Antinuclear

SUBMISSION: Radiation protection for workers and members of the public under AUKUS.

Submission to the national AUKUS inquiry by Dr Tony Webb, 11 June 25

About the author
I think the issues addressed in this submission should stand or fall on the relevance of the
concerns raised and the scientific evidence it highlights rather than who is raising them.

That said I do have some professional qualifications and a history of international
engagement with this issue. I hold an MSc in Energy Resources Management from the
Polytechnic of the Southbank, now Southbank University, London (1990) and a PhD from the
University of Western Sydney (2003). Retired from a senior lecturer position in the School
of Science and Health at the University of Western Sydney in 2013. Much of my work over
the past half century has been on the interface between the trade union / labour and
environment movements. In the UK in the 1970s I worked as national resources campaign
coordinator at Fiends of the Earth, coordinator of the Socialist Environment and Resources
Association Alternative Energy Campaign, founding director of the UK Radiation and Health
Information Service, and National Organiser of the UK national Anti-Nuclear Campaign. In
the 1980s I was director of the Radiation and Health Labor Project targeting US unions and
their members, worked as consultant to Canadian Labor Congress and Canadian unions
with members in uranium mining, nuclear power generation, and Health Services, and on
returning to the UK coordinated what became an international Food Irradiation campaign
through the London Food Commission and worked as senior researcher for Frank Cool MP
coordinating a Radiation Roundtable dialogue between unions environment and health
groups. I have continued aspects of this work in Australia most recently as an active
member of the South Australian Citizen’s Jury on the importing of nuclear wastes and lately
raising the concerns identified in this submission with environment, anti-nuclear, peace,
public health, political and trade union groups.

Summary of key issues covered in this submission
The key issues I wish to raise for consideration as part of this Inquiry into the AUKUS
submarine program are:
 *That there is a potential risk to health of workers and the public from routine as well
as unpanned/accidental exposures to ionising radiation from many aspects of this
AUKUS program including: submarine construction, operation, maintenance,
decommissioning, and long-term management of radioactive waste materials.
 *It has long been an established principle for radiation protection that there is no
threshold or safe level of exposure – that even small doses may result in stochastic
health effects where probability of effect rises with the level of exposure rather than
disease outcomes being determined by dose. As a result, it is expected that all
exposures need to be justified against some expected social benefit, be kept as low
as reasonably achievable (ALARA) and be kept below strict annual worker and public
exposure limits.
 *These established principles are currently being challenged in the USA as a result of a
2025 Presidential directive that instructs the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
abandon the no threshold and ALARA principles and revise occupational and
exposure limits to reflect deterministic rather than stochastic health effects –
changes that, if implemented would significantly increase permissible exposures.

 *It is unclear how such changes might be applied to nuclear submarine operations
under AUKUS particularly where US or Australian-US co-owned/operated boats use
Australian facilities. Pressure from the US to operate within US standards can be
anticipated. It should be noted that Australia has already established a Naval
Nuclear Protection Standards Regulator (ANNPSR) – separate from the current
Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) – that will regulate all
aspects of safety for the AUKUS program.
 * The changes to US standards – already weaker than those applied under
international recommendations by most other countries, come at a time when
scientific evidence from large scale epidemiological health studies on workers
employed in, and communities living close to, nuclear facilities indicates that the
estimates used in setting current standards underestimate the risks to health and
need to be significantly tightened.

Details and evidence relating to these issues are outlined below. I will be happy to provide
further information and be questioned on matters arising if this would assist the Inquiry.

Impending changes to radiation protection standards
Changes for worse or better protection for workers and the public is on the international
and national political agenda in a number of countries. Trade Union, environment and
public health groups around the world are concerned that the USA is considering proposals
that would weaken radiation protection standards at a time when the scientific evidence
suggests these need to be significantly tightened. These need to be resisted with pressure
to provide better not worse protection for workers and the public.

In May 2025 US President Donald Trump issued a Directive (EO 14300) 1 requiring the US
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to review nuclear safety regulations with particular
reference to radiation protection of workers and the public. The Directive instructs the NRC
to abandon fundamental principles that have formed the basis for radiation protection for
much of the past century. These include: the internationally accepted position that there is
no threshold or safe level of exposure to ionising radiation; that, as a consequence, all
exposures should be kept as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA); and that exposures to
workers and the public be kept below strict annual limits in line with the best

Evidence for increased health risk from radiation exposure
The evidence used to set current standards is drawn mainly from the studies of cancer rates
among the Japanese A-bomb survivors who were exposed to relatively high doses over short
time periods. Since then, studies of workers in nuclear power facilities exposed to lower
doses over long time periods show higher rates of cancer than predicted by the Japanese
studies. Rather than indicating any threshold these studies suggest that at low doses the
cancer rates are proportionately higher than expected from the Linear No-Threshold (LNT)
model used to set current standards. 2 Worker studies also show elevated rates of cardio-
vascular diseases 3 , and increased rates of dementia 4 . In addition, studies on populations
around nuclear power plants are now showing higher cancer rates affecting the population
generally 5 and particularly children 6 and the elderly 7 with level of health damage correlated
with how close they lived to these facilities.

Despite this evidence, the US NRC is considering weakening protection standards
Despite this mounting evidence that exposure limits should be tightened the likely result of
changes in line with the Presidential directive would be to increase the permissible exposure
limit for workers and the public to five times the current internationally recommended level.

The US NRC is clearly faced with a dilemma. Adopting the changes demanded by the
President would require reversing its 2021 decision that specifically rejected these same
proposals 8 . The initial date for publication of the NRC’s draft response for public
consultation was 23 February 2026. This have been deferred several times – first to 30 April
then 24 June and now 2 July. Despite large scale resignations and lay-offs among NRC staff
perhaps there remain some with scientific integrity opposing the changes they believe are
unjustifiable. Further delays may occur but the final revision of standards is required by end
of December 2026. Given the President’s record for seeking retribution on government
representatives or officials who oppose his plans it is hard to see any outcome from the NRC
other than a change to weaken the US standards.

US pressure on global standards
If they go through there will also likely be pressure on international and national standards
agencies to align with changes in the USA. There is already some push-back. In June 2025
the heads of European standards agencies issued a statement supporting the LNT and
ALARA principles and insisting that exposure standards be set on the basis of the scientific
evidence without undue influence. 9 In May 2026 the World Health Organisation urged
national and international bodies to continue collaboration to “harmonise standards, share
data and strengthen coordination on radiation and health.” 10

The AUKUS connection
In Australia there are a number of joint ventures in uranium and radioactive rare earths and
mineral sands mining and the government has already established a separate Naval Nuclear
Power Safety Regulator (ANNPSR) to oversee all aspects of construction, operation,
maintenance, decommissioning and nuclear waste management under the Australia-UK-US
(AUKUS) nuclear submarine program. While these nuclear submarine standards are
expected to be consistent with those of the current Australian Radiation and Nuclear Safety
Agency (ARPANSA) it is unclear whether US or Australian standards will apply to US military
or joint US Australian assets operating from Australian facilities. Pressure for change is
inevitable. Hopefully the outcome of politically independent science-based pressure will be
not merely opposition to changes prompted by the US President’s directive but for
significantly better standards to protect health of workers and the public where they are
routinely exposed to ionising radiation.

What the AUKUS investigation might recommend
First: that Australian radiation protection should continue to be based on the established
principles that: there is no safe level of exposure to ionising radiation; that all exposures in
the workplace, and in community from whatever source need to be justified against some
recognizable benefit and where justified be kept as low as reasonably achievable and in any
case below strict exposure limits that are set on the basis of the best available evidence for
the level of risk of health damage.

Second: that all radiation protection safety standards operated under the AUKUS program
and regulated by the ANNPSR be consistent with those developed by ARPSANSA for
occupational and public exposures generally and that these apply to construction,
maintenance, decommissioning and waste management for all nuclear-powered
submarines whether these are owned by Australia or another country – Australian
standards rather than those of another country should apply in Australia.

Third: that ARPANSA be asked to provide a clear and unequivocal statement that Radiation
Protection standards in Australia will not be changed in line with the US Presidential
Directive

Fourth: that ARPANSA be asked to undertake a systematic review of the evidence suggesting
that the current occupational and public exposure limits need to be revised – and tightened
so as to lower permissible exposure limits.

References and Further Reading

1 Directive EO14300 Ordering the Reform of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 May 2025.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-14300-ordering-the-reform-the-nuclear-
regulatory-commission see Section 5 for directives relating to Radiation Protection

2 Richardson et al. 2023. Cancer mortality after low dose exposure to ionising radiation in workers in France,
the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS): cohort study. British Medical Journal 16 August 2023.
See https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj-2022-074520 The study concludes:
This major update to INWORKS provides a direct estimate of the association between protracted low-dose
exposure to ionizing radiation and solid cancer mortality based on some of the world’s most informative
cohorts of radiation workers. The summary estimate of excess relative rate solid cancer mortality per Gy is
larger than estimates currently informing radiation protection, and some evidence suggests a steeper slope for
the dose-response association in the low dose range than over the full dose range. These results can help to
strengthen radiation protection, especially for low dose exposures that are of primary interest in contemporary
medical, occupational and environmental settings.

3 Little et al, 2023. Ionising radiation and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ
March 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-072924

4 Frangione et al. Exposure to ionizing radiation and dementia mortality among nuclear power plant workers in
the Canadian national dose registry. Occupational and Environmental Medicine. November 5, Oral session:
Specific exposures: pesticides & Ionizing radiation.. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2024-EPICOHabstracts.61

5 Alwadi Y, et al (2026). A national analysis of the impact of proximity to nuclear power plants on lung, breast
and colon cancer moralities in the U.S., 2000-2020, Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-026-00922-2

6 Fairlie, I. 2021. Radiation and Cancer in Children. Report for the UK Charity Children with Cancer. See
https://www.ianfairlie.org/news/a-report-on-radiation-risks-and-on-cancer-in-children/

7 Alwasi Y. et al. 2026. National analysis of cancer mortality and proximity to nuclear power plants in the
United States. Nature Communications 17, 1560, 13 April 2026. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-
026-69285-4

8 Petition for Rulemaking; Denial: Linear No-Threshold Model and Standards for Protection Against Radiation
Posted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Aug 16, 2021 https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-
2015-0057-0671

June 14, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

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

June 11, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

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.”

June 9, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

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.

June 9, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Joe Hockey says he is nervous about AUKUS – and wants Albanese to cold-call Trump

Matthew Knott, May 26, 2026, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/joe-hockey-says-he-is-nervous-about-aukus-and-wants-albanese-to-cold-call-trump-20260526-p600oa.html

Former ambassador to Washington Joe Hockey says he is worried about the possibility the United States will not supply nuclear-powered submarines to Australia as promised under the AUKUS pact because of faltering American production rates.

The former treasurer also urged Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to make a habit of cold-calling US President Donald Trump to improve their relationship and influence his thinking on world affairs.

Under the AUKUS plan, the US is supposed to sell three Virginia-class attack submarines to Australia, starting from 2032.

But senior US navy officials have warned that US shipyards must start pumping out significantly more submarines to have any spare for Australia, raising the possibility of the defence force being left with a capability gap.

Hockey, who served as Australia’s top diplomat in Washington from 2016 to 2020, told the National Press Club that “for the first time, I’m a little nervous about the Virginias, and that’s after a few conversations on the Hill”.

The US, he said, “just has not got the production of the Virginia up to speed”.

Hockey’s remarks are notable because he runs a Washington-based lobbying firm that represents major defence companies and he has been a passionate champion of AUKUS.

His remarks differ from Richard Marles, Defence Minister, who told this masthead last week that there was “zero possibility” of AUKUS coming unstuck.

Asked whether there was a growing danger the sale of Virginia-class submarines could be delayed or pared back, Hockey said: “I think the risk has increased, and we need again to have a full court press on the ground in Washington.”

He said that “we’ve got to prove that we’re ready for the Virginias here and display the physical capability to house them and to support their presence here, not to give the Americans any hook not to deliver”.

Hockey did not join calls for Australia to develop a “plan B” for AUKUS, saying it was not like Albanese could “go down to Bunnings” and buy a fleet of alternative submarines.

Hockey singled out US Deputy Secretary of War Steve Feinberg as a powerful official that Australia needed to court to ensure Trump’s vow that AUKUS is going “full steam ahead” is followed through.

“We’ve got to get political buy-in, more political buy-in, so that the people who are actually making the decisions on US procurement are keeping us at the top of the list,” he said.

Urging Australia to seek closer integration into US supply chains, Hockey said there was “no problem at a military-to-military or bureaucracy-to-bureaucracy level, it’s just a question of whether they can actually build the Virginias fast enough”.

Trump’s former acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, agreed with Hockey that it would be “really, really, really difficult” for the US to build enough submarines to provide any to Australia, despite strong bipartisan support for AUKUS in Washington.

“There’s going to be technical difficulties building that many submarines,” he said.

The US Navy’s chief of naval operations, Daryl Caudle, said last year: “The only way we’ll ever make good on the AUKUS agreement is that we get to the 2.3 [build rate], and it is my goal to make good on that.”

The US is currently producing around 1.2 boats a year, meaning production will need to increase significantly to hit the 2.3 build rate figure.

Hockey said US allies were “really missing” a figure like the former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, who developed a close relationship with Trump in his first term and spoke to him regularly on the phone.

Hockey lamented that among world leaders, “there’s no one that picks up the phone, they’re afraid almost to pick up the phone to the president [and] have a conversation.

“I mean, he answers phone calls from random journalists around the world, and it’s not hard to get his cell number, and he answers it,” he said.

“I’d encourage the prime minister to ring him occasionally. I mean, what have you got to lose? Australian prime ministers have been confidants of US presidents more than people realise, and I think the president of the United States is missing that back channel of advice.”

It has become something of a running joke among American journalists about how easy it is to obtain Trump’s phone number and call him for stories.

Albanese last year said he had Trump’s phone number after he remarked during an election debate that he’s “not sure that he has a mobile phone” and that texting a fellow world leader is “not the way it works”.

June 1, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

“Don’t mention the genocide”

27 May 2026 AIMN Editorial , https://theaimn.net/dont-mention-the-genocide/

Australia needs to shake off the oppressive chains of the Zionist Israeli lobby. Social cohesion and Australian’s faith in their parliament has been trashed in the mad scramble to appease the Zionist Israeli lobby. The perverse and cowardly leadership by Australia’s political class is blatant, disgusting, particularly unAustralian, an affront to common decency, and an attack on humanity itself. Being  unequivocally against Zionist Israel’s genocide is what was needed. Instead, Australia got obfuscation and complicity that is tearing at the heart of Australians egalitarian moral compass. The rush to push through Parliament the new antisemitism laws – with minimal scrutiny and major rule of law flaws like vague definitions, retrospective reach and expanded executive powers – risks undermining our rights, due process, and democratic accountability. These laws are proving that bad laws are the worst form of tyranny.

Noting that in 2025 the Federal Court made the line explicit: Criticism of Israel or Zionism is not antisemitism. One targets a state and an ideology. The other targets a people. Conflating them is legally wrong and constitutionally dangerous, and as such our politicians have let us down.

The independence of the Australian democratic system must now be in question. Australia and the West will pay a high price for Zionist Israel’s war on liberty (not USS Liberty), justice, and humanity itself.

Zionist interference and manipulation of Australian politicians and media is out of control. When the Zionist Israeli lobby is more powerful than the Australian peoples’ democratic rights then something has gone radically wrong. The proof of this overbearing influence is laid out in the examples of Labor leader Anthony Albanese not allowing debate on the genocide in Gaza at the Labor national conference, the removal of Fatima Payman from Labor by Albanese for standing up for Palestinians and Labor values, the cancelling of Pulitzer prize winning journalist Chris Hedges from the National Press Club, the cancelling of the visa for internationally recognised podcaster Candice Owens by Tony Burke, the unlawful sacking of Antoinette Lattouf from the ABC and the fiasco of the forever tarnished Adelaide Writers Festival exacerbated by the Labor premier’s interference. These are just a few examples of our politicians (and media) acting as lapdogs to the Zionist Israeli lobby. Australia, it would seem, is becoming part of Greater Israel.

How has it come to this, that antisemitism is now a far more heinously egregious affront to common human decency than the blatantly obvious orchestrated and systemic genocidal apartheid of a disempowered nation and the mass slaughter of that nations most innocent: the children? Australian politicians should note that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing (as the saying goes).

The antisemitism envoy’s demands/report was criticised, pilloried and lampooned before the events in Bondi. Now they are flagged to be law and Australian’s freedoms and values are negated while a specious royal commission that will not attempt to address the “cause and effect” elephant in the room, a genocidal humanitarian disaster perpetrated by an apartheid regime, will go ahead to appease those with objectionable motives, unscrupulous morals and hidden agendas. Who really have been the victims of the Bondi shootings when the truth is now hate speech and is criminalised by our government?

Why are those protesting for peace blamed by the NSW premier for the events in Bondi? Australians are better than those who seek to divide and control us, like Chris Minns.

Hate speech is being used by our politicians when the NSW premier says that mosques are “factories of hate” and the PM says that Palestinian children are “taught to hate” but not a word mentioned about the hate being perpetrated upon the Palestinian people.

It is evident that Australia – like the US – has been infiltrated by traitorous unChristian paid Zionist Israeli goose stepping foot soldiers masquerading as patriotic Australian politicians who trash international laws and conventions while enabling war criminals.

Brave young Australians made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our collective freedoms and values. Now a foreign regime has the ability to deny and nullity those freedoms and values. Why?

Ask yourself why this specific group were targeted?

Why was the ex-IDF security so ineffective?

Like the October 7 attack on Zionist Israel, and like the 1994 false flag bombing of the Israeli Embassy in London by Mossad, there are a lot of questions about the events that occurred at Bondi that need to be answered.

In actuality it has been a pyrrhic victory for Zionist lobbyists, although with that in mind surely now the question must be have Australians democratic rights become the sixteenth victim of the Bondi shootings?

May 29, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

The Sound of Silence: Australia’s Complicity in the Face of Evidence

In January 2026, the government ignored a request to prepare an arrest warrant for Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who toured Australia at the government’s invitation in early February, despite a UN Commission of Inquiry finding that Herzog incited genocide when he blamed “an entire nation” for the October 7 attack.

26 May 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, The Sound of Silence: Australia’s Complicity in the Face of Evidence – The Australian Independent Media Network

The Evidence That Cannot Be Ignored

On 22 May 2026, a coalition of human rights organisations – Amnesty International Australia, the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN), and the Australia Muslim Advocacy Network (AMAN) – submitted a formal dossier to Australian Federal Police Commissioner Krissy Barrett and Attorney-General Michelle Rowland.

The submission contained a 140-page dossier prepared by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians, detailing extensive allegations of genocide and war crimes against Israeli government and military figures including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and former IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi.

The organisations urged the AFP to investigate “any Australian dual nationals alleged to have participated in hostilities in Gaza or related conduct potentially giving rise to offences under Australian law.”

Amnesty International’s Mohamed Duar was blunt: “Any Australian who has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide must be held to account and face justice.”

The government has not responded.

The silence is deafening.

The Arms Trade: Business as Usual

While the government refuses to investigate alleged war criminals on Australian soil, it continues to facilitate the weapons that make those crimes possible.

Australia’s defence export regime has faced repeated scrutiny over its approvals for arms exports to Israel. Under the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012, the government is required to deny export permits where there is a “clear risk” that the goods might be used to commit “serious violations of international humanitarian law.”

Yet permits continue to be approved. The government refuses to release detailed figures, citing commercial confidentiality. What we know comes from leaked documents and investigative reporting – including evidence that Australian-made components have found their way into Israeli military systems used in Gaza.

The pattern is consistent with global trends. Serbia’s arms exports to Israel surged from approximately €1.4 million in 2023 to tens of millions annually in 2025. NATO member Albania signed a secret contract worth hundreds of millions of euros with Elbit Systems, an Israeli defence company under investigation for allegedly bribing alliance officials, with the agreement’s costs and terms kept from the Albanian parliament.Australia is not alone. But Australia is not off the hook.

The question is simple: Is Australia arming a state accused of genocide?

The government will not answer.

The Visa Paradox: War Criminals Welcome, Humanitarians Barred

The contradiction could not be starker.

On one hand, Australia has denied visas to Palestinian refugees and humanitarian workers seeking safety. In March 2026, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke granted visas to a troupe of female IDF soldiers taking a “recovery trip” to Melbourne. Israeli dual nationals who have served in the IDF – including those who documented their service “near the Gaza/Egypt border” – have entered and left Australia unchecked.

On the other hand, Australia has denied entry to Israeli political figures associated with anti-Palestinian rhetoric. Former minister Ayelet Shaked and MK Simcha Rothman were refused visas. The government has imposed sanctions on far-right Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, including travel bans.

But here is the problem: The government has not applied the same standard to Israeli dual nationals who may have committed war crimes.

Authorities in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, and Sri Lanka have ordered investigations into allegations of war crimes by their citizens or Israeli soldiers on their soil. Australia has done nothing.

In January 2026, the government ignored a request to prepare an arrest warrant for Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who toured Australia at the government’s invitation in early February, despite a UN Commission of Inquiry finding that Herzog incited genocide when he blamed “an entire nation” for the October 7 attack.

Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has introduced visa cancellation criteria based on “a test of character, not necessarily a test of criminality” and “inciting discord.” By his own criteria, Herzog fails the test. The government did not apply it.

Why does one standard apply to Israeli politicians and another to Israeli soldiers?

The government will not answer.

The Flotilla: Humiliation on Video

On 21 May 2026, footage emerged of Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir taunting detained activists from the Global Sumud Flotilla – an international effort to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza and deliver aid.

The video showed Ben-Gvir waving an Israeli flag in front of bound activists kneeling face down in a tent. One woman was forced to the ground by masked officers after shouting “Free, free Palestine.”

Among the 430 detained activists were 11 Australians. They reported being denied food and water for days. One activist, Zack Schofield, stated:

“Many of us haven’t eaten for days. We were denied water for two days. I have friends that were shocked with tasers, stun guns for extended periods of time just on entry to prison.”

Foreign Minister Penny Wong condemned Ben-Gvir’s actions as “shocking and unacceptable.” The government called in the Israeli ambassador. Wong directed DFAT to make representations.

But here is the problem: Condemnation is not consequence.

Greens Senator Nick McKim called for “the strongest possible response from our prime minister and our foreign minister… a far, far stronger response than they’ve delivered to date.”

None has come.

The activists were released and deported to Turkey. The Israeli minister who humiliated them faces no sanction from Australia beyond words.

When does condemnation become complicity?

The government will not answer.

The Royal Commission Contradiction

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese repeatedly rejected calls for a royal commission into antisemitism, arguing that royal commissions “achieve nothing” and become “divisive.”

In December 2025, following the Bondi Beach terrorist attack, the government rejected calls for a royal commission, with Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke arguing that a royal commission would “re-platform some of the worst statements and worst voices.” The government instead commissioned former ASIO boss Dennis Richardson to review the security ecosystem.

Yet when it comes to domestic violence, which killed 64 Australian women in 2024 alone, the same Prime Minister has also rejected royal commissions, stating that they “take too long” and “don’t deliver the urgent change needed.”

The inconsistency is instructive.

Royal commissions are a tool. The government deploys them when it wishes – as it did for aged care, disability, the robodebt scheme, and the management of police informants. It withholds them when the political cost of action exceeds the cost of inaction.

On antisemitism, the government has chosen a path of symbolic measures: an education taskforce, a “university report card,” funding for Monash University to expand training in “recognising antisemitism.” These are not nothing. But they are not accountability.

The Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, recommended the withholding of funding from universities found to have facilitated antisemitism. The government has not implemented this recommendation.

Why is antisemitism treated differently from other forms of hate?

The government will not answer.

The Envoy and the Universities

The appointment of a Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, a position with no equivalent for Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism, or anti-Arab hate – raises its own questions.

The Envoy’s remit includes monitoring “adoption of an appropriate definition of antisemitism” across universities. The “appropriate definition” is widely understood to be the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition, which includes as examples of antisemitism “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” and “applying double standards to Israel.”

Critics argue that this definition conflates criticism of Israeli government policy with antisemitism, effectively chilling legitimate political speech. Universities have been warned that funding may be withheld if they fail to adopt the definition and act against violations .

Whatever one thinks of the IHRA definition, the underlying question is: Why does the government believe it has the authority to dictate which definitions Australian universities must adopt?

Universities are independent institutions. Academic freedom is a core value of liberal democracy. The government’s approach – financial penalties for non-compliance – represents a significant intrusion into university governance.

The government has not applied this standard to any other form of discrimination or hate speech.

Why is antisemitism being treated as a special case requiring special powers?

The government will not answer.

The Zionist Fraction: Who Speaks for Whom?

A crucial fact is consistently omitted from public discussion: Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews. And the Zionist position does not represent the entirety of Jewish opinion in Australia or anywhere else.

According to the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, approximately 117,000 Jewish people live in Australia (about 0.4% of the population). There is no reliable data on what percentage actively support the Israeli government’s policies in Gaza, support a two-state solution, oppose Zionism altogether, or simply wish to be left out of the debate entirely.

Yet the government, in its public statements and policy responses, consistently conflates “antisemitism” with “criticism of Israel.” The Special Envoy’s mandate explicitly adopts a definition of antisemitism that includes certain forms of Israel criticism as examples of anti-Jewish hate.

This conflation serves a political purpose: it delegitimises legitimate debate about Israeli government policy, international law, and human rights. It equates questioning the actions of a foreign government with hating Jewish people. It collapses a complex spectrum of opinion into a binary: with us or against us.

Who decided that the Zionist position speaks for all Jews? And on what authority?

The government will not answer.

The Humanitarians vs. The State of Israel

The mistreatment of the Samud flotilla activists – 11 Australian citizens detained at gunpoint in international waters, denied food and water, humiliated by a government minister on video – raises the most fundamental question of all: What is the Australian government prepared to do to protect its citizens from a foreign power?

The answer, so far, is: not much.

Condemnation. Diplomatic representations. A phone call. A statement.

No sanctions. No travel bans. No freezing of defence exports. No arrest warrants for Israeli officials who may have committed crimes against Australian citizens.

Compare this to the government’s response to other human rights violations. When Russia invaded Ukraine, Australia imposed sanctions, sent military aid, and expelled diplomats. When China detained Australian citizens, the government made public protests and pursued diplomatic channels.

When Israel detains Australian citizens at gunpoint and a government minister humiliates them on video, Australia condemns… and moves on.

Why is Israel treated differently from other nations?

The government will not answer.

The Empirical Record

The government’s silence is not an absence of information. It is a choice made in the presence of overwhelming evidence.

On arms exports: The government refuses to disclose approvals for military exports to Israel, citing commercial confidentiality. It will not confirm or deny whether Australian-made components have been used in weapons deployed in Gaza.

On war crimes investigations: The government has not responded to the 22 May 2026 submission from human rights organisations. It has not confirmed whether the AFP is investigating any Australian dual nationals who served in the IDF. It has not explained why Israel’s President was granted a visa and a red-carpet welcome despite a UN finding of incitement to genocide.

On the flotilla: The government condemned Ben-Gvir’s actions but has not imposed sanctions beyond those already in place. It has not explained why Australian citizens were left to the mercy of a foreign power for days.

On royal commissions: The government has rejected a royal commission into antisemitism while implementing selective measures against universities. It has not explained why antisemitism deserves a Special Envoy and a “university report card” while other forms of hate do not.

On the definition of antisemitism: The government has adopted a definition that conflates Israel criticism with anti-Jewish hate, without consulting the full spectrum of Jewish opinion in Australia. It has not explained its authority to dictate definitions to independent universities.

The Question the Government Will Not Answer

The pattern is consistent. The silence is deliberate. And the question is unavoidable:

• Why does the Albanese government treat the State of Israel differently from every other nation
• Not tougher – differently.
• Weaker sanctions. Fewer consequences. More silence. More diplomacy. More measured statements. More nothing.
• The government will say it is committed to a two-state solution. It will say it supports Israel’s right to exist. It will say it condemns antisemitism. These are not answers. These are evasions.
• The question is not about Israel’s right to exist. It is about Australia’s obligation to uphold international law, protect its citizens, and apply the same standards to all nations equally.

The government will not answer. Because the answer would require it to admit what is becoming increasingly clear to anyone who is paying attention:

• Australia has abandoned its principles for the sake of an alliance.
• Not a military alliance. Australia has no mutual defence treaty with Israel.

An ideological alliance. With the Zionist project. With a foreign government’s definition of antisemitism. With the conflation of criticism with hate.

And in so doing, Australia has abandoned its own citizens: the humanitarians, the academics, the journalists, the ordinary people who ask only that the law be applied equally and that silence not be mistaken for neutrality.

Conclusion

The evidence is on the table. The dossier has been submitted. The activists have been humiliated. The arms continue to flow. The visas continue to be granted, but to soldiers, not to survivors.

And the government continues to be silent.

Not because it does not know, but because it chooses not to act.

Silence is not neutrality, Andrew. You taught me that. Silence is a choice. And in the face of genocide – in the face of war crimes, in the face of Australian citizens detained at gunpoint, in the face of a government minister taunting bound prisoners on video – silence is complicity.

The Albanese government will not answer the questions we have raised.

But that does not mean the questions go away.

They remain. On the table. In the dossier. In the eyes of the activists who were denied water for two days. In the hearts of the Palestinians who cannot get a visa while IDF soldiers come to Melbourne on holiday.

The questions remain.

And one day, they will demand an answer.

May 27, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Israel Is Running Australia and No One Is Talking About It.

One Path Network, 7 May 26

Nick Hanna is a Sydney-based criminal defence lawyer, investigative journalist, and director of The Last Sky, a documentary on Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon. He has acted in some of Australia’s most significant civil liberties cases and is currently representing protesters and activists caught up in the legal crackdown that followed the Bondi terror attack.
In this conversation, Nick breaks down the New South Wales law that gave police the power to ban all protests across greater Sydney and explains how a successful constitutional challenge overturned it. He details what legal options are now available to the dozens of people who were beaten and pepper-sprayed at the Isaac Herzog protest, and why the Major Events Act may complicate their claims.

Nick explains the Queensland government’s criminalisation of phrases like “from the river to the sea,” the constitutional challenge currently underway, and what it means for activists and ordinary people across the country. He also reveals why the Australian Federal Police has conducted raids over tweets and memes while making zero arrests of the 600-plus Australian dual nationals documented as having served in the IDF during the Gaza genocide.
The conversation turns to Ben Roberts-Smith, who was recently criminally charged with five counts of war crime murder following his failed defamation case. Nick argues his prosecution exposes a glaring double standard: an Australian soldier sent to Afghanistan by his own government is facing trial, while Australians who voluntarily joined a foreign military conducting a genocide face no investigation whatsoever.

May 23, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

The Great Australian Distraction

Laws were passed without proper consultation and without equivalent protections for Muslim, Palestinian or Arab Australians. Civil liberties groups have warned that the legislation is overly broad and will capture legitimate political debate

14 May 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, 

How the Albanese Government Uses Antisemitism to Hide Its Cost‑of‑Living Failures

Only days ago, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stood before the nation and declared that his government was “focused every day on helping with the cost of living.” In the same breath, his ministers announced a new parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism, expanded the powers of the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, and rushed through hate‑speech laws that criminalise pro‑Palestinian slogans.

The contrast could not be starker. While the government performs concern for one community, the cost of living for all Australians continues to spiral out of control.

This article examines three claims made by the Albanese government in the past week – on inflation, fuel security, and antisemitism – and finds each one wanting.

I. Inflation: The Numbers Don’t Lie

On 3 May 2026, the Prime Minister tweeted:

“One year since the election, we’ve been focused every day on helping with the cost of living.”

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) tells a different story. Headline inflation surged to 4.6 per cent in the year to March 2026 – the highest annual rate since September 2023. The March quarter alone saw inflation jump 1.1 per cent, driven almost entirely by fuel and food.

In the past fortnight alone, Melbourne families have felt the squeeze:

• 
  Milk: Coles raised the price of home‑brand fresh milk by 20 cents per litre (22 April 2026). A three‑litre bottle that cost $4.65 now costs $5.15.
• Petrol: Unleaded petrol is projected to peak at $2.46 per litre in late May. Diesel could exceed $4.00 per litre in coming months, according to the National Australia Bank.
• Rent: House rents in Melbourne rose by 1.3% in April alone. The annual cost of renting a typical house is now $30,160.

The Prime Minister says he is “focused”. The numbers say otherwise.

II. Fuel Security: Too Little, Too Late

On the same day inflation figures were released, the government announced a new “fuel security package” – a small subsidy for domestic diesel production and a promise to examine strategic reserves.

The announcement was window‑dressing. Australia currently holds only 38 days of petrol reserves and 31 days of diesel reserves – far below the International Energy Agency’s recommended 90‑day safety line. Ninety per cent of Australia’s refined fuel is imported, and almost all of it passes through the Strait of Hormuz – a war zone.

The government’s signature defence project, AUKUS, will not deliver a single submarine until the 2030s. By then, the fuel crisis will have come and gone.

The fuel excise cut that provided temporary relief at the bowser is scheduled to expire on 30 June 2026. When it does, petrol will jump by another 26 cents per litre. The government has no plan to extend it. It has no plan to rebuild refineries. It has no plan to secure Australia’s energy independence.

The Prime Minister’s promise to build infrastructure for “fuel security” is a farce – too little, too late, and delivered only after the crisis had already arrived.

III. Antisemitism: A Weapon, Not a Shield

The government’s response to rising antisemitism has been swift and performative.

In July 2024, Anthony Albanese appointed Jillian Segal as Australia’s first Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism. Her recommendations have been sweeping: all universities must adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism (which conflates criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews); funding should be cut to institutions that do not comply; pro‑Palestinian rallies should be moved out of city centres.

Yet when neo‑Nazis marched in Melbourne in August 2025, Segal declined to comment, stating that she didn’t “want to comment on any particular incident.” Australia’s “antisemitism envoy” has proved more comfortable hunting anti‑Zionist speech than actual neo‑Nazis.

Meanwhile, Queensland banned the phrases “from the river to the sea” and “globalise the intifada”. A man has already been arrested for reciting five words in protest.

Laws were passed without proper consultation and without equivalent protections for Muslim, Palestinian or Arab Australians. Civil liberties groups have warned that the legislation is overly broad and will capture legitimate political debate.

The government is not protecting Jews. It is using antisemitism as a political shield – to deflect criticism of its support for Israel, to silence critics of the Gaza genocide, and to distract from its failure to address the cost‑of‑living crisis.

IV. The Opportunity Cost

Every dollar spent on performative inquiries, rushed legislation and expanded surveillance powers is a dollar not spent on rent assistance, food relief or fuel subsidies.

The government has chosen:

• A $368 billion submarine project (AUKUS) over public housing.
• An antisemitism commission over a genuine cost‑of‑living inquiry.

These are not forced choices. They are political choices. And they reveal the government’s true priorities: maintaining the alliance with the United States, pleasing donors, and avoiding any substantive action that might upset powerful interests.

V. What the Prime Minister Will Not Say

Anthony Albanese will not tell you that the antisemitism inquiry is designed to produce outcomes that are already predetermined – more surveillance, more speech restrictions, more funding for pro‑Israel lobby groups.

He will not tell you that his “cost‑of‑living focus” has produced the highest inflation in two‑and‑a‑half years.

Because to tell you those truths would be to admit that he has failed.

VI. What We Can Do

We cannot wait for the government to act. We must act ourselves.

• 
  Support independent media. The Patrician’s Watch, The AIMN and other independent outlets are not beholden to donors or lobbyists. We report the truth because we have nothing to gain from concealing it.
• Build community resilience. Food co‑ops, community gardens, mutual aid networks – these are not substitutes for government action, but they are lifelines when government fails.
• Demand better. Write to your MP. Attend protests. Share this article. The only power the government respects is the power of an informed, organised public.

Conclusion

The Albanese government is not focused on the cost of living. It is focused on distraction. Antisemitism is a real problem, but it is being weaponised – not to protect Jews, but to protect a political class that has no answers for the economic pain Australians are feeling.

Housing is not a priority. Food affordability is not a priority.

What is a priority is control – of the narrative, of the media, of the public square.

We are not fooled. We see the contradiction. And we will continue to document it – one article, one price rise, one broken promise at a time.

May 16, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Toxic fantasy nuked; one year on from the Federal election 

, https://www.acf.org.au/news/toxic-fantasy-nuked-one-year-on-from-the-federal-election

Exactly one year ago Australians braved the how to vote cards, ate or avoided democracy sausages and used a pencil to help write the next part of the Australian story.

In the months leading up to the 2025 federal election, papers, airwaves and social media platforms were full of talk about nuclear. 

Then Opposition Leader Peter Dutton dubbed the 2025 federal election ‘a referendum on nuclear power’. It was the biggest policy difference between the two major political parties. The Coalition promised to build multiple nuclear reactors at seven sites across Australia while Labor, the Green and most independents opposed this nuclear plan and strongly supported renewables. 

Nuclear proponents spent large, promised much and did their best to sidestep scrutiny over cost, timing, water, waste and more. 

Environment groups joined with trade unions, public health experts, First Nation representatives and community members from regions targeted for reactors to make the case for a renewable energy future, free from nuclear risk and delays. 

The message was clear: Nuclear is too risky, too expensive and too slow. 

And at the end of months of talk, talkback, information stalls, protests and public forums, Australia voted. 

And voted unequivocally no to nuclear.

The Coalition had its worst defeat since the formation of the Liberal Party in 1944, and nuclear champion Peter Dutton became the first sitting federal Opposition Leader in Australian history to lose their own seat at a general election. Seven News political editor Mark Riley described the Coalition result as ‘catastrophic’, adding “the party that chose nuclear energy as its policy has exploded in a nuclear bomb set on them by the voters tonight.”

Voters saw the Coalition’s nuclear fantasy for what it was: a toxic furphy designed only to prolong the life of coal and gas. They made a conscious and clear decision to reject nuclear power and provide our politicians with a clear mandate to get on with harnessing Australia’s abundant renewable energy resources to power our country. 

Renewables already meet around half of Australia’s electricity needs, and this figure is growing every day. 

Responsible renewables mean lasting regional jobs, low carbon and proven power.  

Renewables also mean energy independence and energy security. Ships in the Strait of Hormuz might stop, but the wind and sun do not. 

One year ago, Australians had a clear energy choice – and right across the nation we made a clear energy decision – our energy future is renewable, not radioactive.

May 5, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment