Antinuclear

Australian Political Futures: Is Balancing Optimum Defence Self-Reliance with National Sovereignty Really Possible within US Global Hegemony?

Australia’s strategic commitments will enhance the profits of the global military industrial giants. Investors need transparency to justify their financial commitment to military industrial complexes (Gemini AI Data in US Dollars):

20 April 2026 Denis Bright, AIM, https://theaimn.net/australian-political-futures-is-balancing-optimum-defence-self-reliance-with-national-sovereignty-really-possible-within-us-global-hegemony/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h_GChgSv_A

Diplomatic sorties by Prime Minister Albanese to maintain supplies of petroleum from refineries in South East Asia coincided with the release of the 2026 National Defence Strategy (NDS). The fire in Unit Four at the Viva Refinery near Geelong brought an added more urgency to these interrupted deliberations with the Malaysian leader PM Anwar Ibraham.

There was a different tone in the Prime Minister’s interactions in Malaysia. Veiled mutual criticisms of President Trump’s rhetorical style were part of the convivial dialogue between the two leaders.

The key documents from the 2026 NDS were in circulation for more elaboration by Defence Minister Richard Marles at the National Press Club Address on 16 April.

The foreword to the new NDS Strategy contained some dire warnings for the home front about the value of commitment to the US Global Alliance in the context of perceived coercive strategic statecraft from China. The proposed defence commitments draw Australia into the Anglosphere influence in both strategic and economic spheres with the involvement of Britain’s BAE Systems in the delivery of AUKUS Submarines.

New ABS data on the extent of investment links to Britain and the US are due for release in early May 2026.

It would be churlish to criticise the Defence Minister’s rhetoric in support of the 2026 NDS Strategies. The personal opinions of Richard Marles are of little importance in the delivery of complex policy agendas which have been cleared by conventional due processes. Only mass mobilisations and dissent from within the broader Labor movement could change these policy structures.

The National Security Committee (NSC) of the Cabinet is the apex of Australia’s national security decision-making framework. Operating as a sub-committee of the Federal Cabinet, it serves as the primary forum for considering the nation’s most strategic, high-priority, and high-risk security matters. Unlike other cabinet committees, the NSC possesses a unique degree of autonomy. Its decisions do not require the endorsement of the full Cabinet to be enacted. The NSC Committee (NSC) to Cabinet is not available for public scrutiny.

The National Security Committee (NSC) of Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister and usually includes only the following key portfolios-Deputy PM and Defence Minister, Foreign Affairs, Attorney-General and Home Affairs.

The NSC is supported by a team of non-voting senior bureaucrats and agency heads. These usually include the Director-General of National Intelligence (ONI), the Director-General of Security (ASIO), and the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

The NSC would have cleared Australia’s commitment to AUKUS under the LNP in 2021. Earlier clearance was offered to the failed Troop Surge in Afghanistan more than a decade ago as well as Australia’s request to become an Associate Member of NATO during the course of our commitments to Afghanistan.

Factual details of the 2026 NDS Strategies have been well covered in mainstream media reporting. Less widely unreported, are the economic consequences of paying for this surge in Australian militarism and its impact on relations with China as our major trading partner.

The patriotic flavour of our military commitments within the US Global Alliance seldom mentions the major global corporations which generate high technology weaponry. Reaching the 3 per cent target for defence spending involves in less than a decade ahead involves a $425 billion strategic investment plan. This is an increase of $53 billion in current defence spending levels.

Australia’s strategic commitments will enhance the profits of the global military industrial giants. Investors need transparency to justify their financial commitment to military industrial complexes (Gemini AI Data in US Dollars):

In Australia, RTX is a big player in the high technology defence commitments planned for the 2026 NDS. These new commitments include Long-Range Strike and Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD). RTX’s Patriot systems, Naval Strike Missiles (NSM), and Tomahawks are the primary tools for this.

Commitment to rearmament is a highly profitable niche in the economic diplomacy of our Allies which includes Britain’s BAE Systems.

Decisions made by the Australian National Security Committee from both sides of politics have strengthened the constitutional influence of national security powers and may involve recourse to the reserve powers of the Governor-General in times of national emergency. Such powers increase exponentially as Australia is given access to high security technology through AUKUS and foreshadowed NDS technologies which need ongoing electronic updates at the behest of our Allies.

As these issues are seldom covered in the mainstream media, it is important for readers to interact with MPs and Senators on these issues. Policy staffers at ministerial offices monitor online and mainstream media comments. Even the robots at Gemini AI in the Silicon Valley have a good working knowledge of Australian political processes, the aimn.net. Gemini AI can generate a biographical profile and a summary of all my articles in a few seconds…….

Strategic Oversight: The USTR’s Role in Monitoring Chinese Investment in Australia

The relationship between the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and Australia’s inward investment profile is defined by a shift from traditional market-opening dialogue to a security-centric monitoring framework. While the USTR is not a direct regulator of Australian capital flows, it serves as a critical node in the intelligence and policy architecture that aligns Australian investment screening with the broader strategic priorities of the Five Eyes network and the AUKUS security pact.

The Mechanism of Influence: Beyond the USTR

The USTR influences Australian investment profiles through structured bilateral forums, most notably the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA) Joint Committee and the Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA).

• Intelligence Integration: Within the Five Eyes framework, the USTR provides economic intelligence that informs Australia’s Foreign Investment Review Board (FIRB). While FIRB is a sovereign Australian entity, its “National Interest” test increasingly mirrors U.S. concerns regarding Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and their involvement in critical infrastructure and dual-use technologies.
• The AUKUS “Integrated Shield”: Under AUKUS Pillar II, the USTR works alongside the U.S. Department of Commerce to ensure that “Sovereign Data” and advanced capabilities (AI, Quantum, Cyber) remain protected from adversarial capital. This has led to a “de-facto” harmonisation of investment standards, where Australian committees – such as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) – receive high-level briefings on U.S. export controls and investment restrictions.

Critical Comment from Experts

Experts suggest that the USTR’s role has evolved into a form of “Economic Statecraft” that challenges traditional notions of Australian sovereignty.

• Professor Jane Golley (Australian National University): Observes that the USTR’s focus on “supply chain resilience” acts as a directive for Australia to decouple from Chinese capital in strategic sectors. Golley argues this creates a “strategic dilemma” for Australian finance committees, which must balance the economic necessity of Chinese investment against the security mandates prioritised by Washington.
• James Paterson (Shadow Minister for Home Affairs): Has noted that the coordination between Five Eyes partners on investment screening is no longer just about preventing espionage, but about maintaining a collective technological edge. The USTR’s input is vital here, as it identifies which Chinese corporate entities are linked to the “Military-Civil Fusion” strategy, directly influencing FIRB’s rejection rates for Chinese bids in the mining and tech sectors.

Communications with Australian Government Committees

The USTR maintains consistent communication channels with Australian economic and finance entities to ensure policy alignment:

1. Treasury Consultation: The USTR regularly engages with the Australian Treasury, which houses the FIRB Secretariat. These communications focus on identifying “high-risk” investment patterns, particularly those involving the acquisition of rare earth minerals or digital infrastructure by entities with opaque ownership structures.
2. Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFAs): These serve as the formal venue where the USTR explicitly monitors Australia’s inward investment trendlines. In recent 2025–2026 sessions, a primary agenda item has been the “screening of outbound and inward investment” to prevent the leakage of AUKUS-related intellectual property to Chinese competitors.
3. The “UNIT” System and De-dollarisation: The USTR monitors Australian participation in regional financial experiments to ensure that inward investment does not bypass traditional Western settlement systems (like SWIFT), which would diminish the efficacy of U.S.-led economic sanctions and monitoring.

Conclusion

While the USTR does not hold a seat on the Australian Foreign Investment Review Board, it acts as a primary architect of the “Strategic Guardrails” that define the board’s modern operations. Through the Five Eyes and AUKUS mechanisms, the USTR ensures that Australia’s inward investment profile remains a transparent and secure component of the Western alliance’s broader economic defense strategy against Chinese strategic competition.

References……………………………………………………………

The erosion of our national sovereignty through economic diplomacy by Britain and the USA has had a long history. Australians rarely have a say on matters relating to strategic security and economic diplomacy.

April 21, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What secret report reveals about British nuclear weapons tests – veterans claimed they were harmed by the fallout

Christopher R. Hill, Professor of History, Faculty of Business and Creative Industries, University of South Wales, Jonathan Hogg, Senior Lecturer in Twentieth Century History, School of Histories, Languages and Cultures, University of Liverpoo, l April 15, 2026 https://theconversation.com/what-secret-report-reveals-about-british-nuclear-weapons-tests-veterans-claimed-they-were-harmed-by-the-fallout-280189

“The Ministry of Defence has always maintained that it never rained,” said Ken McGinley, founder of the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association (BNTVA). “I’m sorry, you’re liars … I was there!”

McGinley, who was a royal engineer, gave this interview in January 2024, shortly before his death, as part of our Oral History of British Nuclear Test Veterans project.

McGinley was present during the Grapple nuclear weapons test series, conducted by the UK on the central Pacific island of Kiritimati (also known as Christmas Island) in the late 1950s. At the time, this remote atoll was inhabited by 250 villagers as well as thousands of British servicemen.

For decades, many of those present during this and other above-ground British nuclear weapons tests have argued they were harmed by radioactive fallout. McGinley founded the BNTVA in 1983 to “gain recognition and restitution” for the veterans who took part in British and American nuclear tests and clean-ups between 1952 and 1965.

Rain became a key symbol in their argument as one of the only tangible signs of fallout taking place. The nuclear physicist Sir Joseph Rotblat described these alleged post-blast showers as “rainout”, a phenomenon whereby rain and mushroom clouds interact, leading to the contamination of rain droplets by harmful radionuclides.

In almost all cases, any link to subsequent health issues has been denied by the UK government because of lack of evidence of widespread radioactive contamination. However, a review of the evidence – written in 2014 by anonymous government scientists in response to freedom of information requests – was recently leaked by whistleblowers.

It reveals that post-blast radiation readings increased by a factor of up to seven on the island, compared with the normal background level. In our view, this would be more than enough to satisfy the “reasonable doubt” that tribunals require for veterans to receive a war pension due to illness or injury related to their service, as stated in the Naval, Military and Air Forces (Disablement and Death) Services Pension Order.

The top secret review, first revealed publicly by the Mirror newspaper on March 14 2026, also contains new evidence of radioactive contamination of fish in the island’s waters.

The repeated dismissal of veterans’ testimony in court cases and pension appeals caused stress and trauma for many. The majority died insisting they were not deceitful or forgetful – and that it did indeed rain while they were living on Kiritimati.

Factually inaccurate’

Kiritimati was monitored for fallout by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) after each detonation over the island – the largest of which, Grapple Y, was 200 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

In 1993, environmental monitoring data was collated into a report by a team at the MoD’s Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE). Known as the Clare report, this informed the UK’s official position on fallout: namely, that none occurred over populated areas and that veterans would need to prove otherwise to secure redress.

However, the 2014 review of fallout data concluded the Clare report was “incomplete and, in some cases, factually inaccurate”.

Despite this review being passed on to the MoD, however, it was kept secret for more than a decade. Following its release, the legal implications could be gamechanging. According to the 2014 review: “The instrument readings could potentially be used to challenge the validity of statements made by MoD and UK government regarding … fallout on Christmas Island.”

In a recent House of Commons debate on the issue, the UK minister for veterans and people, Louise Sandher-Jones, confirmed her commitment “to the nuclear test veterans and their fight for transparency … They have had a very long fight, and I really recognise how difficult it has been for them, and I want them to understand that I am committed to them.”

What Merlin reveals

Behind the scenes, the release of newly declassified archival material in the publicly accessible Merlin database has added to calls for government accountability about the nuclear tests.

Compiled by the treasury solicitor during a class action against the MoD between 2009 and 2012, the database was stored at AWE until the journalist and author Susie Boniface discovered it held information about the medical monitoring of servicemen and Indigenous people. Her work led to its release in 2025.

Holding over 28,000 files, Merlin was commissioned by the MoD in response to the compensation claims made by almost 1,000 veterans from 2009. Its contents include official reports and communications, photographs, maps, safety guidelines and health monitoring information. Video footage includes the Grapple X test in November 1957.

A University of Liverpool team based in The Centre for People’s Justice and the Department of History is working with Boniface and campaign group Labrats International to catalogue and analyse the contents of Merlin – combining it with other sources, including personal testimony. Recently released files indicate nuclear fallout in the island’s ground sediment and rainwater, and heightened radioactivity in its clams.

Evidence has also emerged of radioactive waste being dropped from aeroplanes into the sea off Queensland in 1958 and 1959. Although dumping radioactive waste was surprisingly common during the cold war, this revelation raises questions about how risk and danger was understood and managed during Britain’s nuclear test programme.

The files also show workers without protective clothing around a plutonium pit at Maralinga in South Australia, site of seven British atmospheric nuclear tests in 1956-57.

The Merlin releases have galvanised claims that not so long ago may have been interpreted as conjecture. The recent releases suggest that servicemen and islanders were exposed to radioactive fallout – not just from rain showers, but from the fish they ate and the water they drank.

While a causal link with subsequent health conditions would be hard to prove, we believe it is time for the UK government to get behind a public inquiry into the full impact of Britain’s nuclear weapons testing programme.

April 18, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

We know nuclear numbers

R Wood, Valley View, 14 April 26, https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/letter-to-the-editor

Regarding nuclear power, correspondent Bill Fisher is incorrect saying we can’t know about its cost, waste, reliability or public acceptance until we remove the prohibition on nuclear power (“Policy over ideology”, Letters, 10/4)

The prohibition was bipartisan and surveys repeatedly show Australians are wary of nuclear power.

We can easily gather data from other similar countries to estimate the cost, reliability and information about the unsolved problem of what to do with high-level waste.

The CSIRO has done this and found that nuclear power is by far the most expensive way of making electricity.

Studies around the world agree.

How will removing the prohibition be of any influence? Do we have to build nuclear power before we can evaluate it? How does that make any sense?

April 17, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Not Reporting a War (Part 2)

The question of how Australia became so deeply entangled in the US war machine has a simple answer: follow the money, and follow the men. The defence industry does not just sell weapons. It sells access, influence, and immunity from scrutiny. And in Australia, it has bought all three in spades.

Real power, of course, lies not in the money itself, but in where it goes. The defence and arms lobby is the most egregious example. Elbit Systems of Australia hired Pyne and Partners, the lobbying firm of former Liberal Defence Minister Christopher Pyne, to secure government contracts. Pyne had begun talks about a defence-related corporate role while still in cabinet, and his firm continued to win tens of millions in contracts after he left politics. This is not an anomaly. It is the rule

The AUKUS program, a $400 billion boondoggle, has become a gold rush for military contractors, and the revolving-door salesmen are their guides.

12 April 2026 David Tyler AIM Extra, https://theaimn.net/not-reporting-a-war-part-2/

The US and Israel are not only eager to illegally attack Iran, even to invade; they are at war with the rules of war itself. In a move largely ignored by our corporate media, they have dramatically extended the range of what they treat as legitimate targets.

Since Trump’s war began on February 28, 2026, American and Israeli troops have struck more than 13,000 targets across the country, dropping thousands of munitions in a campaign that has deliberately broadened to include soft civilian infrastructure off-limits under international norms.

Iran’s people, armed though their military may be with mine-laying speedboats, missiles and drones, have proved extremely vulnerable to these raids on universities, schools, hospitals, and cultural sites.

No longer is this tactic considered a criminal act in the Pentagon under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “anything goes” approach. But to understand what “anything goes” actually means in practice, you need to understand the man behind it.

Lethality, Lethality, Lethality

Pete Hegseth is the most consequential appointment Donald Trump has ever made, and the most dangerous. Not because he is powerful, though he is. Because he is incompetent, and the institution he has been handed contains enough destructive capacity to end several civilisations, which, as it happens, is precisely what he has been asked to do with it

Hegseth spent his career in television. He was a weekend host on Fox News, which is to say he was a man paid to be confident about things he did not understand, on a schedule that left his weekdays free. He has no command experience worth the name.

He has never managed a logistics chain, never been responsible for the rules of engagement in a contested theatre, never had to explain to a congressional committee why a targeting decision killed the wrong people. What he has is a theology, and in the current Pentagon, theology outranks competence.

His doctrine, such as it is, can be summarised in three words he repeats like a mantra at every opportunity: lethality, lethality, lethality. This is not a strategy. It is a temperament dressed up as a strategy, the kind of thing that sounds decisive in a greenroom and proves catastrophic in a targeting cell.

Lethality without restraint is not military effectiveness. It is the Peter Principle applied to the largest arsenal in human history: a man promoted precisely one level above the point where his limitations become catastrophic rather than merely embarrassing.

But underneath the incompetence is something more deliberate and more dangerous than simple unfitness for office. Hegseth’s Christianity is not the quiet, private faith of a man who attends church on Sundays.

It is a crusader’s theology, a conviction that the United States is engaged in a civilisational struggle between Christian order and Islamic chaos, and that the traditional constraints on military conduct, proportionality, distinction between combatants and civilians, the prohibition on targeting cultural and educational infrastructure, are not rules to be followed but obstacles to be cleared.

When you bomb a university, in Hegseth’s framework, you are not committing a war crime. You are prosecuting a holy war. The Geneva Conventions were written for conflicts between moral equals. In his theology, there are no moral equals on the other side.

This is the man who has purged the generals and admirals who might have told him why it matters that Sharif University of Technology was Iran’s MIT, that the Pasteur Institute served ninety million people, that destroying a civilisation’s capacity to educate its children is not a path to victory but a guarantee of generational enmity.

He did not want to hear it. The professionals who tried to say it are gone. What remains is an institution stripped of its institutional memory, run by a man whose primary qualification for the job was knowing which camera to look at, and whose secondary qualification was appearing on a television programme watched by the man who appointed him.

The result is not lethality. It is a military with enormous destructive power and no wisdom about when and how to use it, commanded by a man who has confused the absence of restraint with the presence of strength. The Pentagon under Hegseth does not have a strategy for Iran. It has a mood.

The Professors and the Bombs

That mood has consequences. Real ones, with names. On April 3, 2026, the Laser and Plasma Research Institute of Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran was reduced to rubble. The next day, Sharif University of Technology was struck, killing at least five professors and more than sixty students in their classrooms and laboratories.

These were not collateral damage. Iran’s Minister of Science, Hossein Simaei Sarraf, told Al Jazeera that the professors “did not die as a result of a single attack or bombing. The US and Israel deliberately targeted them and planned their killing.”

Since February 28, over thirty Iranian universities have been struck alongside hundreds of schools and medical facilities. This is Hegseth’s lethality doctrine in practice. Not in the Pentagon briefing room where it sounds like transformation. In a Tehran lecture hall, where it looks like a desk on fire and a student who will never finish her degree.

Yet in Australia, the murders of these scholars and their students have been met with silence. No front-page outrage. No prime-time specials. No editorials demanding justice. The ABC, the SMH, the Age, none have deemed it worthy of sustained attention. When Albanese finally ticked off Trump for his genocidal rhetoric, calling it “inappropriate,” it was too little, too late. The mouse had roared, but only after the lion had already feasted.

The Bases We Pretend Aren’t There

Australia is not just a bystander to this war. We are a host. Our bases are not ours alone. They are American outposts, and they have been for decades.

Pine Gap, the joint US-Australian facility near Alice Springs, is the most infamous. Its 45 radomes and Advanced Orion satellites do not just listen. They enable. Richard Tanter’s research confirms that Pine Gap provides real-time intelligence for US offensive operations in Iran. When American missiles strike Tehran, they are guided by data from the red centre of Australia.

HMAS Stirling is on Garden Island, Western Australia, is a different kettle of fish. Officially, it is a Royal Australian Navy base. In practice, it is a US submarine hub. The USS Minnesota’s routine visits are part of a pattern: Stirling is now a de facto US-UK Indian Ocean naval base, with American submarines coming and going as they please. The Australian government calls it “enhanced naval access.” The rest of us might call it a takeover.

Al Minhad Air Base in the UAE is Australia’s primary forward deployed headquarters in the Middle East. Under Operation Accordion, up to 80 Australian personnel are stationed there, alongside US forces. When Iran attacked Al Minhad on March 18, 2026, it was targeting a base that houses both Australian and American military infrastructure.

Our PM acknowledged that three ADF personnel were aboard the US submarine that sank the IRIS Dena. Yet we are told, with a straight face, that Australia is “not involved in offensive action.”

And let us not forget the North West Cape naval communication station in Exmouth, Western Australia, or the RAAF bases at Darwin and Tindal, where US Air Force B-52 bombers now have “enhanced access.” These are not Australian bases with American guests. They are American bases on Australian soil, used as the US sees fit.

The Jets, the Missiles, and the Money

Australia’s complicity is not just geographic, however. It is industrial. We are not just hosting the war. We are fuelling it. In January 2026, the US approved the sale of 450 AIM-260A Joint Advanced Tactical Missiles to Australia, a $3.16 billion deal that includes sustainment, training, and integration systems. These missiles are designed to extend the combat range of our F-35A Lightning II fighter jets, which are already part of the US-led global supply chain. Over 75 Australian companies contribute to the F-35 program, with more than 700 critical components manufactured in Victoria alone.

When these jets drop bombs on Iran, or on Gaza, Australian parts are in the payload.

Elbit Systems is also a key part of our war gaming. The Israeli defence giant, which has seen its share price surge 45 percent since January, is a key supplier to the Australian Defence Force. Our government has awarded millions in taxpayer-funded grants to Australian companies participating in the F-35 program, even as those same jets are used by Israel in its bombing campaigns. Michael West Media calls them “genocide grants.” The term is apt.

The Lobbyists, the Dark Money, and the Revolving Door

The question of how Australia became so deeply entangled in the US war machine has a simple answer: follow the money, and follow the men. The defence industry does not just sell weapons. It sells access, influence, and immunity from scrutiny. And in Australia, it has bought all three in spades.

Dark money floods our political system. Over $138 million in undisclosed donations poured into the major parties before the 2025 election alone, with Labor, the Liberals, the Greens, the Nationals, and One Nation all benefiting from funds whose origins remain a mystery. The rules are so lax that a lobby group can conceal half a million dollars by splitting it into 34 separate donations of $15,000 each, just under the disclosure threshold. The result? Tens of millions of dollars flow into the pockets of politicians with no oversight, no accountability.

Real power, of course, lies not in the money itself, but in where it goes. The defence and arms lobby is the most egregious example. Elbit Systems of Australia hired Pyne and Partners, the lobbying firm of former Liberal Defence Minister Christopher Pyne, to secure government contracts. Pyne had begun talks about a defence-related corporate role while still in cabinet, and his firm continued to win tens of millions in contracts after he left politics. This is not an anomaly. It is the rule.

Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison now sits on the advisory board of DYME Maritime, an Australian-American capital fund investing in technologies for AUKUS, the very military alliance his government joined with the US and UK. Former Labor Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon is a registered lobbyist for Serco, the British multinational that profits from detention centres and defence logistics. And then there are the Howard government alumni: Alexander Downer, Nick Minchin, Mark Vaile, Michael Wooldridge, Helen Coonan, Richard Alston, Santo Santoro, Larry Anthony, and Peter Costello, all of whom walked straight from Parliament into lobbying roles, many for defence contractors.

.

This is the revolving door in action: a system where public service is a stepping stone to private profit, and where loyalty to the nation is secondary to loyalty to the highest bidder. The Centre for Public Integrity calls it a “well-established revolving door,” with one in four former ministers taking lucrative roles with special interest groups after leaving politics. The rules? A joke. Ministers are banned from lobbying for 18 months, but the ban is not enforced, and the definition of lobbying is so narrow that most simply ignore it. In Canberra, lobbyists now outnumber politicians three to one. And the defence industry is their most fertile hunting ground.

The AUKUS program, a $400 billion boondoggle, has become a gold rush for military contractors, and the revolving-door salesmen are their guides. When Michael West Media exposed that the federal government had awarded $78 million in taxpayer-funded grants to Australian companies supplying parts for the F-35s used by Israel in Gaza, the response was silence. The same jets that rain death on Palestinian civilians are partly made in Victoria, with over 700 critical components manufactured locally. And yet, no one in Canberra blinks.

This is how the war machine captures a democracy. It is not just about money. It is about culture. The defence establishment, with its powerful lobby groups, its dark money, and its utterly unaccountable ASIO, operates with sacred immunity. The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 is just the latest example of how national security is wielded as a cudgel to silence dissent. Under current laws, ASIO can detain individuals for questioning and compel them to answer, with the threat of five years imprisonment for those who refuse to speak, or even for those who disclose that they have been detained. The right to silence, once a cornerstone of our justice system, has been effectively erased for those caught in the national security dragnet.

And where is the watchdog? The press that should be holding this over-indulged monster to account is itself captured. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp controls 59 percent of the metropolitan and national print media market by readership. Just three corporations, News Corp, Nine, and Seven, collect 80 percent of Australia’s free-to-air and subscription TV revenues. We have the least diverse media ownership in the democratic world, and it shows. When the government extends Murdoch’s press monopoly, it is not just a commercial decision. It is a political one, with consequences for the stories that are told, and the stories that are buried.

The Reckoning

There is a word for what has happened to Australian democracy, and it is not corruption, though corruption is part of it. The word is capture. The defence industry has not bribed its way into Australian politics. It has colonised it, so thoroughly and over such a long period that the distinction between the national interest and the arms industry’s interest has become genuinely difficult to locate. The revolving door spins. The dark money flows. The bases multiply. The grants go to the companies whose jets drop the bombs.

And in Canberra, nobody blinks, because blinking would require acknowledging what everyone already knows. We were once a country that helped build the United Nations. We sent Doc Evatt to New York to argue, with genuine conviction, that small nations had rights that great powers were obliged to respect. That idealism was not naivete. It was a considered foreign policy position: that a middle power’s best protection was a rules-based international order, because the alternative was a world run by the strongest, in which Australia would always be the client and never the principal.

We are that client now. We host the bases, supply the parts, process the targeting data, and call it a partnership. When the bombs fall on a university in Tehran, guided in part by signals from the red centre of Australia, we are told we are not involved in offensive action. The language is chosen carefully, by people who understand exactly what it conceals.

Hegseth has his theology. Albanese has his formulations. Neither is telling the truth about what Australia is doing in this war, and what is being done in our name.

A parliamentary inquiry into Pine Gap’s role in these strikes would be a start. Tighter revolving-door rules, enforced rather than merely announced. An immediate suspension of F-35-related grants pending independent review. These are not radical demands. They are the minimum that a functioning democracy owes its citizens when it takes them to war without asking.

But the deeper demand is simpler, and harder. It is that we stop pretending. Stop pretending that hosting American bases is not choosing sides. Stop pretending that processing targeting data is not participating in the targeting. Stop pretending that a democracy that cannot account for $138 million in undisclosed political donations is a democracy in any meaningful sense of the word.

The watchdogs are still barking. Crikey, The AIMN, Michael West Media: they are not just exposing the truth. They are keeping alive the idea that a free people has the right to know what is being done in its name, and the right to say no. That right exists. It is not being exercised. The question is not whether we still have it.

The question is whether we have the will to use it.

This article was originally published on URBAN WRONSKI WRITES 

April 16, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment