The CESCR review of Australia took place on 16 and 17 February 2026. On 16 February, the CESCR Committee heard oral submissions from a number of national NGOs on domestic policy issues, and from DAWN which presented a one-page summary of the 10-page Shadow (or Parallel) Report we formally submitted on Australia’s Extraterritorial Obligations (ETOs) in relation to AUKUS.
On 17 February, the Committee held two 3-hour sessions with a large Australian Government Delegation in person in Geneva and joining online from Canberra. The delegation was headed by Ambassador Elizabeth Day. The delegation lead presented Australia’s national report in her opening statement. The delegation was then asked to respond to articles of the Convention, which were grouped into thematic clusters prepared by the CESCR Committee.
Australia Rapporteur Lead, Dr. Seree Nonthasoot from Thailand, raised two concerns in relation to AUKUS that required responses from Australia.
- The first was ‘the lack of remedies, especially for extraterritorial activities.’ Citing AUKUS, he said, ‘the trilateral security partnership between Australia, the UK and the US to enhance nuclear capacity in the Indo-Pacific portends the potential prevalence of nuclear weapons and nuclear testing in the Pacific, and the need for a robust legislative framework in remedies for any harm that may arise from its implementation’.
- The second, which also related to AUKUS, concerned the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill that allows for the dumping of US and UK intermediate-level waste and other high-level nuclear waste from nuclear submarines. The Committee sought to ‘ascertain with the State party the effective prevention and mitigation framework that must be put in place to tackle potential nuclear incidents.’
When neither of the two concerns were responded to by the Australian Delegation, Dr. Seree Nonthasoot followed up with a reminder that he had not received details on AUKUS and the human rights of Pacific people and would appreciate additional details.
The following response by Emily Roper (DFAT) focused on Dr Seree’s reference to ‘the human rights of Pacific people’ in his follow-up question, and avoided any mention of AUKUS to which it was linked. She also diverted to citing climate change ‘as the single greatest existential threat to our region’ and as a crisis on which Australia ‘stands should to shoulder with Pacific partners’ in responding to.
Before breaking for lunch, the Chair of the Constructive dialogue with Australia, Ambassador Preeti Saran, referred to issues on which responses remained outstanding and requested that the Delegation address these when the meeting reconvened.
Emily Roper (DFAT) responded to the elephant-in-the-room question on AUKUS and nuclear harm when the afternoon session resumed at 3 pm.
The Australian Government’s responses were deliberately diversionary, glib and inadequate.
Dr. Seree Nonthasoot’s use of the word ‘portends’ underlined the ominous implications of AUKUS – the potential prevalence of nuclear weapons in the Pacific, the lack of remedies for extraterritorial activities, and the need therefore for ‘a robust legislative framework in remedies for any [extraterritorial] harm that may arise from its implementation’.
Australia completely ignored this fundamental question on the lack of remedies for harms caused through its extraterritorial activities in respect to the AUKUS pact, and what it entails. Instead, Australia confined its answer to stating its commitment ‘to the highest standard of nuclear stewardship’ (a term that suggests a duty of care), including in the ‘safe and secure’ domestic disposal of radioactive waste generated by its ‘conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines’.
While the question was about extraterritorial obligations and remedies in relation to potential and foreseeable impacts on Pacific people of the prevalence of nuclear weapons and nuclear testing in the Pacific, Australia’s response focused on Australia’s commitment to protecting the health and safety of “our people, the public and the environment.”
Australia showed little awareness of the health and safety and livelihood risks for Pacific people raised in the DAWN report from potential radioactive fuel leaks or accidents with the submarines, or at worst, a nuclear attack should there be an outbreak of hostilities or provocation by an ‘enemy’ power, and the need therefore for ‘a robust legislative framework in remedies for any harm that may arise’ from the implementation of AUKUS.
Or else, Australia completely ignored the implications and risks of the ‘potential prevalence of nuclear weapons in the Pacific’ as a consequence of AUKUS permitting the stationing and rotation of US submarines and servicemen in Australian ports, and the increased number of potentially nuclear-armed submarines in Pacific waters. As indicated in our parallel report, there have already been 8 port visits by US nuclear-powered submarines since AUKUS was announced.
The wider context of this question, in our view, is Australia’s participation through AUKUS in the escalating big power-driven arms race and hyper-militarisation of the ocean, dominated by under-sea stealth combat vessels that include nuclear-powered (and armed) naval submarines.
Australia’s claims of engaging ‘openly and transparently with the Pacific on AUKUS since the partnership was announced’ is disingenuous – the Pacific governments were taken by surprise by the announcement of the AUKUS security pact and only learnt of it through the media. Worse still, Australia, through its subsequent binding bilateral defence treaties, negotiated in private and in the absence of public and parliamentary scrutiny, effectively compels Pacific Island states to support AUKUS partners, with implications that run counter to Pacific commitments to a peaceful and secure region.
We urgently call for a review of AUKUS and subsequent bilateral treaties, and highlight the urgent need for a human rights impact assessment.
Whilst we welcome the Australian delegation’s commitment to continue to uphold the Treaty of Rarotonga obligations, noting that this year marks the 40th anniversary of the Rarotonga treaty, we look forward to seeing accelerated efforts to close the loopholes in the Treaty that continue to permit the stationing of nuclear weapons in our region.
Finally, while Australia recognises that climate change is the single greatest existential threat to the Pacific, its investment in AUKUS of an eye-watering $364 billion calls for greater scrutiny of defence spending by the Australian Parliament. This massive investment in defence spending comes at the expense of social spending in Australia, a major issue raised by Australian CSOs reporting to the CESCR Committee’s Review of Australia. It will likely also impact the amounts and prioritisation of Australian development aid spending in the Pacific region.
We respectfully hope the CESCR committee will include in its concluding observations the issues we elaborated in our report and include strong recommendations on remedies, including on the concerns the committee itself raised with Australia during the constructive dialogue with the Australian government.
Download now our Shadow Report Australia’s Extraterritorial Obligations in the Pacific in the Context of AUKUS