Antinuclear

The Segal State: the office Australia never voted for

by Andrew Brown | Aug 9, 2026 , https://michaelwest.com.au/the-segal-state-the-office-australia-never-voted-for/

Jillian Segal holds power over what Australians may say, teach, report and believe. No election gave it to her. No Parliament ratified it. Nothing like her office has existed in the federation. Labor built it. The Coalition wants it bigger. Nobody asked you. Andrew Brown – The Segal State, Part One.

Remember the referendum in which Australians voted to create a Voice to Parliament for Israel?

You don’t. It never happened. We got one anyway.

In 2023, 60.06 per cent of Australians rejected a constitutionally recognised Voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. A body that could only make representations, only on matters concerning the people whose ancestors have been here sixty thousand years.

Too much, the No campaign shrieked. Division. Privilege. Special treatment.

Nine months later, Anthony Albanese handed Jillian Segal what the Voice never dreamed of asking for. Not a right to be heard. Power. No election. No parliamentary vote. No hearing. A three year commission reporting personally to the Prime Minister, with a mandate reaching into every campus, newsroom, classroom, gallery, charity, arts contract and visa file in the Commonwealth.

“Australia has never seen an office like this. Not once in 125 years.”

We have been here before and we said no. In 1951, Robert Menzies asked Australians for power to outlaw communism and police political belief. Even Menzies put it to a referendum, because a democracy does not seize control of ideas by fiat. A frightened people refused him.

That refusal became a founding settlement of this country. The state does not decide what citizens may think.

A captain’s call

Albanese tore up that settlement with a press release. No referendum. No bill. No debate. One man appointed one advocate, and the checkpoint went up.

An open society grants authority over its citizens three ways. Election. Appointment ratified by Parliament. Or a court, ruling in public, subject to appeal. Segal’s power arrived by none of them. The word for that is illegitimate. Not unlawful. Worse. Lawful, and

“authorised by nobody but one man”.

Do not look to the opposition for rescue. The Coalition demanded a national antisemitism crackdown before Labor delivered one, and its only complaint since is that the checkpoint is too small and the universities let off too lightly.

Resistance has come from the cross-bench alone. When both major parties agree on machinery this size, the voters have been deleted from the equation. Neither will ask whether Segal’s authority is legitimate, because both intend to use it. That is imposition.

“That is Australia in 2026.“

Say it plainly. Antisemitism is real. It is sometimes murderous. Jewish Australians deserve safety, delivered without mercy by police, courts and criminal law against anyone who menaces a synagogue or a schoolchild.

Safety does not require a private advocate enthroned above the speech of 27 million people. That is not protection. That is capture.

The wrong person, chosen on purpose

Segal ran the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. She chaired the Australia Israel Chamber of Commerce. Israel lobby groups.

Advocacy for Israel is her right as a private citizen. It is also the precise reason no honest government would put her near an office ruling on the boundary between antisemitism and criticism of Israel. Albanese did not blunder into the conflict. He shopped for it.

Her selection sits buried under Freedom of Information redactions. Up to $16.9 million was approved for the Envoy offices. You were not asked. You were not told. You are paying her a reported $1,070 a day, and Home Affairs refuses to tell you her salary.

The machinery of a small authoritarian state

Jillian Segal produced a 20 page plan. Thirteen recommendations. Forty nine actions. And behind them, nothing. No published evidence base. No consultation paper. No regulatory impact statement.

Not one piece of credible research showing any of it would prevent a single antisemitic incident. For all the rigour on display, the plan might as well have been drafted at her Point Piper kitchen table. In December 2025 the Government swallowed it whole anyway, named it a program of work led by Segal, and pledged action on every recommendation, unquestioned.

Read the list and ask which country you are living in. Media monitoring. A university report card. Withholding university funding. Terminating academic grants. Stripping charities of their status. Screening visa applicants for their opinions. Ideological training for the public service. Cancellation clauses so arts grants can be ripped back from artists who say the wrong thing about the wrong state.

The fig leaf is that Segal cannot personally cancel anything. Her office helps define the offence, grades the accused and recommends the sentence.

Ministers supply the muscle and the deniability. Prosecutor, judge and probation service in one unelected body, answerable only to the man who created it. Build this for any other subject and Australians would name it instantly.

A censorship ministry.

A rigged definition, wired into everything

At the centre sits the contested IHRA definition, whose own lead drafter has protested its use as an enforcement weapon. The ABC, SBS, Amnesty International and hundreds of scholars warn its Israel related examples can melt criticism of a state into hatred of a people. Segal bolts it into government regardless.

From January 2027, universities must define antisemitism under an enforceable national standard. Then Segal’s report card marks whether the definition is appropriate, while her plan demands IHRA everywhere. Choice, the way a loan shark offers choice.

No vice chancellor will need to be ordered to censor.

“They will censor themselves in advance.“

That is only the architecture. Then Segal took an oath and showed what it is for.

And hold one question in your head overnight, the one polite Australia refuses to ask. Why does one form of racism summon a ministry, a report card and $130 million, while First Nations families waited thirty years and 590 deaths in custody for recommendations nobody implemented?

Why machinery for one hatred and a media release for the rest? You are not supposed to ask. Ask anyway.

Tomorrow, Part 2: the mask off under oath. The plan for your children. The $50,000 nobody will investigate. And the question answered.

August 15, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

When genocide is silenced in the name of “unity”

30 July 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, https://theaimn.net/when-genocide-is-silenced-in-the-name-of-unity/

When genocide is silenced in the name of “unity”: Labor’s festering wound

Dedicated to the young Senator, the young Muslim – who dared to speak when others stayed silent.

I. Introduction: A Funeral for Unity

In July 2026, over 400 delegates gathered in Adelaide for the Australian Labor Party’s National Conference. They were there to shape the party’s platform – to decide what Labor would stand for over the next three years. Yet, during that conference, a debate about the genocide in Gaza was killed before it could begin.

Labor MP Ed Husic moved an amendment acknowledging the UN inquiry’s finding that Israeli authorities had “deliberately targeted Palestinian children, resulting in genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Gaza Strip.” His motion was initially seconded by the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA).

But on the morning of the debate, the union withdrew its support. Without a seconder, the motion could not proceed. The debate was over before it started. Husic said:

“I’m astonished by the extraordinary amount of energy that’s been put into preventing this being discussed rather than discussing it, rather than having a conversation, rather than thrashing it out better.”

He did not back down. He said: “If they put me in the freezer, I don’t give a shit.” But another voice emerged. Mike Kelly, a former Labor minister and a former Australian Army officer – made extraordinary comments.

II. Kelly’s Accusations: The Weaponisation of Conspiracy Theory

Mike Kelly’s comments were not merely offensive – they were pathological.

Kelly claimed that “hard core, violent revolutionary communists in league with Islamist extremists are subverting the union movement, branches and the Labor Party.” This was not a policy disagreement. This was a conspiracy theory dressed up as political analysis.

One observer described his remarks as “bizarre dangerous claptrap.” They are.

What is the truth?

Kelly is using the spectre of the Cold War to delegitimise anyone who criticises Israel. He is trying to reframe opposition to genocide as a product of extremism. He is trying to silence those who dare to speak.

His own colleague, South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas, questioned Husic’s motives, suggesting he might be “pursuing a barrow” for attention. This is a classic smear tactic: when you cannot rebut the argument, you attack the character.

III. The Pattern of Suppression

The incident is not isolated. It is a pattern:

1. A crisis occurs. The evidence of genocide is overwhelming.
2. The government tries to control the narrative. Dissent is silenced. Critics are marginalised.
3. The “unity” narrative is weaponised. Anyone who speaks out is framed as a threat to party cohesion.
4. The dissenters are isolated. Payman is attacked. Husic is put in “the freezer.” The seconder disappears.

At the conference, Husic said Labor had become unwilling to engage in open disagreement. He argued that the “trauma” of the Rudd-Gillard years had created a situation where anything that looked like debate was seen as “disunity” that could bring down the government.

But as one participant noted: “Unity must be based on democratic consent, not bureaucratic diktat.”

IV. The Lancet and the Numbers

The Lancet published a study estimating that the death toll in Gaza could exceed 186,000 people. The study accounted for both direct violence and indirect causes – starvation, disease, the collapse of the healthcare system.

Mike Kelly’s response to these numbers? He did not rebut them. He supported the killers and cheered them on.

That is not leadership. That is moral abdication.

V. The Deputy Prime Minister’s Admission

Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles made a rare admission (paywalled): while Labor’s platform on Israel-Palestine was flawed, compromise was necessary for unity.

In other words: truth matters. Morality matters. Justice matters. But unity matters more.

It is a calculation we have seen elsewhere – the calculation of those who place power over principle, cohesion over conscience.

VI. Conclusion: The Festering Wound

The festering wound inside the Labor Party will not be healed by performances of “unity.” It will not be healed by those sitting in air-conditioned rooms, saying it is “complex,” and hoping the problem goes away.

The young Senator Fatima Payman dared to cross the floor. Ed Husic dared to speak. They were isolated. Attacked. Put in “the freezer.”

But they were not defeated.

They are a reminder that we have real consciences – and not just servile obedience to party loyalty.

August 2, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Coalition MPs push for nuclear-powered data centres

“……………………………………..Shadow Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Dan Tehan has argued the government’s proposed standards for data centres are too restrictive.

Ahead of releasing the Coalition’s revitalised energy policy, Mr Tehan has said that all options should be on the table to power future data centres, including nuclear energy.

“When [companies] look to invest in Australia, they are deterred by our moratorium preventing them from powering their centres through nuclear,” Mr Tehan said in a statement.

Mr Tehan said that US companies such as Google and Amazon were investing in “their own zero emissions nuclear power to power data centres”.

According to the International Energy Agency [IEA], nuclear energy plays a supporting part in powering the world’s biggest data centre markets: the United States and China.

The autonomous intergovernmental organisation expects nuclear power’s role to grow from 2030, when it is expected that more small modular reactors [SMRs] come online.

Google, for example, signed a landmark deal in 2024 with Kairos Power to buy energy from several SMRs to help support the tech giant’s AI infrastructure.

The first of the reactors is expected to come online by 2030.

Nationals Deputy Leader Darren Chester, whose electorate of Gippsland in Victoria is experiencing significant data centre investment, said he believed that it was “inevitable” that Australian-based facilities would be powered by nuclear energy to some degree in the future.

Mr Chester said “large-scale” nuclear reactors were “proven technology”, but he would be open to other options in the years to come, such as SMRs.

“Removing the moratorium on nuclear [energy] is a sensible thing to do,” Mr Chester said.

Shadow Infrastructure and Sovereign Capability Minister, Andrew Hastie, said it was not feasible for AI data centres to be powered solely off renewables.

“There needs to be a mix of base load power, and nuclear should be part of that mix,” Mr Hastie said in a statement.

The Coalition’s nuclear energy aspirations for Australia suffered a significant blow in its election drubbing in 2025.

An internal review found the opposition’s election campaign was perceived as “incoherent,” and acknowledged the Coalition’s plan for nuclear was among policies widely criticised as “politically mistimed or alienating”.

At the core of the policy was a plan to build seven nuclear power sites, but the party did not specify whether large-scale reactors, small modular reactors [SMRs], or a combination of both, would be used.

National science agency CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator [AEMO]’s latest GenCost report showed introducing nuclear power to Australia would attract significant up-front costs.

“New large-scale nuclear costs are significantly lower than nuclear SMR, but both represent moderate-to high-cost sources of electricity generation,” the report stated.

Nuclear power generation has been banned in Australia under federal laws since the late 1990s.

States and territories also have legislation prohibiting nuclear energy production, with some jurisdictions also restricting certain nuclear-energy-related activities, such as uranium mining.

Labor is emphatically opposed to lifting the moratorium on nuclear energy in Australia.

Energy Minister Chris Bowen recently told Sky: “Nuclear is not an answer for Australia any time.”

Instead, the government is focusing on transitioning to renewable energy, specifically solar and wind energy backed up by hydro storage and gas, with a goal of having 82 per cent of electricity generated by renewables by 2030.

Experts weigh in on how to power Australia’s data centres

Tony Irwin, a nuclear energy advocate and ANU honorary associate professor who spent three years building nuclear reactors in the UK, believes nuclear energy should be used to help power data centres.

“Solar and wind obviously can play a part in it. But nuclear should also be playing a part because, as I say, it’s reliable, it’s low emissions,” he said.

Mr Irwin believes large-scale reactors could be used, but SMRs and what are known as “micro-reactors” could be less costly.

Operational SMRs are only found in Russia and China, according to Energy Strategy Reviews. Micro-reactors are still in development.

The prime minister said in his speech that both Australia’s land and sunshine were among reasons the world was “queuing up to invest” in the nation.

“Think about what we have … the space to build. The sunlight to power affordable, renewable, reliable energy,” he said.

Tony Wood, a senior fellow at Grattan Institute’s Energy and Climate Change Program, welcomed the government’s new rules but questioned how data centre operators would be forced to supply their own renewable energy.

“We are going to get on top of this. That’s what this is about, and I fully support that,” he said.

“I’ve not seen anything that really expands on how such a requirement would be implemented.”

Mr Wood said the opposition’s push for nuclear power for data centres was a “political sideshow”……….

He described the government’s plan for Australia’s energy transition as “plan A”.

“I think we’ve got a very strong plan A and we should stick with it in Australia,” he said.

“And just because someone else does it [nuclear energy] doesn’t mean we should fire.”……..https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-29/data-center-boom-powers-up-political-energy-debate/106929726

July 31, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Royal Commission or Lobby Show? | The West Report.

The Royal Commission into anti-Semitism has a problem: it is not credible.

The evidence is not being tested. Instead, it has descended into a storytelling farce about hurt feelings, while the data shows Muslim and Arab hate is worse than Jewish hate in Australia — in many cases, not all.

July 20, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Liberal frontbencher gorges on nuclear freebies

Rear Window, Hannah Wootton, Jul 7, 2026

You’d think visiting Europe in its latest heatwave would convince anyone of the sun’s power. But when Charles
Kiefel is paying your airfare, nuclear still beats solar.

Hannah Wootton, Jul 7, 2026 –If there’s one thing opposition energy spokesman Dan Tehan loves more than
nuclear power, it’s a free “study tour”. Especially if it involves the uranium sector’s
biggest cheerleader Charles Kiefel.
In mid-June, Tehan headed to London, Oslo and Munich for “high-level discussions around energy, industry and defence policy”. His economy flights, accommodation and meals were all covered by energy business groups the Svalbard Group and Just Transition Institute.

But Tehan also got a business-class airfare from Munich back to Melbourne paidfor by Kiefel, the “former director of the Clean Energy Regulator”, according to his
parliamentary register of interests. Funny how Kiefel’s title doesn’t mention the businessman is a proponent of exporting uranium to the US. Or that he funded a separate “study tour” for Tehan to the US last September to look at nuclear
reactors.
But flying economy all the way back from Europe is a Europe is a gruelling ask for a man such as Tehan, who is carrying the burden of an atomic future. And Kiefel is certainly a fan of gifting him the finer things in life.
The US trip included putting Tehan up in Washington DC’s luxury Hay-Adams Hotel. It overlooks Lafayette Square and charges $1800-a-night. The stay wasrevealed by this column [https://www.afr.com/rear-window/senior-liberal-s-luxury-hotel-tv-gaffe-20250909-p5mtp6], when Tehan beamed into a Sky News interview from his hotel room and forgot to turn off the TV screen with the hotel’s branding in the background.

The investment has been worth it for Kiefel. Tehan’s fervent commitment to nuclear [https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/why-i-believe-the-liberal-party-must- reset-its-climate-playbook-20251105-p5n7wa] only increased following the US trip. No wonder the anti-nuclear brigade went feral over it.

He’s secured a lasting loyalty, too. Just four days before Tehan jetted off for the June trip, he penned an opinion piece for his own website accusing “Labor’s energy luddites” of “dragging Australia into the Dark Ages”.

The evidence for all this? “What American officials told me
[https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/nuclear-energy-not-done-with-yet-say-liberals-20250908- p5mt72], repeatedly, when I visited” last year. Oh Danny Boy, at least pretend you came up with your opinions independent of multimillionaire backers.

He even referenced conversations with Singaporeans on that trip who told him how their government was looking into new nuclear technologies. “Singapore, a city-state with no natural resources, is preparing seriously. What exactly is our
excuse?” Could it be the abundant sources of non-nuclear energy?

The June trip presumably offered a new source for Tehan to cite. It included site visits to universities and meetings with executives from BP, Shell, and Vitol. As for the “defence policy” part of his discussions, Tehan visited an Oxfordshire facility which is “home of the UK’s civil and military nuclear science developments” and met with “companies involved in defence” in Norway. Plus the Norwegian energy and defence ministers. Reassuring stuff.

Tehan told us he took the trip as “any opportunity to get access to senior government ministers when you’re in opposition is too good an opportunity to pass, especially when it doesn’t cost the taxpayer a cent”.

The Coalition promises an independent, self-reliant energy future. A shame that the same can’t be said of Tehan’s policy positions or travel plans.

July 8, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Friends of the Earth Adelaide has made a submission to the AUKUS Public Inquiry

Philip White, June 29 2026

FoE Adelaide’s submission added perspectives related to national security, safety, employment and radioactive waste. Click here to read the full submission.

Based on decades of experience regarding nuclear waste management issues and debates in Australia, our submission focused on those problems insofar as they relate to AUKUS.

By rights, the parliament should conduct a genuine public review of the AUKUS program, given that it commits Australian taxpayers to spending hundreds of billions of dollars for decades to come with dubious benefit to our security in return. 

In the absence of an official inquiry, we are hopeful that this independent inquiry will shine a light on the many issues that should have been considered before the government committed Australia to AUKUS.

The first hearing, held in Melbourne on 11 June, received many high-quality presentations. Most of the points that we would make were covered in that hearing. In particular, we endorse the comments made by the expert witnesses: Gareth Evans,

Tilman Ruff, Richard Tanter, John Lander, Joseph Camilleri, Rod Campbell and Dave Sweeney. Their critiques of the flaws in AUKUS align with ours, including in regard to the following:

• sacrifice of Australian sovereignty,

• negative impact on national security,

• opportunity cost,

• questionable industrial and employment benefits,

• safety risks and environmental cost,

• challenge of managing and disposing of radioactive waste, including foreign-sourced waste,

• negative impact on First Nations people,

• nuclear proliferation and safeguards implications of military reactors powered by highly enriched uranium fuel,

• implications for our obligations under the Treaty of Rarotonga of ‘rotation’ through Australian bases of nuclear weapon-capable vessels and aircraft, and

• the uncertainty that nuclear-powered submarines will even be delivered.

FoE Adelaide’s submission added perspectives related to national security, safety, employment and radioactive waste. Click here to read the full submission.

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

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