or transiting Australia’s airspace or waters.”
Dual-capable platforms are those able to carry both conventional and nuclear weapons. Defence officials said nuclear missiles deployable on Virginia-class submarines were still in development, labelling the scenario “hypothetical”.
The Australian director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Gem Romuld, said the foreign minister’s commitment that nuclear weapons would not be rotating through Australia was now “dead in the water”.
“It’s taken just two years for expectations of an Aukus partner to shift, so what will come next?” she said.
“If Aukus is ‘not about nuclear weapons’, then Australia’s numerous assurances must be backed up with legal commitments. The best way to draw the line on nuclear weapons is to sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.”
Labor has formally committed in its party platform to signing and ratifying the weapons ban treaty “in government” but it has not yet signed done so. Seventy-four countries are now party to the treaty: none of the nine nuclear-armed states have signed it.
The Greens senator David Shoebridge asked in Senate estimates: “So we’re going to permit them to be sitting, floating off Fremantle in US-Virginia class submarines, and is it still the position that the Australian government won’t ask the US whether or not they’re nuclear-armed submarines, just like we don’t ask about the nuclear-armed B-52s?
“Is that still the position? Don’t ask, don’t tell?”
The secretary of the defence department said: “We respect the United States’ position of neither confirming nor denying.”
Government backflips on nuclear-capable submarines under AUKUS
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) has warned of escalating nuclear risks after Senate Estimates confirmed the government would not stand in the way of US Virginia-class submarines entering Australian waters while armed with nuclear weapons.
The Australian Government has acknowledged it would permit visits by US Virginia-class submarines that may carry nuclear weapons in future—a direct contradiction of Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s assurance at the National Press Club in April 2023 that AUKUS submarines visiting Australia would be conventionally armed.
During Senate Estimates on Wednesday night, senior Defence officials acknowledged that there is “no impediment” under Australian policy or treaty obligations to the visit of dual-capable platforms—an aircraft, submarine or missile designed to carry either conventional weapons or nuclear weapons—and that Australia would continue to respect the US policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons.
This means Australians could unknowingly host US or UK nuclear weapons offshore—with no right to be told.
Gem Romuld, Director of ICAN Australia, said:
“The Foreign Minister’s assurance that nuclear weapons won’t be rotating through Australia is now dead in the water. It’s taken just two years for expectations of an AUKUS partner to shift, so what will come next?
If AUKUS is ‘not about nuclear weapons’, then Australia’s numerous assurances must be backed up with legal commitments. The best way to draw the line on nuclear weapons is to sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.”
The Estimates exchange centred on the United States’ nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile program (SLCM-N), which the US Congress has directed the Navy to develop. Experts, including CNA analyst Decker Eveleth, have publicly confirmed these weapons can be deployed on Virginia-class submarines, the same class Australia is preparing to host at HMAS Stirling as early as 2027.
National Labor policy commits the government to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Successive Labor conferences have reaffirmed this commitment, and more than 300 federal, state and local parliamentarians have signed the ICAN parliamentary pledge.
Romuld said:
“Australia is a strong proponent of the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), an essential multilateral agreement but one that is no longer fit for purpose. The TPNW extends the work of the NPT to meet the challenges posed by today’s nuclear risks, and in finally comprehensively outlawing these weapons of mass destruction,”
“National Labor policy commits to signing and ratifying the TPNW in government, a promise yet to be delivered. It’s time for Australia to move on from just engaging with this treaty to putting pen to paper. The Prime Minister championed it and now has a responsibility to enact his policy before Australia becomes a launchpad for nuclear war.
“Both of our AUKUS partners are heavily armed with nuclear weapons. As a nation opposed to nuclear weapons, signing the TPNW puts essential protections and future-proofing in place for our country and our region.”
Australia’s New Censorship Is Voluntary – and That’s Why It’s Dangerous
Is a journalist free if they must first seek permission to tell the truth?
4 December 2025, David Tyler, https://theaimn.net/australias-new-censorship-is-voluntary-and-thats-why-its-dangerous/
When journalists internalise the state, the state no longer needs to silence them.
Australia has discovered the most polite form of censorship ever devised. No jackboots, no warrants, no midnight raids; just a quiet conversation, a “national security” reminder, and journalists voluntarily silencing themselves. Why pass laws when you can persuade the press to behave as though they already exist?
This is not satire. It is policy. And its blueprint comes straight from Whitehall.
The Quiet Request
Three weeks after Labor took office in June 2022, officials in Attorney‑General Mark Dreyfus‘s department reached across hemispheres to Britain’s Ministry of Defence. Their purpose was not military cooperation, intelligence sharing, or treaty work. It was media control; specifically, how to make censorship unnecessary by convincing journalists to do it to themselves.
The model: Britain’s Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee (DSMA).
The tool: a pre‑publication vetting mechanism disguised as collaboration.
The tone: “voluntary.”
The effect: silent.
DIY censorship? Brilliant.
Not a Draft. An Import.
Freedom of Information documents show this was not curiosity. It was a virtual IKEA flat‑pack – imported, piece by bureaucratic piece, from the mother country to its former colony. The assembly instructions came straight from London. A spare Allen key always comes in handy.
- 2019: Days after Federal Police raided ABC and News Corp offices over war‑crimes reporting, red‑faced Australian officials began attending DSMA sessions in London.
- 2021–2022: Bureaucrats refined plans for a “similar role” in Australia.
- May 2022: Secret roundtables with major editors were held. No minutes. No attendee lists. No sunlight.
- June 2022: Dreyfus’s department formally requested London’s assistance.
The continuity is chilling. Liberal ministers started the project. Labor ministers continued it. Bureaucratic inertia was the constant.
This isn’t a partisan conspiracy. It’s worse: a bipartisan agreement that journalists must learn to censor themselves politely.
How Britain Silences Without Silencing
DSMA is a masterpiece of bureaucratic subtlety. It issues “advisories,” not bans. Journalists “consult” before publishing, rather than submit for approval. A discreet military officer suggests what to omit “for national security,” while the state never dirties its hands with formal censorship laws.
The committee’s proceedings are confidential.
Its members are hidden.
Its advice is non‑binding.
Yet it boasts a 90% success rate persuading journalists not to publish.
Dissent hasn’t been criminalised; it has been professionalised. To ignore DSMA advice invites prosecution under the Official Secrets Act – or, more immediately, career suicide. The threat is legal, but the engine is cultural.
This is what Canberra admires: not censorship, but managed consent. The state doesn’t punish critics. The critics simply internalise the state. Intuit the boss’ wishes, a bit like a Murdoch editor.
The Dreyfus Paradox
Mark Dreyfus once helped chisel the High Court’s implied freedom of political communication into Australia’s constitutional framework. He argued that democracy depends on journalists criticising power freely.
Journalist training programs
And now? His department has chased a censorship model whose brilliance lies in never admitting it exists.
This isn’t hypocrisy. It’s absorption. Dreyfus didn’t renounce principle; he was subsumed by machinery. You don’t have to betray your beliefs if the institution performs the betrayal for you.
He thought he was protecting national security. What he safeguarded was secrecy itself.
The Machinery
This project did not dissolve when ministers changed. It doesn’t depend on elections. The relationships with UK Defence persist. Editors who attended closed‑door sessions still hold their seats. Bureaucrats continue to discuss frameworks for “voluntary advisory mechanisms.”
And the scaffolding grows stronger through parallel controls:
- Harsher secrecy offences that criminalise public‑interest reporting.
- Online misinformation laws with ministerial discretion over speech.
- Digital identity requirements for internet access.
- Discussion papers on journalist registration systems.
Individually, each seems modest. Together, they form something like a velvet‑lined cage.
The Respectable Mask
Systems like DSMA need legitimacy. Enter Peter Greste: a journalist jailed in Egypt, a symbol of press freedom, a moral compass. Conference transcripts show him engaging with advocates of reviving the Australian D‑Notice system, DSMA’s predecessor.
The argument attributed to him is seductive: pre‑publication consultation protects journalists from prosecution. Ask permission; avoid jail.
And in the process, a core civic principle collapses quietly under manners and moral suasion.
The Question
Australia must stop asking whether a DSMA system will be adopted. It already has been – culturally.
The question is whether Australians still believe freedom of political communication is a public right or whether it has become a regulated professional privilege.
Is a journalist free if they must first seek permission to tell the truth?
That’s the moment democracy becomes polite enough to disappear; and the risk now confronting every newsroom in the country.
* * * * *
CLARKE & DAWE: HOW TO SILENCE A COUNTRY WITHOUT LAWS
SETTING: Parliament House lawn.
BRYAN DAWE holding freshly printed FOI documents.
JOHN CLARKE appears as a senior official from the “Department of National Information Harmony,” calm, courteous, and utterly terrifying.
BRYAN DAWE: John, your department has been in discussions with the UK about its Defence and Security Media Advisory system.
JOHN CLARKE: Yes, Bryan. Very sensible. A voluntary censorship system.
BRYAN DAWE: Voluntary censorship?
JOHN CLARKE: Correct, Bryan. It’s censorship that journalists choose.
BRYAN DAWE: Why would journalists choose to censor themselves?
JOHN CLARKE: National security, Bryan. Also career security. Also avoiding prosecution. And staying in the good books.
BRYAN DAWE: So the government isn’t forcing them?
JOHN CLARKE: No, Bryan. That would look terrible. We simply provide advice about what not to publish.
BRYAN DAWE: And the journalists follow it?
JOHN CLARKE: Over 90% of the time, Bryan. Very cooperative species.
BRYAN DAWE: Doesn’t this undermine press freedom?
JOHN CLARKE: Not at all, Bryan. The press is free to comply.
BRYAN DAWE: FOI documents show your department approached the UK three weeks after Labor was elected.
JOHN CLARKE: Correct. But the previous government started it. It’s bipartisan secrecy, Bryan. The safest kind.
BRYAN DAWE: So both sides agree on this system?
JOHN CLARKE: Absolutely. It avoids embarrassment across the aisle. Truly unifying.
BRYAN DAWE: What is the advantage of a voluntary censorship system?
JOHN CLARKE: You never need to admit you’re censoring anything. The media does it for you. It’s very efficient.
BRYAN DAWE: And what if journalists refuse?
JOHN CLARKE: They are still free to refuse, Bryan. Then they can be prosecuted. Freely.
BRYAN DAWE: John, isn’t democracy supposed to rely on an independent press?
JOHN CLARKE: Yes, Bryan. Which is why the press must work closely with the government.
BRYAN DAWE: That sounds like dependency, not independence.
JOHN CLARKE: Independence is most reliable when it is professionally supervised, Bryan.
BRYAN DAWE: So transparency is preserved?
JOHN CLARKE: Entirely, Bryan. We always encourage transparency; provided it has been cleared with us first.
BRYAN DAWE: John, is this censorship?
JOHN CLARKE: No, Bryan. It’s voluntary. Only the consequences are compulsory.
This article was originally published on URBAN WRONSKI WRITES
Solar and wind reach 100 pct of demand in biggest isolated grid, as batteries allow it to keep its thermals on.
Solar and wind reached a remarkable new milestone in Western Australia’s
isolated grid over the weekend, reaching 100 per cent of demand at various
occasions on Sunday morning, as the state’s growing fleet of batteries
allowed coal and gas generators to keep running in the background. The W.A.
grid, with no links to other states, is becoming a fascinating focal point
for the green energy transition, largely because of the huge impact of
rooftop solar and the high levels of variable renewables seen on almost a
daily basis.
Renew Economy 2nd Dec 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-and-wind-reach-100-pct-of-demand-in-biggest-isolated-grid-as-batteries-allow-it-to-keep-its-thermals-on/
South Australia averages 100 pct wind and solar over week, 90 pct over last 28 days
South Australia – the country’s most advanced renewables grid – has
average more than 100 per cent net renewables (compared to state demand)
over the past week, and more than 90 per cent renewables over the last 28
days. It is not the first time that South Australia has reached 100 per
cent renewables – it has done so previously over the Christmas/New Year
period – but it marks a significant milestone, given that its mix of
renewables is made up entirely of variable wind and solar, and with no
hydro or even biomass to speak of.
Renew Economy 2nd Dec 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-averages-100-pct-wind-and-solar-over-week-90-pct-over-last-28-days/
The architecture of a vassal: how US bases in Australia project power, not protection.
2 December 2025 Andrew Klein, https://theaimn.net/the-architecture-of-a-vassal-how-us-bases-in-australia-project-power-not-protection/
The strategic placement of key US and joint military facilities across Australia reveals a pattern not of national defence, but of integration into a global, offensively-oriented network for force projection and intelligence gathering. An analysis of their locations and functions demonstrates that these bases are designed to serve the strategic interests of a superpower, often at the expense of Australian sovereignty and security.
The Official Rationale: A Volatile Region and the Strategy of Denial
According to official Australian government assessments, the strategic environment is increasingly volatile, characterised by falling international cooperation, rising competition, and uncertainty about US reliability. In response, Australia’s National Defence Strategy: 2024 has adopted a “strategy of denial,” emphasising deterrence as its primary objective. This policy shift is used to justify initiatives such as:
- Acquiring nuclear-powered submarines through AUKUS.
- Upgrading and expanding northern military bases.
- Acquiring new long-range strike capabilities.
The public-facing logic is that longer-range weapons have overturned Australia’s geographic advantage, making the “sea-air gap” to the north a vulnerability. However, a closer examination of the specific facilities tells a different story.
Pine Gap: The Beating Heart of Global Surveillance
The Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap, near Alice Springs, is the most prominent example. Ostensibly a joint facility, it is a critical node in US global intelligence. Its functions extend far beyond any defensive mandate for Australia.
- Global Signals Intelligence: Pine Gap acts as a ground control and processing station for US geosynchronous signals intelligence (SIGINT) satellites. These satellites monitor a vast swath of the Eastern Hemisphere, collecting data including missile telemetry, anti-aircraft radar signals, and communications from mobile phones and microwave transmissions.
- Warfighting and Targeted Killing: Information from Pine Gap is not merely for analysis. It is used to geolocate targets for military action. The base has played a direct role in US drone strikes and has provided intelligence in conflicts from Vietnam and the Gulf War to the ongoing wars in Gaza. Experts testify that data downlinked at Pine Gap is passed to the US National Security Agency and then to allies like the Israel Defense Forces, potentially implicating Australia in international conflicts without public knowledge or parliamentary oversight.
- A History of Secrecy and Sovereignty Betrayed: The base’s history is marked by breaches of Australian sovereignty. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the US government placed Pine Gap on nuclear alert (DEFCON 3) without informing Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. Whitlam’s subsequent consideration of closing the base was followed by his dramatic dismissal in 1975, an event that former CIA officers have linked to US fears over losing access to the facility.
Northern Bases: Launchpads for Power Projection
The network of bases across Australia’s north forms an arc designed for forward operations, not homeland defence.
- RAAF Base Tindal: This base in the Northern Territory is undergoing upgrades to host US B-52 strategic bombers. This transformation turns Australian territory into a forward operating location for long-range strike missions deep into Asia, fundamentally changing the nation’s role from a sovereign state to a launching pad for another power’s offensive operations.
- Marine Rotational Force – Darwin: The stationing of up to 2,500 US Marines in Darwin functions as a persistent force projection and logistics hub, enhancing the US ability to rapidly deploy forces into the Southeast Asian region.
- NW Cape (Harold E. Holt): The facility in Exmouth, Western Australia, hosts advanced space radar and telescopes for “space situational awareness.” This contributes to US space warfare and communications capabilities, a global mission with little direct relation to the defence of Australia’s population centres.
The True Cost: Compromised Sovereignty and Incurred Risk
This integration into a superpower’s military apparatus comes with severe, often unacknowledged, costs.
- The Loss of Sovereign Control: The operational control of these critical facilities is often ceded to the United States. At Pine Gap, the chief of the facility is a senior CIA officer, and certain sections, such as the NSA’s cryptology room, are off-limits to Australian personnel. This creates a situation where activities conducted on Australian soil are not fully known or controlled by the Australian government.
- Becoming a Nuclear Target: The critical importance of bases like Pine Gap to US global military dominance makes them high-priority targets in the event of a major conflict. By hosting these facilities, Australia voluntarily assumes the risk of being drawn into a nuclear exchange, a strategic decision made without public debate.
- Complicity in International Conflicts: As the protests and legal actions surrounding Pine Gap’s role in Gaza highlight, Australia faces legal and moral accusations of complicity in actions that may constitute war crimes or genocide. This places the nation in direct opposition to international law and global public opinion, all for the sake of an alliance that often prioritises US interests.
Conclusion: From Independent Ally to Integrated Base
The evidence is clear: the strategic network of US-linked bases in Australia is not primarily for the nation’s defence. It is the architecture of a vassal state, designed to service the global force projection and intelligence-gathering needs of a superpower. From the satellite surveillance of Pine Gap to the bomber forward deployment at Tindal, these facilities entangle Australia in conflicts far beyond its shores, compromise its sovereignty, and incur immense strategic risks. Until this fundamental reality is confronted, Australian defence policy will continue to serve an empire’s interests, not its own.
References…………………
Australia’s most advanced renewable grid is its most secure, but NSW must scramble as it nears “no coal” scenario.
South Australia, the most advanced renewable grid in the country and even
the world – thanks to its unrivalled near 75 per cent share of wind and
solar – is also the most secure, according to a major new report on the
state of the energy transition.
The Transition Plan for System Security,
published on Monday by the Australian Energy Market Operator, identifies
South Australia as the only state grid which is not facing a system
strength deficit in coming years.
That’s largely because South Australia
went first, and it went hard and fast. Its last coal fired power station
closed in 2016, and because it has such a high percentage of wind and
solar, as well as rooftop PV, it has had to deal with the issues around
frequency control, inertia and system strength before other states. South
Australia, the most advanced renewable grid in the country and even the
world – thanks to its unrivalled near 75 per cent share of wind and solar
– is also the most secure, according to a major new report on the state
of the energy transition.
When the new transmission link to NSW is complete in 2027, South Australia will
be the first in the world to be able to run its gigawatt scale grid at
times with “engines off” – i.e. no gas plant required for bulk power
or system security – as it nears or even achieves its target of reaching
100 per cent net renewables.
Renew Economy 1st Dec 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/australias-most-advanced-renewable-grid-is-its-most-secure-but-nsw-must-scramble-as-it-nears-no-coal-scenario/
We must embrace reality with cheap green energy.
Critics will say we can’t afford to transition away from fossil fuels.
When you come face to face with the impacts, it’s reasonable to argue
that we can’t afford not to. But something interesting is starting to
happen. Around four or five years ago, it became cheaper to generate
electricity from the sun and wind than it is by setting things on fire.
Renewable energy has been getting so plentiful, to the point that some
governments are literally giving it away. In Australia, where almost 40% of
homes have solar panels on their roof, the government announced that they
have so much solar energy that from January next year, Australians will get
three free hours of electricity every single day. Whether you have a solar
panel or not, for those three hours, you can charge your car, run the
washing machine or even store up your home battery and run the house for
free all night.
At a time when it was announced that the energy price cap
is set to rise slightly here in the UK, and when the average cost of
heating and running a home is close to £1800, it’s hard not to feel
jealous of those Australians who can look forward to free power for three
hours a day.
Even more astonishingly it’s China which is driving this
change towards cleaner energy. When I lived in China back in the early
2000s, we had toxic smog so thick you couldn’t see the apartment block
across the road. Chinese cities used to dominate the top 10 most-polluted
cities in the world, today they barely feature in that most grubby of
lists.
In May of this year, China installed new solar and wind energy
systems that generated as much electricity as Poland generates all-year
round, from all available sources, and while they continue to construct
more coal-fired power stations, those stations run at most at 50% capacity,
and the country’s carbon emissions are thought to have peaked.
These power stations are used almost as back-up power, because they’re more
expensive to run than solar or wind farms, and once the next breakthrough
comes in the form of battery storage, experts argue that dirty power
stations will grow obsolete. China has figured out that clean energy and
renewables are the way forward, because they will ultimately prove to be
cheaper and more profitable.
They’ve made more money exporting green tech
in the past 18 months than the US has made in exporting oil and gas in that
same period. While America is betting the house on AI being the future,
China has gambled on renewable energy and clean tech being the way forward.
In Europe, people are nipping down to their equivalent of B&Q to pick up
plug-in solar panels they can hang off their balconies. These cheap and
cheerful solutions can provide up to 25% of an apartment’s energy usage,
and are as easy to use as plugging in a toaster. It’s such an innovative
– and useful – development that the UK Government has launched a study
to see if it could be rolled out here.
Regulations would need to be
reformed, but if this could be achieved, we could soon access the kind of
cheap and convenient solution that close to 1.5 million Germans enjoy.
It’s easy to feel overwhelmed when faced with the challenge of a warming
planet, and dither and delay from those in power. But ultimately we’ve
got more power than we think. Environmentalist Bill McKibben argues that
economics dictate that in 30 years’ time we’ll be running this planet
on solar and wind energy anyway. It’s up to us to determine how long we
want to wait to embrace reality, and cheaper energy bills.
The National 26th Nov 2025,
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/25650532.must-embrace-reality-lower-bills-cheap-green-energy/
Michael West Media scoops the prize pool in the 2025 Walkey Awards
Editor’s Note: this is satire. The Walkleys is on tomorrow night.
MWM publisher and journalist Kim Wingerei took out the Walkey Award for Public Interest Journalism for his expose Peter Dutton’s Nuclear Plant to cost $4.3 trillion (not $600 billion). We thank the sponsors NotNewsCorp.
by Michael West | Nov 26, 2025 |
Journalists from Michael West Media have scooped the pool in this year’s Walkey Awards for Excellence in Journalism taking home no less than 28 Walkeys*.
This year’s Gold Walkey (not sponsored by Woodside) was a hard-fought affair with Rex Patrick taking out the gong for his body of work on government transparency and Australia’s 60-year campaign to steal Timor’s oil and gas.
Rex Patrick with his Gold Walkey
Veteran journalist, Wendy Bacon, joins the giants of Australia’s media landscape as an inductee of the prestigious Walkey Hall of Fame. Bacon also won the award for Outstanding Contribution to Journalism with Yaakov Aharon for their body of work as MWM Special Envoys for Combatting Antisemitism Scams (not sponsored by the Tel Aviv litigation budget of the Zionist Federation of Australia).
Bacon and Patrick led the charge in a humongous year for independent outfit Michael West Media at Australia’s most venerable and glamorous awards night. Other winners included Josh Barnett, Stephanie Tran, Michael Pascoe, Kim Wingerei, Sarah Russell, Yaakov Aharon, Harry Chemay, Stuart McCarthy, Zach Szumer.
Wendy Bacon also took home the Walkey Award for Investigative Journalism (not sponsored by the Victor Chang Institute) for her intrepid coverage of the St Vincent’s Hospital debacle and was runner-up for coverage of foreign lobbyists and fossil fuel lobbyists interfering in Australian governments.
Truly a watershed
Commenting on the watershed moment in world journalistic history, MWM founder Michael West thanked the community, politicians and business leaders, and particularly the Walkey judges for their debonaire taste.
“We couldn’t have done it without the judges,” said West in a teary acceptance speech. “Me and the judges, we’re mates,” he told the large audience which was clearly moved by the occasion. “But we also owe a debt of gratitude to Australia’s politicians and business leaders for providing such good material to work with – and of course to our platinum sponsors NotSantos and NotPwC”.
“We couldn’t have done it without the judges,” said West in a teary acceptance speech. “Me and the judges, we’re mates,” he told the large audience which was clearly moved by the occasion. “But we also owe a debt of gratitude to Australia’s politicians and business leaders for providing such good material to work with – and of course to our platinum sponsors NotSantos and NotPwC”.
Stephanie Tran has won Young Journalist of the Year (sponsor Not Accenture) and was runner-up in the Walkey Scoop segment for uncovering the billion-dollar coal scam on workers with her entry Private Tax Collectors (sponsor Not BHP).…………………………………………………………..https://michaelwest.com.au/michael-west-media-scoops-the-prize-pool-in-the-2025-walkey-awards/
Nuke Submarine ‘community consultation’
By Philip White on Nov 23, 2025
Australian Naval Infrastructure (ANI) is conducting a ‘community consultation’ about its plan to lodge a site licence application for the ‘Nuclear-Powered Submarine Construction Yard Project’. An application has to be lodged with the new Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator before it can prepare a site for a Naval Nuclear Propulsion facility.
We wonder why they are in such a hurry to apply for a site licence when the Strategic Impact Assessment (SIA – Commonwealth process) and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS – State government process) haven’t even been finalised. FoE Adelaide made submissions to both these processes (click to read our SIA submission & our EIS submission) in March 2025, but no public submissions and no follow-up report have been published. We also made a submission on the new nuclear powered submarine Regulations, which came into effect on 1 November 2025 without any response to the public comments received.
Click here (251123FoEAdelaideSubmission) to read our submission to ANI’s site licence ‘community consultation’.
And let us never forget that acquiring nuclear powered submarines is a bad idea in the first place.
Water is under pressure in the Great Artesian Basin.
The Great Artesian Basin covers a fifth of Australia and contains water that has been there for millions of years. Now, decades of extraction are taking their toll and traditional owners are fighting a mining giant for compensation.
ABC News, Words by Leah MacLennan & images by Lincoln Rothall, 23 Nov 25
“Each spring carries a story that connects it to the traditional owners — the Arabana people. But they say the environment — and their cultural connection to it — is under threat. Some of the springs have dried up, and the health of others has deteriorated.
“The Arabana people are now fighting mining giant BHP for compensation over what they say is damage to their cultural heritage and the loss of kuta, the Arabana word for water.”
“The federal government estimates business activity in the basin — including agriculture and mining — contributed $33.2 billion to the economy last year.
“Just a few kilometres away from the springs on Arabana Country is a BHP-owned wellfield — known as Wellfield A — that, according to the company, pumps more than four million litres of water per day to its Olympic Dam mine
“The company takes another 29 million litres per day from another area — Wellfield B — further to the west.
“There’s plenty of monitoring data that shows that the extraction that BHP have engaged in supporting the Olympic Dam project has caused draw down and significant reductions in the pressure of the GAB aquifer or aquifers near their site,”
“The company says over the past 15 years it’s reduced its reliance on Wellfield A, and will stop taking from it in the mid 2030s — when there are plans for a government-built desalination plant to service the region.” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-23/water-is-under-pressure-in-the-great-artesian-basin/106002448
1 This month
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 