The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities were proud to partner with Canadian and United States anti nuclear activists at a lively webinar, kindly hosted and organised by SOS: The San Onofre Syndrome, last Thursday (25 September).
Richard Outram, NFLA Secretary, was humbled to join an online panel of distinguished speakers who are working in opposition to new nuclear plants and nuclear waste dumps in both nations. There was an audience of around 50 activists joining us from across the globe, from Colwyn Bay to Hawaii, who had been invited to view the award-winning film ‘SOS – The San Onofre Syndrome: Nuclear Power’s Legacy’.
This time the focus was upon examining the situation in Canada.
Britain’s Nuclear Waste Services, being responsible for locating and building an undersea repository for our nation’s legacy and future high-level radioactive waste – the so called Geological Disposal Facility – has established strong ties with its Canadian counterparts, the Nuclear Waste Management Organisation which has determined to build a similar, though inland and underground, repository – called a Deep Geological Repository – at Ignace in Ontario.
Dr Gordon Edwards is a mathematician, physicist, nuclear consultant, and president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (https://www.ccnr.org). CCNR is a not-for-profit organization, federally incorporated in 1978, dedicated to education and research on all issues related to nuclear energy, whether civilian or military — including non-nuclear alternatives — especially those pertaining to Canada. He is based in Montreal.
Brennain Lloyd from We the Nuclear Free North (https://wethenuclearfreenorth.ca/) is a community organizer, public interest researcher and writer. For the last 30 plus years, Brennain has worked with environmental, peace and women’s organizations as a facilitator and adult educator supporting public participation in environmental and natural resource decision-making and various planning processes. She is based in northeastern Ontario.
The panel was also joined by Team SOS in the United States, namely Mary Beth Brangan and James Heddle, who are award-winning filmmakers of ‘SOS – The San Onofre Syndrome: Nuclear Power’s Legacy’ and co-directors of EON – the Ecological Options Network (https://www.eon3.org) and Morgan Peterson is an Oscar-nominated producer/director and director/editor of ‘SOS – The San Onofre Syndrome’. Mary Beth and James are based in Northern California, USA, whilst Morgan is based in Indiana, USA.
Richard is delighted that colleagues in the USA are looking to start work to build a network of nuclear free local authorities based on the model established from 1981 in the UK and Ireland.
It is almost 45 years since Manchester declared itself the world’s first nuclear free city and hosted the Secretariat of the Nuclear Free Local Authorities. Many cities across the globe followed Manchester’s lead in making similar declarations, many notably in the United States. It would be gratifying if these nuclear free cities could take the lead in establishing a new network across the Atlantic.
Richard said: “The purpose of establishing this Transatlantic Nuclear Free Alliance was to bring together anti-nuclear activists from both sides of the huge ocean which physically divides us in an online forum where we can share information on developments, support one another with campaigns, celebrate our successes, and share our common goals for a nuclear-free, peaceful and sustainable world.
“The UK / Ireland NFLAs would be delighted if from this meeting our colleagues in the United States could begin work to build their own network of nuclear free municipalities and we stand ready to lend support to such an initiative, where we can”.
Lisa Smithline from Moca Media TV, who ably performed the critical job of facilitating the event, summarised the event: “It was a deep and meaningful conversation. The feedback has been extremely positive, people are hungry for this information, the attendees didn’t want it to end!”
A future event will be held in around two months’ time – so do watch out for the invitation.
If you would like to attend and are not yet on the NFLA mailing list for news and future events, please email Richard Outram at richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk
In the meantime, the 25 September event can be viewed online at:
Stand in solidarity with Aunty Sue at the “No Consent for Missiles” rally, this Friday 10 October at 12 pm, beginning at the Australian Space Agency, Lot 14 (corner of North Terrace and Frome Road, Adelaide, Kaurna Land). The rally will then march to Parliament House.
STATEMENT OF NO CONSENT
Aunty Sue has addressed a Statement of No Consent to Southern Launch and every company that works with them—including the Australian Defence Force, Australian Space Agency, Thales, Varda, HyImpulse, Reaction Dynamics, German Aerospace Centre, AtSpace, and Perigee.
She has made it clear: there is NO CONSENT for the ongoing militarisation of Googatha Country.
In July, this statement was delivered in person to the head offices of these companies around the world.
Each company is now unambiguously aware: they are not welcome on the so-called “Koonibba Test Range.”
No more rockets.
No more missiles.
No more radioactive capsules.
This is sacred Googatha Country. It is not a military zone.
Please attend if you can—and share this message widely. In solidarity,
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA – OCTOBER 11: Dr Jane Goodall poses for a photo at Taronga Zoo on October 11, 2008 in Sydney, Australia. Goodall, the world renowned primatologist, has acknowledged the breeding and work research carried out by the Chimpanzee Group at Taronga Zoo over recent years. (Photo by Robert Gray/Getty Images)
The Conversation, Mireya Mayor, Director of Exploration and Science Communication, Florida International University, October 2, 2025
Anyone proposing to offer a master class on changing the world for the better, without becoming negative, cynical, angry or narrow-minded in the process, could model their advice on the life and work of pioneering animal behavior scholar Jane Goodall.
Goodall’s life journey stretches from marveling at the somewhat unremarkable creatures – though she would never call them that – in her English backyard as a wide-eyed little girl in the 1930s to challenging the very definition of what it means to be human through her research on chimpanzees in Tanzania. From there, she went on to become a global icon and a United Nations Messenger of Peace.
Until her death on Oct. 1, 2025 at age 91, Goodall retained a charm, open-mindedness, optimism and wide-eyed wonder that are more typical of children. I know this because I have been fortunate to spend time with her and to share insights from my own scientific career. To the public, she was a world-renowned scientist and icon. To me, she was Jane – my inspiring mentor and friend.
Despite the massive changes Goodall wrought in the world of science, upending the study of animal behavior, she was always cheerful, encouraging and inspiring. I think of her as a gentle disrupter. One of her greatest gifts was her ability to make everyone, at any age, feel that they have the power to change the world.
Discovering tool use in animals
In her pioneering studies in the lush rainforest of Tanzania’s Gombe Stream Game Reserve, now a national park, Goodall noted that the most successful chimp leaders were gentle, caring and familial. Males that tried to rule by asserting their dominance through violence, tyranny and threat did not last.
While a treaty prohibits nuclear weapons stationed in Australia, the Government tries to circumvent it. Rex Patrick and Philip Dorling on Labor’s duplicitous nuclear word games.
From 2032, nuclear-armed cruise missiles will be loaded into US Navy Virginia-class subs. The Treaty of Rarotonga prohibits nuclear weapons from being ‘stationed’ at HMAS Stirling, but maybe it’s OK for them to be ‘rotated’ through the base.
The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone (SPNFZ) Treaty, first signed at Rarotonga in August 1985, was one of the successes of Australia’s activist nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation diplomacy of the Hawke and Keating Governments. Born out of South Pacific opposition to French nuclear testing and broader concerns about superpower competition in the Pacific, the Treaty entered into force on 11 December 1986. Amongst other things,
it prohibits the stationing of nuclear weapons within the South Pacific by member states. Australia is a member state.
Stationing is defined in the treaty as “emplantation, emplacement, transportation on land or inland waters, stockpiling, storage, installation and deployment.”
The treaty doesn’t prevent nuclear-armed ships from visiting a member state’s ports or transiting their waters. The Treaty was drafted to allow this, in part to accommodate Australia’s ANZUS defence relationship with the US. At the time US warships and submarines carried tactical nuclear weapons, but the US ‘neither confirmed or denied’ whether individual vessels were actually carrying them.
Additional protocols not ratified
At the urging of the Keating Government, in March 1996 President Bill Clinton’s Administration signed three Protocols to the Treaty of Rarotonga, giving an undertaking, amongst other things, not to station nuclear weapons on its territories within SPNFZ (American Samoa and Jarvis Island), and not to contribute to any act by a party to the Treaty that constitutes a violation of the Treaty.
After much delay, President Barack Obama’s Administration submitted the SPNFZ Protocols to the US Senate, but ratification has not occurred owing to Republican obstruction.
However, with USN submarines and surface vessels stripped of tactical nuclear weapons in 1991 (at the end of the Cold War), and US ballistic missile submarines not deployed from any South Pacific ports, the Protocols largely fell into contemporary irrelevance. However, with Donald Trump’s return to the White House, that’s all about to change.
Sea launched missiles
Sea launched missiles
In his first term, Trump ordered the US Navy to develop a new nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missile, SLCM-N, to provide the US subs and warships with flexible and low-yield nuclear strike options. In 2022, President Biden proposed cancelling the program, but Congress continued to fund it.
Now, with Trump back in the White House, the SLCM-N program is accelerating.
Trump’s ‘big beautiful Bill’ included US$2B for work on the missile and $US400m to accelerate work on its W80-4 warhead, likely to have a variable yield between 5 and 150 kilotons (the weapon that destroyed Hiroshima had a 15 kiloton yield).
Further funding is now proposed in the 2026 budget, with plans to move forward SLCM-N entry into service from 2034 to 2032.
Once the SLCM-N is deployed, the stationing of US attack subs in Australia could give rise to a breach of Australia’s obligations under the SPNFZ Treaty. The US could also be acting contrary to Protocol 2 to the Treaty, which it has signed, though not ratified.
A criminal offence
If US submarines ‘stationed’ in Australia are armed with SLCM-N missiles, Australian officials could be in some legal jeopardy.
The SPNRZ Treaty Act 1986 gives legal effect to Australia’s obligations under the SPNFZ Treaty.
Section 11 of the Act states, “A person who stations, or does any act or thing to facilitate the stationing of, a nuclear explosive device in Australia commits an offence against this section”. The penalty for doing so is imprisonment of up to 20 years, or a significant fine, or both.
So, MWM guesses it’s a really good thing that no US attack subs will be ‘stationed’ at HMAS Stirling, they’ll just be there as a “rotational force”. At least the Albanese Government wants everyone to think this is a big difference.
1×1515
4:46 / 8:46
Listen to this story
9 min
While a treaty prohibits nuclear weapons stationed in Australia, the Government tries to circumvent it. Rex Patrick and Philip Dorling on Labor’s duplicitous nuclear word games.
From 2032, nuclear-armed cruise missiles will be loaded into US Navy Virginia-class subs. The Treaty of Rarotonga prohibits nuclear weapons from being ‘stationed’ at HMAS Stirling, but maybe it’s OK for them to be ‘rotated’ through the base.
The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone (SPNFZ) Treaty, first signed at Rarotonga in August 1985, was one of the successes of Australia’s activist nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation diplomacy of the Hawke and Keating Governments. Born out of South Pacific opposition to French nuclear testing and broader concerns about superpower competition in the Pacific, the Treaty entered into force on 11 December 1986. Amongst other things,
it prohibits the stationing of nuclear weapons within the South Pacific by member states. Australia is a member state.
Stationing is defined in the treaty as “emplantation, emplacement, transportation on land or inland waters, stockpiling, storage, installation and deployment.”
The treaty doesn’t prevent nuclear-armed ships from visiting a member state’s ports or transiting their waters. The Treaty was drafted to allow this, in part to accommodate Australia’s ANZUS defence relationship with the US. At the time US warships and submarines carried tactical nuclear weapons, but the US ‘neither confirmed or denied’ whether individual vessels were actually carrying them.
Additional protocols not ratified
At the urging of the Keating Government, in March 1996 President Bill Clinton’s Administration signed three Protocols to the Treaty of Rarotonga, giving an undertaking, amongst other things, not to station nuclear weapons on its territories within SPNFZ (American Samoa and Jarvis Island), and not to contribute to any act by a party to the Treaty that constitutes a violation of the Treaty.
After much delay, President Barack Obama’s Administration submitted the SPNFZ Protocols to the US Senate, but ratification has not occurred owing to Republican obstruction.
However, with USN submarines and surface vessels stripped of tactical nuclear weapons in 1991 (at the end of the Cold War), and US ballistic missile submarines not deployed from any South Pacific ports, the Protocols largely fell into contemporary irrelevance. However, with Donald Trump’s return to the White House, that’s all about to change.
Sea launched missiles
In his first term, Trump ordered the US Navy to develop a new nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missile, SLCM-N, to provide the US subs and warships with flexible and low-yield nuclear strike options. In 2022, President Biden proposed cancelling the program, but Congress continued to fund it.
Now, with Trump back in the White House, the SLCM-N program is accelerating.
Trump’s ‘big beautiful Bill’ included US$2B for work on the missile and $US400m to accelerate work on its W80-4 warhead, likely to have a variable yield between 5 and 150 kilotons (the weapon that destroyed Hiroshima had a 15 kiloton yield).
Further funding is now proposed in the 2026 budget, with plans to move forward SLCM-N entry into service from 2034 to 2032.
Once the SLCM-N is deployed, the stationing of US attack subs in Australia could give rise to a breach of Australia’s obligations under the SPNFZ Treaty. The US could also be acting contrary to Protocol 2 to the Treaty, which it has signed, though not ratified.
If US submarines ‘stationed’ in Australia are armed with SLCM-N missiles, Australian officials could be in some legal jeopardy.
The SPNRZ Treaty Act 1986 gives legal effect to Australia’s obligations under the SPNFZ Treaty.
Section 11 of the Act states, “A person who stations, or does any act or thing to facilitate the stationing of, a nuclear explosive device in Australia commits an offence against this section”. The penalty for doing so is imprisonment of up to 20 years, or a significant fine, or both.
So, MWM guesses it’s a really good thing that no US attack subs will be ‘stationed’ at HMAS Stirling, they’ll just be there as a “rotational force”. At least the Albanese Government wants everyone to think this is a big difference.
Nuclear re-armament
At the outset of the AUKUS agreement, the Australian Government would have been well aware of the first Trump Administration’s commitment to the SLCM-N program and its continuation under the Biden Administration.
Although this has received no public attention in Australia, the prospect that US Virginia-class subs will be nuclear armed is not a secret.
It’s in this context that the Australian Government have very deliberately used the words “Submarine Rotational Force-West (SRF-West)” to describe the presence of US submarines from 2027.
At a 14 March 2023 press conference, when a journalist asked the question,
“You made it very clear in the literature this morning that the stationed submarines in Western Australia will not constitute a US base. However, if there are up to four submarines out there, helping to train Australian sailors, they could be called on at any time to provide support in the Pacific or in Asia for the US. In what way is that not a base?”
Defence Minister Richard Marles responded with force:
Well, it’s a forward rotation. So, they’re not going to be based there.
When Defence Personnel Minister Matt Keogh introduced the Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025 in the Parliament in July this year, he explained the Bill was necessary, in part, to ensure housing for US personnel is available in close proximity to HMAS Stirling.
Defence is now committed to spending billions on upgrading and expanding facilities at HMAS Stirling to accommodate the continuous presence of USN attack subs, including housing for hundreds of American personnel and their families.
It’s really hard not to characterise what’s happening as ‘stationing’.
And eventually those stationed USN submarines are going to be nuclear-armed.
Situational double-speak
The stationing of nuclear weapons contrary to the SPNFZ Treaty is undoubtedly an issue the Government’s going to have to grapple with in relation to its leftie rank and file, but also diplomatically and legally.
There’s certainly potential for controversy and collateral damage to Australia’s relations in the South Pacific. Australia’s Pacific Islands partners are deeply attached to SPNFZ as the most significant legacy of the long campaign against nuclear testing in the Pacific and a declaration of the region’s desire for independence from the dictates of nuclear powers.
That was once part of Australia Labor’s political heritage, too, but that’s now being swept aside by AUKUS.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong has insisted that Australia is still committed to SPNFZ. In January 2023 she affirmed that, “… in partnership with the Pacific family, we remain steadfastly committed to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty.”
Three months later, she declared, “I want to make this crystal clear – we will ensure we comply with our obligations under the Treaty of Rarotonga.”
There’s no breach of treaty obligations yet, but Wong’s pledges will look pretty duplicitous when USN Virginia-class subs loaded with nuclear-armed cruise missiles are eventually based at HMAS Stirling.
Pacific Islands countries might wish to take the issue up through the Consultation Committee and complaints process established under Article 10 and Annexes 3 and 4 of the SPNFZ Treaty.
Moreover, while no one’s going to jail under Labor’s watch, the Government’s sophistry may also not stop an application for a permanent injunction being filed in the Federal Court, where the actual disposition of the US subs can be legally tested against the definition of the word ‘stationing’ in the Treaty.
In the meantime, MWM has fired off some new Freedom of Information requests (while we still can) to get to the bottom of it all. That includes one to the Australian Submarine Agency, which, according to a disclosure just made to the Senate, has recently opened a file on their system called “South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Act 1986”.
Nuclear weapons could be fired by artificial intelligence, Australia’s Foreign Affairs Minister has warned the United Nations.
Speaking to the UN in New York on Thursday US time, Penny Wong issued a stark speech about technological advancements and armed conflict.
“AI’s potential use in nuclear weapons and unmanned systems challenges the future of humanity,” she said.
“Nuclear warfare has so far been constrained by human judgment, by leaders who bear responsibility and by human conscience. AI has no such concern, nor can it be held accountable.
“These weapons threaten to change war itself and they risk escalation without warning.”
Senator Wong has been with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Communications Minister Anika Wells at the UN this week, promoting Australia’s world-first under-16 social media ban.
Australia’s representatives have also been pushing to become one of 10 smaller nations to gain a 10-year non-permanent seat on the UN’s Security Council.
Senator Wong delivered the doomsday warning to the Security Council.
“Decisions of life and death must never be delegated to machines, and together we must set the rules and establish the norms,” she said.
“We must establish standards for the use of AI to demand it is safe, secure, responsible and ethical.
“To ensure AI transforms the tools of conflict and diplomacy for the better, the Security Council must lead by example – to strengthen international peace and security and ensure it is not undermined.”
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy delivered a similar warning to the UN’s General Assembly a day prior.
“It’s only a matter of time, not much, before drones are fighting drones, attacking critical infrastructure and targeting people all by themselves, fully autonomous and no human involved, except the few who control AI systems,” he said.
“We are now living through the most destructive arms race in human history because this time it includes artificial intelligence.”
President Trump has spoken at the United Nations, and now Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has too.
The contrast could not have been starker. Trump rambled like a man who’d just been handed the microphone at a small-town karaoke night – except the song was foreign policy and he didn’t know the words. He wandered through half-baked grievances, boasted about imaginary achievements, and at one point seemed to forget which country he was president of.
Albanese, meanwhile, spoke like an actual world leader – calm, confident, and passionate. He talked about climate action, regional security, and cooperation with the kind of clarity that makes you think, “Ah yes, this person knows what he’s talking about.”
And yet, if you relied on Australia’s right-wing media, you’d think you’d just watched two completely different events. To them, Trump was basically Moses parting the Red Sea with one hand while balancing the U.S. economy on the other. Albanese, apparently “reckless,” was a bumbling tourist who accidentally stumbled into the General Assembly and asked for directions to Times Square.
One commentator even claimed Trump was “extraordinary” – which is technically true if you count all the diplomats burying their heads in their hands. Meanwhile, Albanese’s calm and measured speech was branded “utterly humiliating” and dismissed as nothing but “symbolic gestures,” because apparently international diplomacy should be performed like a WWE entrance.
This is the theatre we live with now: policy and substance don’t make headlines, but a man ranting about wind turbines does. If Trump had started selling selfies from the UN podium, they’d have called it “bold economic diplomacy.”
The world saw two very different leaders this week – one looking like he could chair a serious discussion about global challenges, the other looking like he should be gently escorted back to his seat before he accidentally sanctioned Canada.
More than 40 organisations have signed a declaration calling on the federal government to rule out Port Kembla as a future nuclear submarine base.
The site was shortlisted as a possible location for an east coast base in 2022, but local groups say it would harm the community and industry.
What’s next?
The federal government says it will not make a decision on the location of the east coast base until later this decade.
More than 40 organisations have called on the federal government to rule out Port Kembla as a future location for a nuclear submarine base under the AUKUS deal.
The Port Kembla Declaration — signed by 43 local, state and national organisations — was launched as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese locked in a meeting with US President Trump in October, amid uncertainty around the future of the AUKUS deal.
The declaration was unveiled at a memorial to the historic Dalfram strike at the port.
The 1938 anti-war strike saw wharfies at Port Kembla refuse to load pig iron onto steamships bound for Japan, including the Dalfram, amid concerns about its use in the military conflict with China at the time.
“We’re here in the same spirit, to launch the Port Kembla Declaration,” South Coast Labour Council president Tina Smith said.
“Port Kembla is not for sale, we want no nuclear base here.”
The declaration was signed by trade unions, church groups, local Australian Greens branches, Health Cities Australia and dozens of other groups.
It raises concerns about health, safety, industry jobs and transparency around plans for the site, as well as the potential for Wollongong to become a military target if the base goes ahead.
“You’ve got one of the major trading ports in the country that would be impacted — I don’t think it makes any sense to anybody,” the NSW Maritime Union’s Garry Keane said.
“Our union has always supported peace over confrontation and the Dalfram dispute is a prime example of that — we will stand by those principles and do everything we can to oppose a nuclear submarine base in Port Kembla.”
Wollongong Against War and Nukes president Gem Romuld said in the absence of any consultation or clarity since then, the community was using the declaration to make its stance clear.
“We’re concerned that plans are being made behind closed doors to advance the case for a nuclear submarine base in Port Kembla,” she said.
“The government is not transparent about this, and we’re concerned that they could go ahead with an announcement and override local opposition to establish a base here at any time.”
Planning for ports raises questions
In August, the NSW Department of Planning refused a Freedom of Information application by former South Australian Senator Rex Patrick for records pertaining to a submarine base at either Newcastle or Port Kembla.
In documents shared with the ABC, the department’s solicitor said that “premature disclosure” of the requested information could prejudice cabinet deliberations, as the records included information which revealed “the methodology of analysis used for inputs into the final business case being prepared for cabinet on this issue”.
NSW Planning Minister Paul Scully dismissed as baseless any speculation that the government was secretly preparing a business case for Port Kembla at the time.
In a statement, the state government reinforced the position, denying any work was being done on a case for Port Kembla or Newcastle.
“These documents all relate to the Perrottet government and cabinet relations from that period,” a spokesperson said.
The federal government said in a statement it had agreed in principle to establishing an east coast facility for Australia’s future submarine capability.
“A decision won’t be taken until later in the decade,” a spokesperson said.
Ms Romuld said the declaration did not just oppose a base in Port Kembla, but also supported opposition in Newcastle or other ports.
“We’ll work with other communities … along the east coast as well,” she said.
The Appeal has been endorsed by over 300 civil society organisations from around the world, including from peace, disarmament, human rights, youth, women’s rights, sustainable development and climate/environmental protection fields – and by over 500 individuals, including legislators, former high-level officials (such as foreign ministers and UN officials), religious leaders, medical practitioners, academics/teachers, youth leaders, private sector (corporate) leaders and others.
The Joint Appeal will be presented to the High-Level Meeting on September 26 by Dr. Deepshikha Kumari Vijh, Executive Director of Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy and Coordination Team Member for the September 26 Working Group. You can watch the High-Level meeting on UN Web TV. The civil society presentations will come at the end of the session.
Forty local organisations and community groups are launching a joint Port Kembla Declaration today, opposing the establishment of a nuclear submarine base at Port Kembla.
They’re calling for the federal government to rule it out, saying the risks are far too great, the declaration has been endorsed by many organisations, including health, faith, and social justice.
Tina Smith, President of the South Coast Labour Council, said they reject the idea of turning the region into a frontline for war games or nuclear escalation.
The National Response to Islamophobia report confirms what Muslim Australians have long known: anti-Muslim prejudice is systemic. Professor Fethi Mansouri calls for rethink.
The report was released this week by the Office of the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia, with its main conclusion being that prejudice is not confined to a handful of abusive individuals. It is systemic — embedded in schools, workplaces, laws, media narratives, and in the everyday harassment of visibly Muslim people, especially women.
There are also a number of areas where the report could and should have done much better. Most strikingly, for a Report on Islamophobia, its silences on major recent and current Islamophobic events are as revealing as its well-meaning recommendations.
Ignoring the main narrative
First, the Christchurch massacre – the worst act of anti-Muslim violence in modern history – barely gets a mention. Fifty-one worshippers were gunned down in their mosques, many with ties to Australia.
Christchurch has devastatingly revealed that Islamophobia is not simply about Muslims feeling offended, being sensitive to criticisms of Islam as a religion, or Muslim migrants being incapable or unwilling to integrate socially and assimilate culturally.
Second, the Report avoids confronting hyper-securitisation. Since 9/11, Muslim Australians have lived under some of the harshest counter-terrorism laws in the democratic world, alongside a sprawling CVE (Countering Violent Extremism) regime that has almost exclusively targeted Muslims. Surveillance, raids, and “community engagement” framed through suspicion have entrenched stigma.
Any serious attempt to tackle Islamophobia must grapple with this machinery of control.
Sensible proposals
The report ranges in scope and ambition. It calls, among other things, for curriculum reform, data collection, community safety programs, and legal change. It points to the weight of evidence, collected by groups such as the Islamophobia Register Australia, showing years of racist abuse and negative media framing. The Report’s call for a coordinated federal response was overdue and would, in theory, be a step in the right direction.
Some of the Report’s proposals are important and achievable.
Data collection is the clearest starting point: police hate-crime figures are inconsistent, and national surveys rarely capture religious discrimination. Embedding Islamophobia in ABS surveys and police registers would make the problem harder to deny.
Education and awareness programs should also be rolled out; research shows sustained anti-racism initiatives can shift attitudes across generations.
But without acknowledging Christchurch, securitisation, and anti-Palestinian racism, the strategy risks reducing Islamophobia to matters of civility and sensitivity. Recognition days, awareness campaigns, and grants may improve atmospherics, but they will not dismantle the structures that cast Muslim and Arab Australians as perpetual outsiders, suspects, or enemies within.
Australia has produced many reports on racism. The question is whether this one will drive structural reform,
or whether Islamophobia will remain endlessly studied, politely condemned, and institutionally entrenched.
The test is clear: will governments act, or will Muslim Australians be told — once again — to wait and to be more resilient in the face of bigotry and hate?
The special envoy conundrum
We have seen in recent years a proliferation of special envoys, from the Special Envoy for Social Cohesion, now defunct, to the two special envoys on Antisemitism and Islamophobia, respectively.
Special Envoys are ‘diplomatic’ appointments that have neither ministerial statutory powers nor, necessarily, broad community or political support. Such appointments appear at best to be a reaction to specific events.
At worst, they can compound the very issues they were meant to address.
Tackling various forms of racism, including those specifically directed against Jewish and Muslim Australians, should be pursued through existing statutory bodies such as the Australian Human Rights Commission. These bodies are best equipped and resourced to deal with all forms of discrimination if properly resourced and supported.
Professor Fethi Mansouri is a Deakin Distinguished Professor in Migration and Intercultural Studies and founding Director of the Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation (ADI), a leading research institute that undertakes significant social sciences and humanities research in Australia and across many disciplinary fields.
The World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) are international financial institutions funded by governments to support economic development, poverty reduction, and infrastructure.
Until now, both institutions have avoided supporting nuclear power projects for the following reasons:
nuclear proliferation risks
serious concerns over safety
radioactive waste
extremely high costs
On June 10, the World Bank’s Board decided to lift its ban on financing nuclear projects.
The ADB is currently reviewing its energy policy, and indications suggest it may also move to allow support for nuclear power.
However, the problems of nuclear power — safety risks, radioactive waste, nuclear proliferation, and high costs — remain unresolved.
Introducing nuclear power in developing countries would impose major risks and costs not only on today’s citizens but also on future generations.
For these reasons, we are preparing to send the following petition to both the World Bank and ADB. We ask for your support by adding your signature. We will submit all signatures and comments to the World Bank and ADB.
Let’s act together to prevent today’s decisions from burdening tomorrow’s generations.
International Petition: “Say No to Nuclear Financing – World Bank and ADB, Why Turn Away from the Right Path?”
To: Mr. Ajay Banga, President of the World Bank Group To: Mr. Masato Kanda, President of the Asian Development Bank
We are deeply concerned that the World Bank Group and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) are moving toward lifting the ban on financing and supporting nuclear power projects.
The core reasons why the World Bank and the ADB have long refrained from supporting nuclear energy include inseparable risks of nuclear weapons proliferation and the unresolved problems of radioactive waste. These concerns remain unchanged today. Furthermore, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has revealed that nuclear power plants can become military targets, adding another serious security threat.
As demonstrated by the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disasters, one accident can cause widespread, long-term contamination and serious social and economic disruption.
Even without accidents or attacks, nuclear energy releases radioactive substances into the environment at every stage of its lifecycle—mining, fuel production and processing, operation, decommissioning, and the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. Uranium mining, in particular, has often violated the rights of Indigenous peoples and harmed their health, lands and environment.
Nuclear waste generated from operating nuclear power plants remains hazardous for tens of thousands of years, requiring secure isolation from the biosphere for geological periods of time. Yet most countries still have no disposal site.
Due to “security” considerations, some information related to the planning and construction of nuclear power plants is kept secret. As a result, communities and NGOs often have limited access to crucial safety information. This lack of transparency conflicts with the safeguard policies of international financial institutions which emphasize openness, accountability, and stakeholder consultation.
In recent years, the cost of building nuclear power plants has soared, often reaching tens of billions of USD per unit and increasing several-fold beyond initial estimates. Private investors have shifted away from nuclear power and toward renewable energy, leading to the rapid growth of renewable energy technologies. The high costs of nuclear power – now the most expensive form of new electricity generation – and its requirement for large direct and indirect government subsidies have high opportunity costs, delaying and undermining the needed rapid scale-up of benign renewable energy.
Construction of nuclear power reactors typically takes well over a decade, often more than two, too slow for mitigating the accelerating climate crisis.
We must also recognize the vulnerabilities of nuclear power. As a large, centralized source of electricity, nuclear plants can have far-reaching impacts when they unexpectedly shut down due to accidents or technical problems. In recent years, heatwaves have raised seawater and river temperatures, making it impossible to obtain cooling water in some cases.
Small modular reactors (SMRs) also fail to address many of these concerns, especially those related to fissile material, radioactive wastes, nuclear weapons proliferation risks and economic viability.
Supporting the construction of nuclear power plants in developing countries would impose not only serious long-term dangers but also a massive economic burden on current and future generations in those nations.
We therefore call on the World Bank Group and the ADB to refrain from providing any form of support or financing for nuclear power.
Initial Endorsers:
11 march movement, Belgium 350.org Japan, Japan Aktionsbündnis STOP Westcastor Jülich, Germany AKW-nee-Gruppe Aachen, Germany Alliance for Climate & Ecology, Korea Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), Australia
AYUS International Buddhist Cooperation Network／アーユス仏教国際協力ネットワーク, Japan Belgische Coalitie Stop Uraniumwapens (Belgian part of the International Coalition for a Ban on Uraniumweapons), Belgium Beyond Nuclear, United States Bündnis für „Sichere Verwahrung von Atom-Müll, Germany Centre for Financial Accountability(CFA), India Citizen’s Eyes on Nuclear Regulation／原子力規制を監視する市民の会, Japan Citizens’ Commission on Nuclear Energy (CCNE) ／原子力市民委員会, Japan Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center／原子力資料情報室, Japan Climate Express11 march movement, Belgium Corner House, United Kingdom Ecodefense, Russia Environmental Association “Za Zemiata” – Friends of the Earth Bulgaria, Bulgaria European Environmental Bureau, Belgium Forum for Protection of Public Interest (Pro Public) , Nepal Friends of the Earth Australia, Australia Friends of the Earth India, India Friends of the Earth International, International
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Antinuclear 