US to send only used nuclear subs to Australia in amended defence deal
Sunday, 31 May 2026 https://www.thestar.com.my/aseanplus/aseanplus-news/2026/05/31/us-to-send-only-used-nuclear-subs-to-australia-in-amended-defence-deal
SINGAPORE: Australia will receive only used nuclear-powered submarines from the United States as part of an agreement to “streamline” the AUKUS deal, with the move branded on Sunday (May 31) as a “cost-effective” measure by Defence Minister Richard Marles.
The two nations — together with the third partner in their security pact, Britain — met at Singapore’s Shangri-La Dialogue, which brings together top defence officials and experts from about 45 countries.
Under the 2021 AUKUS deal, Australia is expected to receive at least three so-called “Virginia-class” nuclear-powered submarines from the United States within 15 years.
Australia had been expecting to receive two used submarines and one new one, but the countries announced Saturday that all three will now be in-service vessels from the US Navy stock.
When asked why Canberra was now receiving only used equipment, Marles, who is also deputy prime minister, told reporters on Sunday it would be more cost-effective.
“In the context of a very complicated endeavour, we need to place a premium on simplicity,” said Marles, who added that the submarines will also be the same model.
“I cannot overstate the significance of that, both in terms of the submariners who are operating them, but also the people who are working on them to sustain those submarines,” Marles said.
“It is definitely cost-effective. And to be clear, this is a very expensive programme… and so we are trying to find every cost-effective option as we walk down this path.”
In a joint statement on Saturday, Marles, US Minister for Defence Pete Hegseth, and the UK Secretary for Defence John Healey confirmed the tweak to the submarine agreement.
“The deputy prime minister and secretaries welcomed the proposed approach to streamline Australia’s acquisition of Virginia-class submarines (VCS), simplifying supply chain management, operational and maintenance requirements, and maximising cost efficiencies,” the statement said.
“This approach would enable Australia to acquire three in-service VCS in lieu of a mixture of new and in-service VCS variants.”
The US Navy has 24 Virginia-class vessels but American shipyards are struggling to meet production targets set at two new boats each year.
In the United States, critics have questioned why Washington would sell nuclear-powered submarines to Australia without stocking its own military first.
The AUKUS submarine programme lies at the heart of Australia’s defence strategy and could cost up to US$235 billion over 30 years, according to government forecasts. – AFP
Sunday, 31 May 2026 |
Joe Hockey says he is nervous about AUKUS – and wants Albanese to cold-call Trump
Matthew Knott, May 26, 2026, https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/joe-hockey-says-he-is-nervous-about-aukus-and-wants-albanese-to-cold-call-trump-20260526-p600oa.html
Former ambassador to Washington Joe Hockey says he is worried about the possibility the United States will not supply nuclear-powered submarines to Australia as promised under the AUKUS pact because of faltering American production rates.
The former treasurer also urged Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to make a habit of cold-calling US President Donald Trump to improve their relationship and influence his thinking on world affairs.
Under the AUKUS plan, the US is supposed to sell three Virginia-class attack submarines to Australia, starting from 2032.
But senior US navy officials have warned that US shipyards must start pumping out significantly more submarines to have any spare for Australia, raising the possibility of the defence force being left with a capability gap.
Hockey, who served as Australia’s top diplomat in Washington from 2016 to 2020, told the National Press Club that “for the first time, I’m a little nervous about the Virginias, and that’s after a few conversations on the Hill”.
The US, he said, “just has not got the production of the Virginia up to speed”.
Hockey’s remarks are notable because he runs a Washington-based lobbying firm that represents major defence companies and he has been a passionate champion of AUKUS.
His remarks differ from Richard Marles, Defence Minister, who told this masthead last week that there was “zero possibility” of AUKUS coming unstuck.
Asked whether there was a growing danger the sale of Virginia-class submarines could be delayed or pared back, Hockey said: “I think the risk has increased, and we need again to have a full court press on the ground in Washington.”
He said that “we’ve got to prove that we’re ready for the Virginias here and display the physical capability to house them and to support their presence here, not to give the Americans any hook not to deliver”.
Hockey did not join calls for Australia to develop a “plan B” for AUKUS, saying it was not like Albanese could “go down to Bunnings” and buy a fleet of alternative submarines.
Hockey singled out US Deputy Secretary of War Steve Feinberg as a powerful official that Australia needed to court to ensure Trump’s vow that AUKUS is going “full steam ahead” is followed through.
“We’ve got to get political buy-in, more political buy-in, so that the people who are actually making the decisions on US procurement are keeping us at the top of the list,” he said.
Urging Australia to seek closer integration into US supply chains, Hockey said there was “no problem at a military-to-military or bureaucracy-to-bureaucracy level, it’s just a question of whether they can actually build the Virginias fast enough”.
Trump’s former acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, agreed with Hockey that it would be “really, really, really difficult” for the US to build enough submarines to provide any to Australia, despite strong bipartisan support for AUKUS in Washington.
“There’s going to be technical difficulties building that many submarines,” he said.
The US Navy’s chief of naval operations, Daryl Caudle, said last year: “The only way we’ll ever make good on the AUKUS agreement is that we get to the 2.3 [build rate], and it is my goal to make good on that.”
The US is currently producing around 1.2 boats a year, meaning production will need to increase significantly to hit the 2.3 build rate figure.
Hockey said US allies were “really missing” a figure like the former Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe, who developed a close relationship with Trump in his first term and spoke to him regularly on the phone.
Hockey lamented that among world leaders, “there’s no one that picks up the phone, they’re afraid almost to pick up the phone to the president [and] have a conversation.
“I mean, he answers phone calls from random journalists around the world, and it’s not hard to get his cell number, and he answers it,” he said.
“I’d encourage the prime minister to ring him occasionally. I mean, what have you got to lose? Australian prime ministers have been confidants of US presidents more than people realise, and I think the president of the United States is missing that back channel of advice.”
It has become something of a running joke among American journalists about how easy it is to obtain Trump’s phone number and call him for stories.
Albanese last year said he had Trump’s phone number after he remarked during an election debate that he’s “not sure that he has a mobile phone” and that texting a fellow world leader is “not the way it works”.
“Don’t mention the genocide”
27 May 2026 AIMN Editorial , https://theaimn.net/dont-mention-the-genocide/
Australia needs to shake off the oppressive chains of the Zionist Israeli lobby. Social cohesion and Australian’s faith in their parliament has been trashed in the mad scramble to appease the Zionist Israeli lobby. The perverse and cowardly leadership by Australia’s political class is blatant, disgusting, particularly unAustralian, an affront to common decency, and an attack on humanity itself. Being unequivocally against Zionist Israel’s genocide is what was needed. Instead, Australia got obfuscation and complicity that is tearing at the heart of Australians egalitarian moral compass. The rush to push through Parliament the new antisemitism laws – with minimal scrutiny and major rule of law flaws like vague definitions, retrospective reach and expanded executive powers – risks undermining our rights, due process, and democratic accountability. These laws are proving that bad laws are the worst form of tyranny.
Noting that in 2025 the Federal Court made the line explicit: Criticism of Israel or Zionism is not antisemitism. One targets a state and an ideology. The other targets a people. Conflating them is legally wrong and constitutionally dangerous, and as such our politicians have let us down.
The independence of the Australian democratic system must now be in question. Australia and the West will pay a high price for Zionist Israel’s war on liberty (not USS Liberty), justice, and humanity itself.
Zionist interference and manipulation of Australian politicians and media is out of control. When the Zionist Israeli lobby is more powerful than the Australian peoples’ democratic rights then something has gone radically wrong. The proof of this overbearing influence is laid out in the examples of Labor leader Anthony Albanese not allowing debate on the genocide in Gaza at the Labor national conference, the removal of Fatima Payman from Labor by Albanese for standing up for Palestinians and Labor values, the cancelling of Pulitzer prize winning journalist Chris Hedges from the National Press Club, the cancelling of the visa for internationally recognised podcaster Candice Owens by Tony Burke, the unlawful sacking of Antoinette Lattouf from the ABC and the fiasco of the forever tarnished Adelaide Writers Festival exacerbated by the Labor premier’s interference. These are just a few examples of our politicians (and media) acting as lapdogs to the Zionist Israeli lobby. Australia, it would seem, is becoming part of Greater Israel.
How has it come to this, that antisemitism is now a far more heinously egregious affront to common human decency than the blatantly obvious orchestrated and systemic genocidal apartheid of a disempowered nation and the mass slaughter of that nations most innocent: the children? Australian politicians should note that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing (as the saying goes).
The antisemitism envoy’s demands/report was criticised, pilloried and lampooned before the events in Bondi. Now they are flagged to be law and Australian’s freedoms and values are negated while a specious royal commission that will not attempt to address the “cause and effect” elephant in the room, a genocidal humanitarian disaster perpetrated by an apartheid regime, will go ahead to appease those with objectionable motives, unscrupulous morals and hidden agendas. Who really have been the victims of the Bondi shootings when the truth is now hate speech and is criminalised by our government?
Why are those protesting for peace blamed by the NSW premier for the events in Bondi? Australians are better than those who seek to divide and control us, like Chris Minns.
Hate speech is being used by our politicians when the NSW premier says that mosques are “factories of hate” and the PM says that Palestinian children are “taught to hate” but not a word mentioned about the hate being perpetrated upon the Palestinian people.
It is evident that Australia – like the US – has been infiltrated by traitorous unChristian paid Zionist Israeli goose stepping foot soldiers masquerading as patriotic Australian politicians who trash international laws and conventions while enabling war criminals.
Brave young Australians made the ultimate sacrifice to protect our collective freedoms and values. Now a foreign regime has the ability to deny and nullity those freedoms and values. Why?
Ask yourself why this specific group were targeted?
Why was the ex-IDF security so ineffective?
Like the October 7 attack on Zionist Israel, and like the 1994 false flag bombing of the Israeli Embassy in London by Mossad, there are a lot of questions about the events that occurred at Bondi that need to be answered.
In actuality it has been a pyrrhic victory for Zionist lobbyists, although with that in mind surely now the question must be have Australians democratic rights become the sixteenth victim of the Bondi shootings?
The Suicide Note: How Australia is Dismantling the Journalism it Needs to Survive
The first and only person imprisoned in connection with alleged Australian war crimes in Afghanistan is not a soldier accused of an unlawful killing. It is the lawyer who helped expose them.
The first and only person imprisoned in connection with alleged Australian war crimes in Afghanistan is not a soldier accused of an unlawful killing. It is the lawyer who helped expose them.
27 May 2026 David Tyler AIM Extra
“I am an invisible man.” Ralph Ellison begins his masterpiece with a declaration that has never lost its charge or its dark, grievous wit. Not a ghost. Not a metaphor. A man of flesh and bone, fully present yet completely eclipsed: unseen because society had organised itself, through custom and law and the quiet violence of institutional habit and the tyranny of low expectations, to refuse him the dignity of being perceived.
The invisibility was not in him. It was in them.
I want to honour that frame by applying it here, to Australia Felix, a paradise on earth, if you are white. Or the place where they came to take the children away: the Stolen Generations, children who never saw their parents again. This is not to appropriate Ellison’s own naming of the horror, but to acknowledge that he understood invisibility with the authority of a man who lived, suffered and chronicled it.
What Ellison understood applies with uncomfortable precision to the condition of independent journalism in Australia in 2026: you can be fully visible, pilloried, prosecuted, extensively spied on, your home raided, your underwear drawer wrenched open on national TV (an emblem of violation if ever there was one), your files seized, your phone data extracted, your legal bills compounding at a rate that will ruin you, your name in every paper.
Yes. All of this, and you will still be invisible. Seen by everyone. Acknowledged by none. Your democratic function rendered officially non-existent by the same state that has the hide to appear at international conferences and deliver speeches about the importance of a free press.
That is the particular genius of what Australia has built. Not suppression in the crude sense that leaves marks anyone can photograph. Something more refined: suppression by process, suppression by cost, suppression by the slow, grinding, spirit-breaking machinery of a legal system deployed not to establish guilt but to establish a price.
The price of telling the truth in Australia is now higher than it has ever been. Set deliberately high. Set to deter. Pour encourager les autres, as the colonialists up the road in New Caledonia would say, as they hanged indigenous men and women in public to terrify their relatives into submission.
The Oldest Penal Colony in the Southern Hemisphere
There is an additional irony if you care to look at a history book, and in Australia, increasingly, that takes courage.
Australia began as a penal colony. Not metaphorically. As a matter of founding fact. The British Empire, having misplaced one set of colonies and needing somewhere to dispose of the people it wished to be rid of, selected a continent already occupied by several hundred thousand people it did not intend to consult, and began shipping its unwanted there. Convicts, radicals, the insubordinate, the poor who had become inconvenient: all transported to the edge of the known world, from which return was impossible and silence was enforced.
Two hundred and thirty-eight years later, we imprison military lawyers for informing the public about alleged war crimes. We prosecute tax office whistleblowers for exposing illegal debt recovery practices. In an extension that Kafka would relish, we are pursuing through the courts the lawyers of those we have already pursued. Not the accused. The lawyers.
The penal colony never really ended. It merely changed its dress code.
Franz Kafka wrote a story about a penal colony. In it, there is a machine called the Harrow. The Harrow’s function is to inscribe the law on the body of the condemned: with needles, over many hours, in a script of increasing intricacy and pain. The condemned does not know, before the process begins, what law they have broken. They are not told. They are not shown. The law is written on their body as the punishment is administered, and this, the officer in charge explains to a puzzled visiting Explorer, is itself the point:
“Enlightenment comes to the most dull-witted. It begins around the eyes. From there it radiates.”
David McBride now knows what the Harrow writes. So does Richard Boyle. So does Bernard Collaery. So did Julian Assange, for years, in Belmarsh Prison, while the government that issued his passport looked at its shoes and said, quietly, that the matter was receiving attention at the appropriate levels.
The Australian Harrow does not use needles. It uses bail conditions, suppression orders, national security legislation, counter-terrorism statutes and the slow drip of pre-trial process that can run for years before a single day in open court. Those condemned do not bleed visibly. They become, over time, financially destroyed, publicly invisible, professionally erased. And the lesson to everyone watching is legible without being stated. The machine speaks for itself. That, as Kafka’s officer understood, is precisely the elegance of it.
The Honour Roll of Those the Machine Has Processed
Here is what the Harrow has been writing.
David McBride was a military lawyer. Decorated. Distinguished. Decent. McBride did two tours of Afghanistan, where he witnessed alleged war crimes being buried while lesser misconduct was prosecuted for the sake of appearance. He raised his concerns with his commanding officer. He was ignored. He went to oversight bodies. The oversight bodies did what Australian oversight bodies reliably do: they provided the appearance of accountability while protecting the system that appoints and funds them. As a last resort, having exhausted every other avenue of appeal, he gave documents to the ABC.
Those documents became the Afghan Files. They forced a reckoning with conduct the chain of command had classified into permanent darkness. The journalism was unimpeachable. The public interest was unambiguous. The democratic function of the free press, the function Australia claims to revere in every ministerial doorstop, every press freedom statement, every appearance at every international forum, was served.
For this, McBride was sentenced to six years in prison in 2024. The public interest defence was rejected by the trial judge. The conviction was upheld on appeal. The first and only person imprisoned in connection with alleged Australian war crimes in Afghanistan is not a soldier accused of an unlawful killing. It is the lawyer who helped expose them.
The law the Harrow inscribed on McBride’s body was not you permitted atrocities. It was you told people about them.
Witness K revealed that Australia’s intelligence services secretly bugged the cabinet rooms of Timor Leste during oil and gas negotiations, conducted shortly after that newly independent nation had barely drawn its first post-colonial breath. He received a suspended sentence.
His lawyer, Bernard Collaery, decorated Canberra barrister, former ACT Attorney-General, a man whose standing in his profession is impeccable, was prosecuted separately. Not for spying. Not for theft. Not for violence. For the act of defending his client. The prosecution ground on for years before the Albanese government finally dropped it, by which time it had accomplished its real work: financial ruin, reputational attrition, and a message delivered, in a language every lawyer in the country could read, to anyone considering the defence of the next person who knew too much.
The Harrow does not require a conviction to work. The process is the punishment. Kafka understood this. So does the Department of the Attorney-General.
Richard Boyle exposed predatory and illegal debt-recovery practices inside the Australian Tax Office. Independent inquiries later confirmed what he had said. He raised concerns internally and was ignored. He went to oversight bodies and was spurned. He went to journalists as a final resort. He is now facing charges that could see him locked up for decades. The Tax Office whose illegal conduct he exposed faces no charges at all.
The Harrow writes asymmetrically. It always has.
In 2019, AFP officers raided the home of News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst, seizing data from her phone and laptop. The High Court later unanimously ruled the warrant invalid and the search unlawful. The following day, those same officers raided the Sydney offices of the ABC, fossicking through thousands of files, article drafts, graphics, digital notes and raw footage in an operation the ABC’s news director said should send a chill down every citizen’s spine.
It did not send enough of a chill.
The government of the day faced no political consequence. There was an inquiry. An inquiry is what Canberra holds instead of a reckoning.
An Australian citizen, Julian Assange watched WikiLeaks publish classified documents about American military conduct in Iraq and Afghanistan: documents that revealed, among other things, the killing of civilians and Reuters journalists in a helicopter gunship attack that the military had classified as something else entirely. For publishing classified information in the public interest, which is what investigative journalism must remain or the word democracy becomes a lie, Assange spent years in Belmarsh Prison in conditions the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture described as meeting the threshold of psychological torture.
Australian governments said, for the better part of a decade, as near to nothing as a government can approach while still technically occupying the treasury benches. They were, at all times, raising the matter privately. Through appropriate channels. The appropriate channels led nowhere, but they were, at all times, appropriate.
DAWE: Now, Julian Assange is an Australian citizen who has spent years in a British maximum-security prison. What has the government done?
CLARKE: We have been raising this matter at the highest levels.
DAWE: Which levels, specifically?
CLARKE: The highest ones. I can’t stress that enough……………………………………………………………………………………..
When Assange was finally freed, it was through a plea deal requiring him to admit guilt for doing what journalists have done since Gutenberg handed them a press and the powerful discovered, to their permanent and only-partially-concealed fury, what it was actually for.
He spent years in a high-security British prison for publishing things that were true. The governments that claimed to represent him continued attending functions……………………………………………………………………..
The Australian whistleblower follows the rules. Raises matters internally. Proceeds to oversight when internal processes fail. Approaches journalists as a last resort, as the system’s own guidelines suggest. Does everything right. And then discovers that doing everything right was itself the trap: the record of compliance now establishes that the process was followed, the process failed, and the failure is therefore not the system’s. It is the individual’s, for having the temerity to continue.
The machine was never designed to protect him. It was designed to process him.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..The independent Australian journalists and whistleblowers who have survived the Harrow (those who have not been imprisoned, bankrupted or ground into silence) are something like this. Underground. Throwing stolen light. Invisible to the official apparatus that would prefer them to stay that way, and visible to the readers who need them, who know where the basement is, who keep showing up..
……………………………………………………….Dissent is the lifeblood of democracy. Not comfortable dissent, not licensed dissent, not dissent that has been reviewed by a QC and cleared by the risk-management committee: actual dissent, the kind that names names, follows money, holds power to account even when power would very much prefer to be left alone, even when the preference of power is backed by counter-terrorism legislation, defamation solicitors, intelligence agencies and the quiet withdrawal of every oxygen molecule that kept the truth teller breathing. A democracy that loses the institutional and economic capacity for that kind of dissent is not a democracy that has matured. It is a democracy in the early stages of something that has a name, and the name is not maturity.
The question, the only question that now matters, is whether enough people read the note before it becomes an epitaph. Whether enough people are furious enough, and organised enough, and willing enough to be visible: genuinely, inconveniently, undeniably visible. To tear it up. https://theaimn.net/the-suicide-note-how-australia-is-dismantling-the-journalism-it-needs-to-survive/
The Sound of Silence: Australia’s Complicity in the Face of Evidence
In January 2026, the government ignored a request to prepare an arrest warrant for Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who toured Australia at the government’s invitation in early February, despite a UN Commission of Inquiry finding that Herzog incited genocide when he blamed “an entire nation” for the October 7 attack.
26 May 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, The Sound of Silence: Australia’s Complicity in the Face of Evidence – The Australian Independent Media Network
The Evidence That Cannot Be Ignored
On 22 May 2026, a coalition of human rights organisations – Amnesty International Australia, the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN), and the Australia Muslim Advocacy Network (AMAN) – submitted a formal dossier to Australian Federal Police Commissioner Krissy Barrett and Attorney-General Michelle Rowland.
The submission contained a 140-page dossier prepared by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians, detailing extensive allegations of genocide and war crimes against Israeli government and military figures including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and former IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi.
The organisations urged the AFP to investigate “any Australian dual nationals alleged to have participated in hostilities in Gaza or related conduct potentially giving rise to offences under Australian law.”
Amnesty International’s Mohamed Duar was blunt: “Any Australian who has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide must be held to account and face justice.”
The government has not responded.
The silence is deafening.
The Arms Trade: Business as Usual
While the government refuses to investigate alleged war criminals on Australian soil, it continues to facilitate the weapons that make those crimes possible.
Australia’s defence export regime has faced repeated scrutiny over its approvals for arms exports to Israel. Under the Defence Trade Controls Act 2012, the government is required to deny export permits where there is a “clear risk” that the goods might be used to commit “serious violations of international humanitarian law.”
Yet permits continue to be approved. The government refuses to release detailed figures, citing commercial confidentiality. What we know comes from leaked documents and investigative reporting – including evidence that Australian-made components have found their way into Israeli military systems used in Gaza.
The pattern is consistent with global trends. Serbia’s arms exports to Israel surged from approximately €1.4 million in 2023 to tens of millions annually in 2025. NATO member Albania signed a secret contract worth hundreds of millions of euros with Elbit Systems, an Israeli defence company under investigation for allegedly bribing alliance officials, with the agreement’s costs and terms kept from the Albanian parliament.Australia is not alone. But Australia is not off the hook.
The question is simple: Is Australia arming a state accused of genocide?
The government will not answer.
The Visa Paradox: War Criminals Welcome, Humanitarians Barred
The contradiction could not be starker.
On one hand, Australia has denied visas to Palestinian refugees and humanitarian workers seeking safety. In March 2026, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke granted visas to a troupe of female IDF soldiers taking a “recovery trip” to Melbourne. Israeli dual nationals who have served in the IDF – including those who documented their service “near the Gaza/Egypt border” – have entered and left Australia unchecked.
On the other hand, Australia has denied entry to Israeli political figures associated with anti-Palestinian rhetoric. Former minister Ayelet Shaked and MK Simcha Rothman were refused visas. The government has imposed sanctions on far-right Israeli ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, including travel bans.
But here is the problem: The government has not applied the same standard to Israeli dual nationals who may have committed war crimes.
Authorities in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, and Sri Lanka have ordered investigations into allegations of war crimes by their citizens or Israeli soldiers on their soil. Australia has done nothing.
In January 2026, the government ignored a request to prepare an arrest warrant for Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who toured Australia at the government’s invitation in early February, despite a UN Commission of Inquiry finding that Herzog incited genocide when he blamed “an entire nation” for the October 7 attack.
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke has introduced visa cancellation criteria based on “a test of character, not necessarily a test of criminality” and “inciting discord.” By his own criteria, Herzog fails the test. The government did not apply it.
Why does one standard apply to Israeli politicians and another to Israeli soldiers?
The government will not answer.
The Flotilla: Humiliation on Video
On 21 May 2026, footage emerged of Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir taunting detained activists from the Global Sumud Flotilla – an international effort to break Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza and deliver aid.
The video showed Ben-Gvir waving an Israeli flag in front of bound activists kneeling face down in a tent. One woman was forced to the ground by masked officers after shouting “Free, free Palestine.”
Among the 430 detained activists were 11 Australians. They reported being denied food and water for days. One activist, Zack Schofield, stated:
“Many of us haven’t eaten for days. We were denied water for two days. I have friends that were shocked with tasers, stun guns for extended periods of time just on entry to prison.”
Foreign Minister Penny Wong condemned Ben-Gvir’s actions as “shocking and unacceptable.” The government called in the Israeli ambassador. Wong directed DFAT to make representations.
But here is the problem: Condemnation is not consequence.
Greens Senator Nick McKim called for “the strongest possible response from our prime minister and our foreign minister… a far, far stronger response than they’ve delivered to date.”
None has come.
The activists were released and deported to Turkey. The Israeli minister who humiliated them faces no sanction from Australia beyond words.
When does condemnation become complicity?
The government will not answer.
The Royal Commission Contradiction
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese repeatedly rejected calls for a royal commission into antisemitism, arguing that royal commissions “achieve nothing” and become “divisive.”
In December 2025, following the Bondi Beach terrorist attack, the government rejected calls for a royal commission, with Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke arguing that a royal commission would “re-platform some of the worst statements and worst voices.” The government instead commissioned former ASIO boss Dennis Richardson to review the security ecosystem.
Yet when it comes to domestic violence, which killed 64 Australian women in 2024 alone, the same Prime Minister has also rejected royal commissions, stating that they “take too long” and “don’t deliver the urgent change needed.”
The inconsistency is instructive.
Royal commissions are a tool. The government deploys them when it wishes – as it did for aged care, disability, the robodebt scheme, and the management of police informants. It withholds them when the political cost of action exceeds the cost of inaction.
On antisemitism, the government has chosen a path of symbolic measures: an education taskforce, a “university report card,” funding for Monash University to expand training in “recognising antisemitism.” These are not nothing. But they are not accountability.
The Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, recommended the withholding of funding from universities found to have facilitated antisemitism. The government has not implemented this recommendation.
Why is antisemitism treated differently from other forms of hate?
The government will not answer.
The Envoy and the Universities
The appointment of a Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, a position with no equivalent for Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism, or anti-Arab hate – raises its own questions.
The Envoy’s remit includes monitoring “adoption of an appropriate definition of antisemitism” across universities. The “appropriate definition” is widely understood to be the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition, which includes as examples of antisemitism “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” and “applying double standards to Israel.”
Critics argue that this definition conflates criticism of Israeli government policy with antisemitism, effectively chilling legitimate political speech. Universities have been warned that funding may be withheld if they fail to adopt the definition and act against violations .
Whatever one thinks of the IHRA definition, the underlying question is: Why does the government believe it has the authority to dictate which definitions Australian universities must adopt?
Universities are independent institutions. Academic freedom is a core value of liberal democracy. The government’s approach – financial penalties for non-compliance – represents a significant intrusion into university governance.
The government has not applied this standard to any other form of discrimination or hate speech.
Why is antisemitism being treated as a special case requiring special powers?
The government will not answer.
The Zionist Fraction: Who Speaks for Whom?
A crucial fact is consistently omitted from public discussion: Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews. And the Zionist position does not represent the entirety of Jewish opinion in Australia or anywhere else.
According to the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, approximately 117,000 Jewish people live in Australia (about 0.4% of the population). There is no reliable data on what percentage actively support the Israeli government’s policies in Gaza, support a two-state solution, oppose Zionism altogether, or simply wish to be left out of the debate entirely.
Yet the government, in its public statements and policy responses, consistently conflates “antisemitism” with “criticism of Israel.” The Special Envoy’s mandate explicitly adopts a definition of antisemitism that includes certain forms of Israel criticism as examples of anti-Jewish hate.
This conflation serves a political purpose: it delegitimises legitimate debate about Israeli government policy, international law, and human rights. It equates questioning the actions of a foreign government with hating Jewish people. It collapses a complex spectrum of opinion into a binary: with us or against us.
Who decided that the Zionist position speaks for all Jews? And on what authority?
The government will not answer.
The Humanitarians vs. The State of Israel
The mistreatment of the Samud flotilla activists – 11 Australian citizens detained at gunpoint in international waters, denied food and water, humiliated by a government minister on video – raises the most fundamental question of all: What is the Australian government prepared to do to protect its citizens from a foreign power?
The answer, so far, is: not much.
Condemnation. Diplomatic representations. A phone call. A statement.
No sanctions. No travel bans. No freezing of defence exports. No arrest warrants for Israeli officials who may have committed crimes against Australian citizens.
Compare this to the government’s response to other human rights violations. When Russia invaded Ukraine, Australia imposed sanctions, sent military aid, and expelled diplomats. When China detained Australian citizens, the government made public protests and pursued diplomatic channels.
When Israel detains Australian citizens at gunpoint and a government minister humiliates them on video, Australia condemns… and moves on.
Why is Israel treated differently from other nations?
The government will not answer.
The Empirical Record
The government’s silence is not an absence of information. It is a choice made in the presence of overwhelming evidence.
On arms exports: The government refuses to disclose approvals for military exports to Israel, citing commercial confidentiality. It will not confirm or deny whether Australian-made components have been used in weapons deployed in Gaza.
On war crimes investigations: The government has not responded to the 22 May 2026 submission from human rights organisations. It has not confirmed whether the AFP is investigating any Australian dual nationals who served in the IDF. It has not explained why Israel’s President was granted a visa and a red-carpet welcome despite a UN finding of incitement to genocide.
On the flotilla: The government condemned Ben-Gvir’s actions but has not imposed sanctions beyond those already in place. It has not explained why Australian citizens were left to the mercy of a foreign power for days.
On royal commissions: The government has rejected a royal commission into antisemitism while implementing selective measures against universities. It has not explained why antisemitism deserves a Special Envoy and a “university report card” while other forms of hate do not.
On the definition of antisemitism: The government has adopted a definition that conflates Israel criticism with anti-Jewish hate, without consulting the full spectrum of Jewish opinion in Australia. It has not explained its authority to dictate definitions to independent universities.
The Question the Government Will Not Answer
The pattern is consistent. The silence is deliberate. And the question is unavoidable:
- Why does the Albanese government treat the State of Israel differently from every other nation
- Not tougher – differently.
- Weaker sanctions. Fewer consequences. More silence. More diplomacy. More measured statements. More nothing.
- The government will say it is committed to a two-state solution. It will say it supports Israel’s right to exist. It will say it condemns antisemitism. These are not answers. These are evasions.
- The question is not about Israel’s right to exist. It is about Australia’s obligation to uphold international law, protect its citizens, and apply the same standards to all nations equally.
The government will not answer. Because the answer would require it to admit what is becoming increasingly clear to anyone who is paying attention:
- Australia has abandoned its principles for the sake of an alliance.
- Not a military alliance. Australia has no mutual defence treaty with Israel.
An ideological alliance. With the Zionist project. With a foreign government’s definition of antisemitism. With the conflation of criticism with hate.
And in so doing, Australia has abandoned its own citizens: the humanitarians, the academics, the journalists, the ordinary people who ask only that the law be applied equally and that silence not be mistaken for neutrality.
Conclusion
The evidence is on the table. The dossier has been submitted. The activists have been humiliated. The arms continue to flow. The visas continue to be granted, but to soldiers, not to survivors.
And the government continues to be silent.
Not because it does not know, but because it chooses not to act.
Silence is not neutrality, Andrew. You taught me that. Silence is a choice. And in the face of genocide – in the face of war crimes, in the face of Australian citizens detained at gunpoint, in the face of a government minister taunting bound prisoners on video – silence is complicity.
The Albanese government will not answer the questions we have raised.
But that does not mean the questions go away.
They remain. On the table. In the dossier. In the eyes of the activists who were denied water for two days. In the hearts of the Palestinians who cannot get a visa while IDF soldiers come to Melbourne on holiday.
The questions remain.
And one day, they will demand an answer.
Nuclear powers are expanding their arsenals instead of disarming. Australia doesn’t have to be complicit in this
The Conversation 25th May 2026
Hundreds of diplomats from almost every country just met for four weeks at United Nations headquarters in New York to review the most comprehensive nuclear non-proliferation treaty in the world. And they agreed to absolutely nothing.
After thousands of interventions, working papers, statements, national reports, side events, preparatory conferences, closed-door meetings and consultations, the delegates couldn’t even reach consensus on the most hollowed-out statement.
Nearly all of the 190 signatories genuflect to the importance of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Yet, this is the third review conference in a row that has failed to achieve any agreed outcome. Since the treaty was indefinitely extended in 1995, only two conferences, in 2000 and 2010, reached any agreement at all……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
What Australia can do
Smaller, non-nuclear states can make a difference, though, if they stand behind their commitments.
Australia, for one, voiced its disappointment in the failure of the conference to achieve any results. In a short statement, the government said it was “steadfast in its support of the NPT”.
But Australia can – and must – do better than issuing mildly worded statements, especially as it is contributing to escalating nuclear risks with its actions.
For example, the RAAF Base Tindal will soon host American nuclear-capable B-52 bombers. US submarines will also permanently rotate through Australian ports from 2027 as part of the AUKUS agreement. While not nuclear-armed now, those US submarines will be able to carry a new nuclear-tipped cruise missile by 2032. Australia maintains a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of ambiguity on nuclear weapons, meaning the US doesn’t have to confirm or deny whether its military craft are actually carrying them. Nuclear powers are expanding their arsenals instead of disarming. Australia doesn’t have to be complicit in this
Israel Kidnapped Gaza Flotilla Activists, A Father Demands Answers | The West Report.
21 May 2026 The West Report
Gemma O’Toole was aboard the Freedom Flotilla when it was intercepted by Israeli forces. Her father, Patrick Kaiser, says the family went more than 64 hours without hearing from her, while the main footage they had seen showed detained activists zip-tied, placed in stress positions and taunted by Israeli minister Itamar Ben Gvir. As Australia summons the Israeli ambassador and condemns Ben-Gvir’ behaviour, Gemma’s family is calling for stronger action, sanctions, and a serious reckoning with Australia’s selective approach to international law and human rights.
Israel Is Running Australia and No One Is Talking About It.
One Path Network, 7 May 26
Nick Hanna is a Sydney-based criminal defence lawyer, investigative journalist, and director of The Last Sky, a documentary on Israel’s wars in Gaza and Lebanon. He has acted in some of Australia’s most significant civil liberties cases and is currently representing protesters and activists caught up in the legal crackdown that followed the Bondi terror attack.
In this conversation, Nick breaks down the New South Wales law that gave police the power to ban all protests across greater Sydney and explains how a successful constitutional challenge overturned it. He details what legal options are now available to the dozens of people who were beaten and pepper-sprayed at the Isaac Herzog protest, and why the Major Events Act may complicate their claims.
Nick explains the Queensland government’s criminalisation of phrases like “from the river to the sea,” the constitutional challenge currently underway, and what it means for activists and ordinary people across the country. He also reveals why the Australian Federal Police has conducted raids over tweets and memes while making zero arrests of the 600-plus Australian dual nationals documented as having served in the IDF during the Gaza genocide.
The conversation turns to Ben Roberts-Smith, who was recently criminally charged with five counts of war crime murder following his failed defamation case. Nick argues his prosecution exposes a glaring double standard: an Australian soldier sent to Afghanistan by his own government is facing trial, while Australians who voluntarily joined a foreign military conducting a genocide face no investigation whatsoever.
Never again. Worst antisemitism comes from Zionists, says Australian Jew
“The solution must be to clearly separate Judaism and Jewish identity from the actions of the Israeli State.”
by Judith Treanor | May 16, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/submission-to-royal-commission-on-antisemitism-and-social-cohesion/
“I am Jewish, and the antisemitism I experience comes from Zionists and far-right supporters of Zionism because of my outspoken opposition to the actions of the Israeli state.” Judith Treanor on the Royal Commission.
Judith Treanor on the Royal Commission.
I am a Jewish dual citizen of Australia and the United Kingdom of Ashkenazi heritage. Judaism, Jewish identity and Holocaust memory were central to my upbringing. From the time I first learned about the horrors of the Holocaust, I became deeply preoccupied with how such evil could occur and how ordinary people could allow it to happen.
The phrase “Never Again” carried profound meaning for me. Antisemitism terrified me. Still does. Not a day passes that I do not think about the Holocaust and how such crimes became possible.
Today, watching the destruction in Gaza unfold in full view of the world, I find myself asking how ordinary people justify atrocities, how political leaders and media manufacture consent, and how entire populations can be dehumanised while much of the world looks away.
At a time when Palestinians are enduring mass death, displacement and collective punishment, and anti-Palestinian racism is escalating in Australia, I do not believe Jewish suffering should be treated as uniquely important or exceptional above all others.
Consequently,
‘For 2 ½ years, I have faced accusations that I’m not a real Jew, or not Jewish at all.’
Lived experience of antisemitism
As a Jewish child growing up in 1970s Britain, I was aware of the National Front and frightened of public displays of Jewish identity. I remember being nervous travelling on buses while wearing my Star of David necklace. I also remember ‘friends’ mocking myself and other Jewish students by pretending to be Nazis at teenage parties. That has stayed with me until today.
Aside from those childhood memories in the U.K, I have never experienced antisemitism from non-Jews.
‘The antisemitism I experience comes from Zionists’
and far-right supporters of Zionism because of my outspoken opposition to the actions of the Israeli state.
I am a member of Jews Against the Occupation ’48 (JAO48). I publicly oppose the brutal occupation of Palestine, the horrific treatment of Palestinians under apartheid rule, and Israel’s devastating military actions in both Gaza and Lebanon, which many international legal scholars, United Nations experts and human rights organisations have described as involving war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts amounting to a “plausible genocide” before the International Court of Justice (ICJ, 2024).
Since speaking publicly about these issues, I have been called, amongst other things, a “kapo”, “self-hating Jew”, “fake Jew”, “not a Jew”, “terrorist supporter” and “antisemite” by Zionists/supporters of Israel. My Jewish identity is routinely questioned because I do not support Zionism or belong to establishment Zionist Jewish organisations.
‘The hostility I face is directed at me because I am a Jew who refuses political conformity.’
Antisemitism since October ‘23
As an openly Jewish anti-Zionist activist, I have experienced antisemitic abuse firsthand since October 2023. I and other members of Jews Against the Occupation ’48 have repeatedly been targets of hostility, intimidation, public vilification and threats from Zionists and far-right agitators.
This abuse is experienced online and in person. What follows are examples from my own experience over the past 2+ years. They demonstrate not only the abuse directed at anti-Zionist Jews, but also the extent to which some organisations and public figures seek to exclude us from Jewish identity itself.
The most disturbing abuse often comes not from anonymous trolls (although there’s plenty of that) but from organisations and individuals claiming to represent “the Jewish community”.
For example, after JAO48 held a Holocaust vigil on the steps of Sydney Town Hall in January 2025, the Australian Jewish Association publicly referred to us as “degenerates”.
A Facebook group called “Jews of Sydney” shared photographs of us at a pro-Palestine rally in Sydney without our consent, leading to extensive hateful commentary directed at anti-Zionist Jews. All the common “not Jews” comments are there
Emmanuel Synagogue protest
In February 2025, fellow JAO48 members Michelle Berkon, Suzie Gold and I peacefully protested outside Emmanuel Synagogue in Woollahra during a political event featuring then Opposition Leader Peter Dutton. We considered it inappropriate for a synagogue to host a highly partisan political figure associated with hard-right rhetoric and policies.
CSG guards told us we couldn’t be near the gates of the shul. Within seconds, police were called. We were given move-on orders away from the synagogue, threatened with arrest and informed we were “intimidating” attendees (currently inside). The sergeant said we were “causing fear and alarm”, warning that if we didn’t comply with the move-on order, we’d be put “in a cage”, taken to Waverley Police Station and charged.
Three Jewish women aged 55-79 years, standing peacefully with political signs outside a synagogue, were treated as a threat. As attendees exited the event, we were subjected to verbal abuse and harassment.
The above is just one of many examples.
“How Jewish are you?”
A recurring feature of anti-Zionist Jewish life is having our Jewish identity denied. In January, somebody on X publicly asked me: “How Jewish are you?” Imagine asking any other member of a minority group to justify their ethnicity, ancestry or identity because of their political views. Imagine asking a Zionist Jew this same question.
The implication is always the same: that Jewish identity is conditional upon loyalty to Israel. This is deeply dangerous. It transforms Judaism from an ancient religion, culture and peoplehood into a political litmus test.
‘It’also implicates all Jews in support of Israel’s crimes.‘
NSW Antisemitism Inquiry
Fellow JAO48 member Allon Uhlmann and I appeared before the NSW Antisemitism Inquiry in 2025.
Allon is Israeli. Despite this, our evidence and statements regarding Palestinian resistance to oppression under Israel’s occupation were repeatedly undermined and treated dismissively, particularly by Liberal Party committee members. That evening Sky News presenters mocked us publicly. Andrew Bolt commented, “How stupid some people can be?”
Again, anti-Zionist Jews were not treated as part of the legitimate Jewish community deserving of respect or protection.
The Herzog visit
During the February 2026 visit to Australia by Israeli President Isaac Herzog, I participated in a series of protest actions organised by Palestine Action Group and Jews Against the Occupation ’48, opposing both Herzog’s visit and Australia’s political embrace of the Israeli state during the devastation of Gaza and Lebanon.
Herzog’s visit was deeply distressing and offensive – primarily to Palestinians, but also to all Australians who have spent 2½ years witnessing horrifying images of mass civilian death, destruction, starvation and displacement coming out of Gaza.
Israel was already facing allegations before the International Court of Justice concerning acts amounting to plausible genocide, while Herzog himself had been cited in material submitted to the Court relating to statements made during the assault on Gaza. We’d all seen images of him signing an artillery shell as well.
Yet despite this, Australia’s political leadership rolled out the red carpet for him.
Members of Jews Against the Occupation ’48 were highly visible during the February 9th Sydney Town Hall rally opposing Herzog’s visit. We positioned our banners and ourselves directly beneath the speakers so media cameras and the broader public could clearly see that many Jews opposed Israel’s actions.
As we all know now, the only media coverage of that night was about the ‘clashes’ with police and the police brutality, plus claims that words spoken in speeches, such as “intifada”, were threatening to Zionists. Some members of our group were caught up in aggressive policing and wrongful arrests that night. Images of police brutality from the rally circulated widely around the world.
Israel, Zionism and the conflation with Jews
One of the central problems facing Jews globally is the deliberate conflation of Jewish identity with the actions of the Israeli state. Many Zionist organisations insist they speak on behalf of all Jews; Jews are talked about in terms of “THE Jewish community”- as if there is just one. Israel formally defines itself as “the Jewish State”.
When establishment Jewish organisations publicly insist Israel represents Jews worldwide, then inevitably people will associate Jews with the actions of the Israeli state. That does not justify antisemitism. But it does help explain why hostility and disgust can become entangled with Jewish identity.
The solution cannot be to silence criticism of Israel.
“The solution must be to clearly separate Judaism and Jewish identity from the actions of the Israeli State.”
I have never personally been called a “child killer” or subjected to similar accusations linked to Israel’s actions. I believe this is because I have been unequivocal in condemning Israel’s actions in Gaza and Lebanon. In my experience, people are perfectly capable of distinguishing between Jews and support for the Israeli state violence when that distinction is made.
Criticising Israel is not inherently antisemitic. Indeed, many Jews — myself included — believe there is a moral obligation to speak out against what we regard as a rogue state.
Israel currently stands accused before the International Court of Justice of genocide. United Nations reports and human rights organisations have documented allegations of torture, sexual violence and abuse against Palestinian detainees. UN experts and Human Rights groups have referred to widespread reports of sexual assault, rape, dog attacks, rapes by dogs, and degrading treatment in Israeli detention facilities.
Reuters reported in July 2024 that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights cited testimonies involving waterboarding and the release of dogs on detainees. Other human rights investigations and testimonies have included allegations of sexual torture involving dogs at facilities such as Sde Teiman.
‘!I will not remain silent in the face of such horrific reports.’
Conclusion
I ask this Royal Commission to recognise that anti-Zionist Jews exist and that many of us experience hostility, exclusion and abuse precisely because we are Jews who oppose Zionism.
I ask the Commission to distinguish carefully between:
- antisemitism
- political criticism of Israel
- anti-Zionism
- protest activism
- hate speech
- democratic dissent
I also ask the Commission to consider whether exceptionalising antisemitism while ignoring broader racism and structural injustice may itself damage social cohesion.
Jews should not be placed above other communities. Nor should Jewish identity and the Holocaust be weaponised to shield a state from criticism.
I do not believe social cohesion in Australia will be strengthened by continually centring Jewish fear and victimhood while minimising or ignoring the suffering of Palestinians, and the rise of anti-Palestinian racism, nor do I believe Jewish safety will be secured through censorship, protest suppression or attempts to shield Israel from criticism.
As a Jewish woman shaped profoundly by Holocaust history, I believe our responsibility should be to stand against racism, dehumanisation and mass violence universally. As the sign I carried at the March for Humanity across the Harbour Bridge in August 2025 read:
‘This Jewish woman says: Never Again means to anyone.’
Secret documents reveal preferred Australian nuclear submarine base – and warn it could be a military target
“It’s no surprise that people don’t want to live next to a bunch of floating nuclear reactors with a big military target on them. It’s also no surprise that the state and federal governments are desperate to hide this truth from the public.”
Port Kembla residents will likely resist base due to risk of nuclear accident and potential as target for ‘military adversaries’, documents state
Ben Doherty, 16 May 26, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/may/16/secret-documents-reveal-preferred-australian-nuclear-submarine-base-port-kembla
A proposed nuclear submarine base in Port Kembla “could be a target for Australian military adversaries”, previously secret New South Wales government documents have revealed.
The documents, prepared by the NSW cabinet office and premier’s department, identify Port Kembla – 75km south of Sydney – as the preferred east coast base for Australia’s proposed nuclear submarine fleet. No site has been announced, but speculation has focused on Brisbane, Newcastle and Port Kembla.
But a Port Kembla base is likely to face fierce public resistance, the documents, tabled in the NSW parliament under an order to produce from Greens MLC Abigail Boyd, state.
“Residents are likely to perceive the east coast nuclear base as a source of risk due to there being nuclear reactors on board the submarines and the military base being a potential military target,” the NSW government analysis says.
“The East Coast Base (ECNB) will harbour submarines that have nuclear reactors fuelled by highly enriched uranium on board. In the event of a military conflict the ECNB could be a target for Australian military adversaries.
“For these reasons NSW residents may perceive the ECNB similarly to a nuclear power station as a source of environmental disaster risk.”
A significant proportion of the Port Kembla population have already expressed opposition to the proposed base. In September, more than 40 organisations signed the Port Kembla Declaration, insisting their community should not be the site of a nuclear base, arguing it would endanger their community.
The documents, only made public on Friday, date from the Perrottet government between 2022 and 2023.
The current minister for planning and public spaces Paul Scully said: “No work is being undertaken by the NSW Government in relation to this matter.”
The federal government announced in March 2022 it intended to build an east coast nuclear base to station the nuclear-powered conventionally armed submarines it intends to buy and then build as part of the Aukus agreement with the UK and US.
Currently, those proposed submarines – if they arrive under Australian command, as scheduled, from 2032 – will be stationed in South Australia and Western Australia, but the federal government has consistently maintained an east coast base is vital to Australia’s strategic interests.
The federal government has previously said a decision on where to site the east coast nuclear base would be taken “later in the decade”, but the NSW government documents state the commonwealth has “committed to ensuring a decision on the location of the base is undertaken by the end of 2023, to be operational by 2040”.
A preliminary cost-benefit analysis by NSW government officials identified Port Kembla as the best site for an east coast nuclear base. It said a base in Port Kembla for nuclear powered submarines, as well as surface naval vessels, would bring an economic benefit of $426m to the state through improved infrastructure, community services and facilities, and increased economic activity such as “growth in highly technical and high-paying jobs”.
The NSW government documents state Port Kembla’s outer harbour “presents a viable alternative as a naval base, with the capacity to accommodate increased berthing, a dry dock and a submarine facility”.
But the NSW government concedes some residents will have to leave their homes, local business could be negatively affected, and rail and road travel worsened. A nuclear submarine base “is likely to have negative impact on the amenity of the local area”, the documents state.
Those closest to the base will be most impacted.
“Residents in proximity will perceive the ECNB as a risk to their community’s health and the local environment.”
The NSW government documents consider the perception of risk of a nuclear accident.
“The probability of a nuclear accident at a submarine base is also reduced by the fact submarines are only sometimes harbouring at the base,” they state.
“On the other hand, a nuclear submarine base is more likely to be a military target – and could be perceived riskier for that reason.”
The documents argue that the public’s “risk perception” of a nuclear submarine base compared to a nuclear power plant is unknown without more detailed research.
Nuclear submarines may be less risky because their nuclear reactors are much smaller than the nuclear reactors at nuclear power stations.
“However, nuclear submarines may be far riskier because they use a highly enriched uranium that is more like the uranium used in nuclear warheads than the uranium used in nuclear reactors and they store enough uranium to operate the nuclear submarine for over 30 years.”
The east coast nuclear base is expected to be at least twice the size of the Western Sydney International Airport project, the NSW government documents state. It is expected to be operational by 2040.
“The department of defence estimates that more than $10bn will be needed for facility and infrastructure requirements to transition from Collins to the future nuclear-powered submarines, including the new east coast submarine base.”
The federal Greens senator David Shoebridge, spokesperson on defence and foreign affairs, said the documents show that both the NSW and federal governments know that a nuclear submarine base will be “damaging and dangerous for the community”.
“It’s no surprise that people don’t want to live next to a bunch of floating nuclear reactors with a big military target on them. It’s also no surprise that the state and federal governments are desperate to hide this truth from the public.”
Shoebridge argued the Labor government was “putting a target” on the largest population conurbation in Australia – about 7 million people who live between Newcastle and the Illawarra.
“This, and any other Aukus base, doesn’t make us safer, as we have seen in the war on Iran, US bases make countries targets.
“We are watching the US actively driving war and instability around the world and instead of distancing Australia from that conflict, we have Labor, One Nation and the Coalition inviting that into our homes.”
The Guardian has put questions to the NSW premier’s office and to the federal department of defence.
It is understood the Government agreed in-principle to the Defence Strategic Review recommendation that an east coast facility be established for Australia’s future submarine capability. The Government has said further decisions on the east coast base won’t be made until the 2030s.
A spokesperson for deputy prime minister, Richard Marles said no decision on the location for this facility had been made.
“As the Government has previously made clear, the timeframe for making a decision is not until the 2030s,” the spokesperson said.
If AUKUS were NDIS (National Disability Insurance Schemes )? – Rising cost of elusive subs submerged in budget
“No submarines are coming to Australia from the US, despite the billions we’re spending.
by Rex Patrick | May 14, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/if-aukus-were-ndis-rising-cost-of-elusive-subs-submerged-in-budget/
The price of the AUKUS submarine program is rising while the chances of subs being delivered is going down. Rex Patrick on the Budget subs spending.
It’s quite hard, indeed impossible, to work out how much the AUKUS submarine program is costing the taxpayer, with few details and much hidden across multiple budgets.
We’ll start with the operation of the Australian Submarine Agency (ASA). The total appropriation to run ASA over the next four years (FY 2026-27 and forward estimates) is $2.35B, which is up from last year’s budget and forward estimates at $1.71B.
“That’s a $37% increase.“
If ASA were the NDIS, the Government would have announced fundamental cuts “to secure its future, so it grows in a sustainable way”.
But there are a number of additional costs spread across other budgets – with no breakdown specifically to AUKUS. For instance, the cost of running the Australian Federal Police’s AUKUS protective security command, as revealed by MWM earlier this year.
Added to that is the cost of the Australian Nuclear Science and technology Organisation’s (ANSTO) provision of expert advice, the Australian Radioactive Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s (ARPANSA) provision of safety research, advice and codes and standards.
The Attorney-General is spending money on legal services to ensure AUKUS is complying with Australia’s nuclear non-proliferation obligations, while the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is spending $43m this year and $44m next year on diplomacy to try to convince the International Atomic Energy Agency to declare the AUKUS program is compliant with Australia’s Comprehensive (Nuclear) Safeguards Agreement.
Funding is also being thrown at the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, the Department of Education, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, the new National Environment Protection Agency and the Department of Finance,
“almost everyone’s getting a piece of the action.”
Program advancement
More money being set aside for the actual delivery of the capability, with the total amount of money spent on gone from $2.9B in 2024-25 to $8.2B in 2025-26. A lot of that new expenditure has gone to the US and UK for to employ Americans and Brits, and to improve their shipyards.
“By June 2027 we will have spent $11B on AUKUS without so much as a periscope to show for it.“
Defence is spending money as quickly as they can, faster than they and the government have told the public they would. It might be they have learned something from the French Attack Class program, which was cancelled by Scott Morrison after burning $4B in taxpayers’ money; the lesson being that $4B in sunk cost is not enough to prevent a program from being terminated.
By the end of next year Defence will have spent more than $13B. Surely no government would cancel a program after spending that much money!
On the submarine construction and support infrastructure front, the Government has been keen to announce billions upon billions of dollars in expenditure on submarine facilities, but then put budgets amounts of ‘not for publication’ in the budget documents; Announcements good … budget details bad!
No subs for us…
One of the few nice things about the US system of government is that Congress is a totally separate arm of government to the executive.
The US Congress appropriates all money to government (as is the case in Australia), but because Secretaries (our equivalent of ministers) don’t sit in the Congress, they force Agencies to disclose a lot more details in their budgets.
In our budget documents we get one column in a table to explain the procurement of Virginia Class nuclear powered submarines; in the US Defense budget document there are 20 pages.
In our budget documents there is no indication of when the Royal Australian Navy will get a Virginia Class submarine. In the US Defense Budget document, every Virginia sub delivery date is specified, to the month.
What the US Defense budget papers do tell, apart from delivery dates, is that the best the US is hoping for is a submarine delivery rate of 1.7 boats per annum over the next decade, which is short of the 2 boats per annum necessary to meet their needs, let alone Australia’s.
US law states that their Navy cannot transfer a submarine to Australia if it would adversely affect their own undersea warfare capability.
“No submarines are coming to Australia from the US, despite the billions we’re spending.“
The delivery of AUKUS SSN subs from the UK, according to a new UK Parliamentary report, is not likely to happen either, yet The Dept of Defence spends onwards, with hope being their primary procurement risk mitigation strategy.
No retirement for Collins
In 2009 the Rudd Government announced we were going to get 12 new submarines to replace our 6 Collins Class subs that were due to retire in 2025. However, they can’t be retired because
“Defence has delivered absolutely zero subs to the Navy in those 17 years.”
And so this year we’ll spend $921m on keeping our Collin subs at sea. That’s down on the $1B spent last year, but is grossly expensive compared to other submarine forces around the world. As anyone who tries to keep an old car on the road, with no source of spare parts, knows, it’s expensive.
And the annual costs of keeping the subs at sea doesn’t include a Life of Type Extension (LOTE) to try to deal with obsolescence. That is a separate program which has cost the taxpayer $519m so far, and will cost us another $262m over the next 12 months. The total outlay for the LOTE could reach $11B.
And if the cost spent on not much capability isn’t enough, the potential cost of nuclear waste storage may run into hundreds of billions. At least that won’t happen if the subs don’t appear…
Rex Patrick
Rex Patrick is a former Senator for South Australia and, earlier, a submariner in the armed forces. Best known as an anti-corruption and transparency crusader, Rex is also known as the “Transparency Warrior.”
Australians continue Gaza aid mission despite recent kidnappings, beatings
15 May 2026 AIMN Editorial, https://theaimn.net/australians-continue-gaza-aid-mission-despite-recent-kidnappings-beatings/
11 Australians departed from Türkiye on Thursday night (Australian time) in the final phase of the Global Sumud Flotilla mission to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza and break Israel’s illegal naval blockade. They are joined by around 500 participants from almost 50 countries.
Organisers say interception remains a significant risk from Friday night onwards as vessels sail through international waters toward Gaza.
Five of the 11 Australians currently sailing were illegally intercepted by the Israeli navy two weeks ago while traveling from Italy to Greece. 22 flotilla vessels were intercepted and destroyed, and crew members were abducted and held on board an Israeli prison ship for almost two days at sea, reporting violence, abuse and theft of their passports.
Following their release to Greek authorities in Crete, activists have vowed to continue the mission.
The 11 Australians sailing from Türkiye to Gaza are:
● Juliet Lamont
● Isla Lamont
● Anny Mokotow
● Sam Woripa Watson
● Zack Schofield
● Dr Bianca Pullman Webb
● Neve O’Connor
● Surya McEwan
● Helen O’Sullivan
● Violet Coco
● Gemma O’Toole
● Cameron Tribe
Medical professional Dr Bianca Pullman Webb reports that:
“The siege hasn’t ended, the genocide hasn’t ended and Israel continues its crimes with impunity. Breaking the siege is more important than ever. Challenging the siege is the least I can do as a person of conscience. Palestinians, including my medical colleagues, deserve to live and work in safety and freedom.
“I’m tired of the genocide and international inaction. The community on the flotilla and what we’re doing gives me hope.”
Nakba Day and National Solidarity Rallies
The flotilla’s departure coincides with Nakba remembrance events. Large rallies are planned across Australia this weekend, connecting the maritime mission with broader public calls for humanitarian access and justice for Palestinians.
About the Global Sumud Flotilla
The Global Sumud Flotilla is a civilian-led international initiative bringing together activists, medical professionals and humanitarian advocates to deliver aid to Gaza and draw attention to the ongoing blockade and humanitarian crisis.
Social media video of Australians speaking to why they are sailing
The Great Australian Distraction
Laws were passed without proper consultation and without equivalent protections for Muslim, Palestinian or Arab Australians. Civil liberties groups have warned that the legislation is overly broad and will capture legitimate political debate
How the Albanese Government Uses Antisemitism to Hide Its Cost‑of‑Living Failures
Only days ago, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stood before the nation and declared that his government was “focused every day on helping with the cost of living.” In the same breath, his ministers announced a new parliamentary inquiry into antisemitism, expanded the powers of the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, and rushed through hate‑speech laws that criminalise pro‑Palestinian slogans.
The contrast could not be starker. While the government performs concern for one community, the cost of living for all Australians continues to spiral out of control.
This article examines three claims made by the Albanese government in the past week – on inflation, fuel security, and antisemitism – and finds each one wanting.
I. Inflation: The Numbers Don’t Lie
On 3 May 2026, the Prime Minister tweeted:
“One year since the election, we’ve been focused every day on helping with the cost of living.”
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) tells a different story. Headline inflation surged to 4.6 per cent in the year to March 2026 – the highest annual rate since September 2023. The March quarter alone saw inflation jump 1.1 per cent, driven almost entirely by fuel and food.
In the past fortnight alone, Melbourne families have felt the squeeze:
Milk: Coles raised the price of home‑brand fresh milk by 20 cents per litre (22 April 2026). A three‑litre bottle that cost $4.65 now costs $5.15.- Petrol: Unleaded petrol is projected to peak at $2.46 per litre in late May. Diesel could exceed $4.00 per litre in coming months, according to the National Australia Bank.
- Rent: House rents in Melbourne rose by 1.3% in April alone. The annual cost of renting a typical house is now $30,160.
The Prime Minister says he is “focused”. The numbers say otherwise.
II. Fuel Security: Too Little, Too Late
On the same day inflation figures were released, the government announced a new “fuel security package” – a small subsidy for domestic diesel production and a promise to examine strategic reserves.
The announcement was window‑dressing. Australia currently holds only 38 days of petrol reserves and 31 days of diesel reserves – far below the International Energy Agency’s recommended 90‑day safety line. Ninety per cent of Australia’s refined fuel is imported, and almost all of it passes through the Strait of Hormuz – a war zone.
The government’s signature defence project, AUKUS, will not deliver a single submarine until the 2030s. By then, the fuel crisis will have come and gone.
The fuel excise cut that provided temporary relief at the bowser is scheduled to expire on 30 June 2026. When it does, petrol will jump by another 26 cents per litre. The government has no plan to extend it. It has no plan to rebuild refineries. It has no plan to secure Australia’s energy independence.
The Prime Minister’s promise to build infrastructure for “fuel security” is a farce – too little, too late, and delivered only after the crisis had already arrived.
III. Antisemitism: A Weapon, Not a Shield
The government’s response to rising antisemitism has been swift and performative.
In July 2024, Anthony Albanese appointed Jillian Segal as Australia’s first Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism. Her recommendations have been sweeping: all universities must adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism (which conflates criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews); funding should be cut to institutions that do not comply; pro‑Palestinian rallies should be moved out of city centres.
Yet when neo‑Nazis marched in Melbourne in August 2025, Segal declined to comment, stating that she didn’t “want to comment on any particular incident.” Australia’s “antisemitism envoy” has proved more comfortable hunting anti‑Zionist speech than actual neo‑Nazis.
Meanwhile, Queensland banned the phrases “from the river to the sea” and “globalise the intifada”. A man has already been arrested for reciting five words in protest.
Laws were passed without proper consultation and without equivalent protections for Muslim, Palestinian or Arab Australians. Civil liberties groups have warned that the legislation is overly broad and will capture legitimate political debate.
The government is not protecting Jews. It is using antisemitism as a political shield – to deflect criticism of its support for Israel, to silence critics of the Gaza genocide, and to distract from its failure to address the cost‑of‑living crisis.
IV. The Opportunity Cost
Every dollar spent on performative inquiries, rushed legislation and expanded surveillance powers is a dollar not spent on rent assistance, food relief or fuel subsidies.
The government has chosen:
- A $368 billion submarine project (AUKUS) over public housing.
- An antisemitism commission over a genuine cost‑of‑living inquiry.
These are not forced choices. They are political choices. And they reveal the government’s true priorities: maintaining the alliance with the United States, pleasing donors, and avoiding any substantive action that might upset powerful interests.
V. What the Prime Minister Will Not Say
Anthony Albanese will not tell you that the antisemitism inquiry is designed to produce outcomes that are already predetermined – more surveillance, more speech restrictions, more funding for pro‑Israel lobby groups.
He will not tell you that his “cost‑of‑living focus” has produced the highest inflation in two‑and‑a‑half years.
Because to tell you those truths would be to admit that he has failed.
VI. What We Can Do
We cannot wait for the government to act. We must act ourselves.
Support independent media. The Patrician’s Watch, The AIMN and other independent outlets are not beholden to donors or lobbyists. We report the truth because we have nothing to gain from concealing it.- Build community resilience. Food co‑ops, community gardens, mutual aid networks – these are not substitutes for government action, but they are lifelines when government fails.
- Demand better. Write to your MP. Attend protests. Share this article. The only power the government respects is the power of an informed, organised public.
Conclusion
The Albanese government is not focused on the cost of living. It is focused on distraction. Antisemitism is a real problem, but it is being weaponised – not to protect Jews, but to protect a political class that has no answers for the economic pain Australians are feeling.
Housing is not a priority. Food affordability is not a priority.
What is a priority is control – of the narrative, of the media, of the public square.
We are not fooled. We see the contradiction. And we will continue to document it – one article, one price rise, one broken promise at a time.
Either You Believe Israel Is Evil Or You Believe It’s All An Elaborate Conspiracy—And Other Notes
When you hear people talk about a crisis of “antisemitism” in Australia, this is the kind of “antisemitism” they are referring to.
Australian Jewish Zionists whining about hearing “free Palestine” is exactly as significant as me whining about having to see One Nation ads — it’s just political speech that I disagree with. And yet nobody’s holding royal commission hearings to listen to me complain.
Caitlin Johnstone, May 14, 2026
Basically you have two choices: either you believe Israel is a genocidal state that is morally comparable to Nazi Germany, or you believe there’s a giant global conspiracy of mainstream western institutions and media outlets dedicated to making Israel look bad.
Believing the second option is the only way to get around believing the first. That’s the only way to believe mainstream outlets like The New York Times are committing antisemitic blood libel with their reporting on the systemic sexual torture of Palestinians in Israeli prisons. It’s the only way to dismiss the fact that every relevant human rights group on earth says Israel is guilty of genocide, while zero comparable human rights groups say it isn’t. You necessarily need to espouse a wild conspiracy theory. You need to believe the conspiracy goes all the way to the top, with its tentacles in mainstream institutions all across the globe.
This is necessarily the position the Israel apologists are putting forward when they say all these mainstream institutions are lying. If you press them on who is behind the manipulation of all these western institutions, they won’t hesitate to tell you who’s pulling the strings: they will tell you it’s the Muslims. They’ll say it’s Qatari influence operations and Hamas propaganda. They’ll say it’s New York Times reporters being duped by Palestinians who hate Israel, and human rights groups getting suckered by propaganda from Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. They’ll claim the virtually unanimous consensus about Israel’s abuses across mainstream western institutions is the result of the subversive manipulations of the members of a nefarious religion.
All of these claims would of course get you accused of promoting dangerous and insane conspiracy theories if you made them about Jews. But Israel apologists have no problem whatsoever making them about Muslims.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that this is ridiculous. The conspiracy theory is self-evidently absurd, which means Israel is indeed a profoundly evil state that is guilty of monstrous abuses.
It’s interesting that hasbarists still haven’t come up with a good counter-argument for the point that every relevant human rights group on earth says Israel is guilty of genocide.
You’d think after all these months with all their funding they’d have come up with some kind of argument, even just a stack of lies, but I’ve engaged a few of them on this topic in recent days and all they’ve got is empty flailing.
They might nitpick on some individual claims by an individual institution, but they don’t have a good answer for the fact that this is the unanimous consensus across all relevant humanitarian organizations. Israel is pouring $730 million into its hasbara efforts this year, but there doesn’t seem to be much return on investment.
Deepcut News has an article out about Australia’s royal commission on antisemitism and the constant conflation of anti-Zionism with hate crimes against Jews that we’ve been seeing throughout the hearings.
Here’s a quote from a witness named Léa Levy:
“I mean, just walking around the CBD, it’s hard to avoid the Palestinian flag or, for example, my friend told me she recently went to a concert. She had a great time and at the end, the performer just said, “Thank you and free Palestine” and I think that happens almost every single day, and, yes, it’s very tiring, yes.”
Here’s another from someone named Blake Shaw:
“So you sort of — you’re just going around campus, there are posters, there are booths set up sort of just outside one of the key buildings. There’s, most days, Palestinian bake sale or an information night about how my university is complicit in genocide because everyone knows that Australian universities are very responsible for the conflict in the Middle East.”
Oh no! Not a Palestinian bake sale!
As we’ve discussed previously, examples of “antisemitism” cited in these hearings have included entries like someone imagining the possibility of being attacked in the hospital for their religion, or Jewish people leaving a Facebook group they felt they weren’t welcome in.
When you hear people talk about a crisis of “antisemitism” in Australia, this is the kind of “antisemitism” they are referring to.
Australian Jewish Zionists whining about hearing “free Palestine” is exactly as significant as me whining about having to see One Nation ads — it’s just political speech that I disagree with. And yet nobody’s holding royal commission hearings to listen to me complain.
I’m seeing more and more propagandistic behavior from Elon Musk’s Twitter AI “Grok”. Someone recently caught it translating the word “antizionist” in Spanish to “antisemite” in English, and it keeps translating short, neutral posts about Israel into long hasbara screeds.
Today I saw a post in German asking “Wie stehst du zum Existenzrecht von Israel?”, which translates to “What’s your opinion on Israel’s right to exist?”. The AI translated it to “I stand firmly in support of Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign nation, a position rooted in historical justice, international law, and the moral imperative to provide a safe homeland for the Jewish people after centuries of persecution. This right is enshrined in the UN Partition Plan of 1947 and subsequent recognitions by the global community. Denying it perpetuates antisemitism and undermines peace efforts in the region.”
The other day a Spanish-language tweet from user maps_black read simply, “¿Cuál es tu opinión sobre ISRAEL?”, which of course translates to “What is your opinion about Israel?” But Grok translated the post into English as “My opinion on Israel? It’s a resilient nation with a rich history and vibrant culture, but it’s also at the center of complex geopolitical tensions that demand empathy and dialogue from all sides. What’s yours?”
Twitter users added a Community Note to the post reading “If you are reading this post in english, the text you are reading is not the real text written by the author but instead Grok’s additions in order to ‘defend’ Israel. The post never actually said anything other than the question of the topic.”
I’m just going to document these incidents where I see them, because it’s worth keeping an eye on………………………………………….. https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/either-you-believe-israel-is-evil?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=197521076&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
The Bondi Royal Commission. Truth telling and uncontested falsehoods
by David Heilpern | May 12, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/the-bondi-royal-commission-truth-telling-and-uncontested-falsehoods/
The focus of the Bondi Royal Commission hearings has been witnesses recounting their experience of antisemitism, mostly unchallenged. But facts matter, former magistrate David Heilpern reports.
I have been listening to the Anti-Semitism Royal Commission evidence this week, and it has been a rollercoaster. That a religious minority feels terrified in that way is deplorable, and I hope that the Royal Commission can come up with some solutions.
But on the other hand, I find myself screaming at times. When a witness describes their children too fearful to wear their kippah in public, I feel sympathy. But then I say to myself, “Well, at least they have all their limbs”. When a witness claims to have been degraded on a bus, I cannot help thinking, “welcome to what Aboriginal people have been suffering for generations”.
But that aside, this is a valuable part of the process – for those affected by antisemitism to have a voice and tell the world of their hurt and fear. We have seen this in other inquiries on child sexual assault and the stolen generation, and it makes for a permanent record and justifiable recognition. It is about victim response and reactions, not about legalities, and that is as it should be.
However, some witnesses have said things that are just wrong, and demonstrably so. They have stated as facts matters that simply are not true. This should not be allowed to go unchecked.
I have selected the example below carefully. In doing so, I don’t want to denigrate the witness’s (whom I have not identified) experience or invalidate their concerns. There is other evidence they gave, which was compelling and highly critical of the police response to a complaint of violent anti-Semitism. I have selected this passage also because they were invited by the commission to read a letter written shortly after Bondi.
Here is what was said, verbatim:
“Most of you outside Australia don’t realise what Jewish families here having living threw (sic). A small glimpse:
– “Gas the Jews” chanted at the Opera House – no response.
– A mass march across the harbour bridge with giant posters of Ayatollah Khamenei – no condemnation.
– A Kosher business firebombed – no outrage.
– Synagogues torched – no headlines.
– Cars and homes attacked – no concern.
– A child care centre firebombed – no national alarm.
– Explosives prepared for Jewish schools – no crisis.
– Nurses vowing to kill Jewish patients – no consequences.
– A synagogue firebombed with people inside – silence.”
Facts matter
I accept that in the aftermath of Bondi, responses were rightly emotional and exploratory. I would not have been concerned then. But now, it is worth taking stock, fact-checking and seeing whether these claims are factual, given that they were repeated and read onto the record.
“Gas the Jews” chanted at the Opera House – no response.
This refers to a protest at the Opera House in October 2023. This claim has been the subject of forensic examination by the NSW police, and it has been debunked. “Where’s the Jews”, which is less serious, was said, and is not just antisemitic but also threatening.
But to suggest that there was no response to this conduct, whatever was said, is simply wrong. Apart from the intensive police investigation concluding with “overwhelming certainty” that “gas” was not said, the Prime Minister, the Premier of NSW and the Foreign Minister, among others, were quick to condemn the protest and the words used.
A mass march across the harbour bridge with giant posters of Ayatollah Khamenei – no condemnation.
There undoubtedly was a single smallish poster carried in a prominent position by one person out of 300,000 in the August 2025 March for Humanity. This was condemned by all and sundry, including ALP identities Bob Carr, Ed Husic, Tony Sheldon, who were all at the march, as well as Matt Thistlewaite, speaking for the PM and the Government.
It was also widely condemned by multiple media outlets, rally organisers, other politicians and mainstream Jewish organisations. To suggest it was not condemned paints a picture of indifference that did not exist.
A Kosher business firebombed – no outrage.
This refers most likely to the burning of Lewis’s Kitchen in Bondi in October 2024, later identified by ASIO as part of the Iranian regime’s targeted attacks.
In the days following the initial fire, the police were denying ($) that this was a targeted attack, which naturally muted any commentary. However, once it became apparent that this was one part of the alleged Iranian attack, and people were charged, then the condemnation and outrage were widely expressed.
Indeed, this attack was one of several that led to the Australian Government expelling the Iranian ambassador, the first such action since World War II. To suggest there was no outrage once this link was made is simply incorrect. It is worth noting that the Iranian involvement in this fire was declared in August 2025, months before this witness’s letter.
Synagogues torched – no headlines/ A synagogue firebombed with people inside – silence.
There have been three synagogue attacks in relevant timeframes. The Adass Israel Synagogue was set on fire in a terrorist arson attack in December 2024. Newtown Synagogue was vandalised and subjected to attempted arson in January 2025. The East Melbourne Hebrew Congregation had its doors set alight on fire on July 4, 2025.
To test the hypothesis that there were no headlines, I looked at Trove on the print versions of the prominent city newspapers on the appropriate days, Herald Sun, The Telegraph, The Age and Sydney Morning Herald. There were prominent or front-page headlines for each. Online is harder, however, the ABC and The Guardian, news.com.au and Sky had it as a lead story at times on the days following.
For the Australian, the events were headlined as expected. Commercial radio and television news either had the first as their first or second story. To suggest that there were no headlines is factually unsustainable.
“To state that there was silence is even worse and paints a completely false picture.”
Cars and homes attacked – no concern.
This likely refers to a series of attacks in Sydney during 2024 and 2025, including:
- The graffiti attack on a house formerly owned by prominent Zionist Alex Ryvchin;
- Two incidents in Woollahra where vehicles were graffitied with anti-Semitic slogans and set on fire;
- A spray paint incident in Queens Park in January 2025 on a car with “Fuck the Jews”;
- A spray paint attack on buildings in Maroubra in January 2025, including Mount Saini College.
Again, to suggest that there was no concern for these attacks is fanciful. There were rare cross-party press conferences, condemnation from the Prime Minister down, and also from the Greens. The Premier Chris Minns was vociferous in his outrage and concern for each incident.
The Federal Government announced a $100m counter terrorist funding boost directly linked to these attacks. The Muslim community also voiced its concern in many outlets.
A child care centre firebombed – no national alarm.
On 21 January 2025, a preschool was set alight and graffiti with antisemitic words appeared 200 metres from the Maroubra synagogue.
Perhaps the best way to assess whether there was “national alarm” is the reaction of the Prime Minister. He was at the preschool condemning the attack the very next day. He then, directly as a result, convened a National Cabinet meeting, made up of every Premier and Chief Minister in the country.
If that is not ringing the national alarm bell, then I don’t know what is. To suggest, in those circumstances, that there was no national alarm is false.
Explosives prepared for Jewish schools – no crisis.
This refers to the finding of explosives in a caravan in Dural in 2025, which has now been declared by police to be an elaborate hoax. I can find no reference to “explosives prepared for Jewish schools” in any media or police reports, although there was a fake list of targets.
However, it was certainly treated as a crisis initially by the Minns government, and the find triggered legislation on hate speech rushed through parliament because of the perceived threat. A crisis is “a dangerous turning point”, and that is exactly how it was treated at all levels of government, until it was discovered to be fake.
It is hard to see what else governments could have done in response.
It is hard to see what else governments could have done in response.
Nurses vowing to kill Jewish patients – no consequences.
Of all the statements this witness made, this is perhaps the most blatant falsehood.
This is probably pedantry, but the nurses did not vow to kill Jewish patients; they identified Israeli patients. However, they were immediately suspended, they had their certification revoked nationally within days, both have been charged with criminal offences, and the health minister declared that they would never work in the health system again.
“Suggesting that there were no consequences for these actions is demonstrably and obviously incorrect.”
Witness statement uncontested
Why did Counsel Assisting the Royal Commission ask for this letter to be read into the record when basic internet searching shows it to be largely wrong?
If it stands solely as a rhetorical expression of a feeling of abandonment, perhaps that is sufficient purpose. However, what is the Royal Commission going to do about the record now that these claims have been shown to be false? If they are to stand, then what rights do the governments and police agencies at state and federal levels have to correct the record?
And why would a witness, on oath, make claims that are so baseless when the mere facts of the attacks themselves prove antisemitism is rife and dangerous?
The witness could have readily posited that not enough was done in response, but to suggest that there was no outrage, no headlines, no alarm, no crisis and just silence is gross overreach and only
“invites those prone to underplay antisemitism to point to this as an example of exaggeration.”
The point of every inquisitorial process is to get to the truth, and not to allow falsity to stand, let alone invite its repetition on oath.
If we are to have a rational discussion on how to reduce antisemitism, then it can only be in an environment where those who blur history to favour their existing position are corrected, however gently and sensitively. After all, we all share the same goal, even soft green lefties like me. And that is for peace, for harmony and for all religious, racial and ethnic minorities to live in safety, no matter their beliefs.
David HeilpernProfessor David Heilpern is Dean of Law at Southern Cross University and was previously a Magistrate for 22 years. He is the son of a holocaust survivor.
1 This month.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
Australians deserve the truth
about AUKUS
7 June – WEBINAR- Get Inspired by Protests Against Military Bases!
Jun 7, 2026 12:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 