Australian news – week to 27 September
News to 26 September
- Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry – Cancel Aukus- John Richards.
- Submission to AUKUS Inquiry –AUKUS deal is a catastrophic misjudgment – Leo Kerr.
- Australia’s 10,000-ton AUKUS nuclear attack submarines to get UK-built reactors.
- WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange returned to X on Thursday, more than two years after his release from prison as the AI crisis dominates the headlines.
- Australia needs regional co-operation, not coercion -Erik D Nielsen. Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry-
- Submission to AUKUS Inquiry Deborah Torrens, Sovereign Bundjalung and Gumbaynggirr Woman.
Submission to AUKUS Inquiry -AUKUS deal is a catastrophic misjudgment – Leo Kerr.
No Exit Clause Without Penalty: Australia has committed to this path with limited
ability to withdraw without incurring substantial sunk costs and diplomatic damage.
The deal’s structure locks Australia into decades of expenditure regardless of changing strategic circumstances.
The AUKUS deal will transform Australia into a permanent repository for high-level
nuclear waste—a burden the nation is entirely unprepared to manage.
Accepting Foreign Waste: Most alarmingly, the deal permits the US and UK to
dispose of low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste from their own submarines in
Leo Kerr n.103
Subject: Opposition to AUKUS Pillar I (Nuclear Submarines) on Grounds of Cost,
Sovereignty, Nuclear Waste, and Strategic Miscalculation
- Executive Summary
The AUKUS agreement, particularly Pillar I concerning nuclear-powered submarines,
is fundamentally not in Australia’s national interest. While framed as a necessary
response to strategic challenges, the deal imposes crippling financial costs, creates
an unresolved nuclear waste legacy, severely compromises national sovereignty,
rests on unrealistic delivery timelines, and damages Australia’s regional relationships.
This submission argues that AUKUS represents a profound misalignment of strategic
priorities that will leave Australia less secure, financially weaker, and more dependent
on foreign powers for generations.
2. Prohibitive and Unsustainable Financial Cost
The AUKUS submarine program is the most expensive defence project in Australian
history, with estimated total costs of $368 billion over several decades. This figure
does not include the substantial additional costs of base upgrades, workforce
training, and nuclear safety regulation.
Opportunity Cost: $368 billion represents an extraordinary concentration of defence
spending that will inevitably crowd out investment in more agile, relevant capabilities.
Cyber defence, long-range strike missiles, unmanned aerial and maritime systems,
and enhanced intelligence capabilities would deliver more immediate and flexible
security benefits for Australia’s unique geographical circumstances.
Distortion of Defence Budget: The submarine program will consume approximately
40% of the defence capital investment budget for decades, starving other services
and capabilities. The Royal Australian Air Force and Army face significant
modernisation needs that will be compromised.
Subsidising Foreign Industries: A significant portion of Australian spending will
directly support US and UK shipyards, supply chains, and workforce development.
Australia is effectively paying to solve the industrial capacity problems of allied
nations while receiving no firm guarantees on delivery timelines. This represents an
unequal arrangement where Australian taxpayers bear enormous risk while allied
defence contractors secure long-term revenue.
No Exit Clause Without Penalty: Australia has committed to this path with limited
ability to withdraw without incurring substantial sunk costs and diplomatic damage.
The deal’s structure locks Australia into decades of expenditure regardless of
changing strategic circumstances.
3. Catastrophic and Unresolved Nuclear Waste Liability
The AUKUS deal will transform Australia into a permanent repository for high-level
nuclear waste—a burden the nation is entirely unprepared to manage.
Sovereign Responsibility for High-Level Waste: Under the agreement, Australia
accepts sole and permanent responsibility for all nuclear waste generated by its
submarine fleet, including highly radioactive spent fuel that remains dangerous for
hundreds of thousands of years. There is no existing permanent high-level nuclear
waste storage facility anywhere in the world. The United States and United Kingdom,
which have operated nuclear submarines for over 60 years, have still failed to
develop permanent storage solutions.
Accepting Foreign Waste: Most alarmingly, the deal permits the US and UK to
dispose of low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste from their own submarines in Australia. This provision makes Australia a designated dumping ground for other
nations’ toxic military legacies with no reciprocal benefit.
No Domestic Waste Management Plan: Australia currently has no permanent,
community-agreed solution for even its existing low-level medical and research
waste. Successive governments have failed for nearly three decades to site a single
waste facility in the face of sustained opposition from communities and Traditional
Owners. Recent legislative attempts to compel facility construction have been widely
criticised for granting government the power to unilaterally designate sites without
proper consultation or consent.
Intergenerational Inequity: The nuclear waste problem will remain dangerous for millennia, far beyond the lifespan of any government or institution. Current decision-
makers are imposing a permanent environmental and security burden on all future generations of Australians without their consent and without any credible plan formanagement.
4. Severe Erosion of National Sovereignty
AUKUS fundamentally subordinates Australian defence and foreign policy to United
States strategic interests, compromising hard-won independence in national
decision-making.
Lack of Independent Operational Control: Australian commanders will not have
independent control over these submarines. The vessels, their nuclear reactors, their
weapons systems, and their support infrastructure are so deeply integrated with US
military systems that the concept of independent Australian operation is illusory.
Critical maintenance, refuelling, and weapons replenishment can only occur at US
facilities, meaning Australia cannot sustain these submarines without continuous US
approval and support.
Enmeshment in US Conflict Decisions: The agreement’s emphasis on
“interchangeability” and “integrated deterrence” strongly implies that AustraliaEnmeshment in US Conflict Decisions: The agreement’s emphasis on
“interchangeability” and “integrated deterrence” strongly implies that Australia would be compelled to support the United States in any future conflict involving
China—including over Taiwan. The AUKUS framework does not preserve Australia’s
right to make independent decisions about war and peace. Rather, it assumes
Australian participation as a condition of the alliance.
Ceding Control of Australian Territory: AUKUS requires significant expansion of
Australian military facilities, including HMAS Stirling in Western Australia for
submarine basing and RAAF Tindal in the Northern Territory for nuclear-capable B-52
bomber rotations. These expanded facilities will host US military personnel,
equipment, and potentially nuclear weapons. Australia has a longstanding policy of
not confirming or denying the presence of nuclear weapons on its territory, meaning
the public and Parliament will have no assurance about what is being hosted on
Australian soil.
Vulnerability to US Domestic Politics: The entire AUKUS project is vulnerable to the
whims of US electoral politics. In 2025, the Pentagon initiated a review of the
agreement to ensure compliance with the “America First” policy agenda. This
demonstrates that US interests will always take precedence. If a future US
administration decides the agreement no longer serves American interests—or
demands Australian participation in a conflict Australians do not support—Australia
will have no meaningful recourse. Our strategic future is held hostage to US political
volatility.
Explicit Opt-Out Rights for Allies: Both the United States and the United Kingdom
have explicit opt-out rights under the agreement, allowing them to withdraw if their
own national requirements are not met. Australia has no equivalent protection. A
senior Australian Defence official has conceded that if the US or UK walked away,
Australia’s “Plan B” is non-existent.
5. Unrealistic Delivery and Capability Gaps
The timeline and technical assumptions underlying AUKUS are deeply unrealistic,
leaving Australia with a dangerous capability gap.
Decades-Long Delivery Timeline: Even under the most optimistic projections, the
first Virginia-class submarines will not be delivered until the early 2030s, and the final
Australian-built SSN-AUKUS submarine will not enter service until the 2050s—
approximately 40 years from the agreement’s announcement. This timeline exceeds
the planning horizons of any government or military strategy.
Ailing Allied Industrial Bases: Both the US and UK submarine industrial bases are in
poor condition. The UK has experienced periods where it could not deploy a single
operational submarine due to maintenance backlogs. Its skilled workforce and supply
chains have atrophied. The US Navy faces its own pressures to maintain fleet
numbers and has warned that diverting submarines to Australia could degrade
American undersea capabilities. US law prohibits the sale of nuclear submarines if it
would “degrade the United States’ undersea capabilities,” giving Congress a
permanent veto over deliveries to Australia.
Collins Class Capability Gap: Australia’s existing Collins-class submarines are
scheduled to begin retirement from the 2030s. Even optimistic AUKUS timelines leave
a gap of 5–10 years with no submarine capability. The government has no credible
interim solution. Plans to extend Collins-class service life face significant technical
challenges and workforce constraints. The gap leaves Australia without a
fundamental strategic capability at precisely the time proponents claim the strategic
environment is most dangerous.
Unproven Technology: The SSN-AUKUS submarine design does not yet exist. No
nuclear-powered submarine has ever been designed and built in Australia. The fusion
of British design and American propulsion technology has no precedent and faces
immense technical, regulatory, and safety hurdles. Every nuclear submarine program
in history has experienced significant cost overruns and delays.
- Damaging Impact on Regional Relations and Economic
Security
AUKUS has damaged Australia’s standing in Southeast Asia and the Pacific while undermining our most important economic relationship.
Provocative and Exclusionary: Regional neighbours, including Indonesia, Malaysia,
and Pacific Island nations, have expressed serious concerns about AUKUS. It is widely
perceived as a provocative, exclusionary military pact designed for great power
confrontation. This undermines ASEAN-centred regional architecture, which has been
built on principles of inclusivity, consultation, and non-confrontation. AUKUS risks
triggering a regional nuclear arms race, which would make Australia less safe, not
more.
Damage to Relations with China: AUKUS has been explicitly framed as a response
to China’s rise. While prudent deterrence is legitimate, the manner in which AUKUS
was announced—without prior consultation with regional partners and in a manner
designed to exclude and confront—has poisoned the strategic atmosphere. The
agreement has reduced mutual trust in the bilateral relationship with Australia’s
largest trading partner. China accounts for approximately 25% of Australian exports,
and a stable, functional relationship is essential for Australian prosperity. A growing
number of Australians question the logic of sacrificing economic well-being for
uncertain strategic guarantees from an ally with divergent interests.
Strategic Contradiction: Australia is simultaneously pursuing the most expensive
military buildup in its history while relying on China for export income that funds
government services, infrastructure, and social programs. This contradiction is
unsustainable. If Australia genuinely believes China poses a direct military threat
requiring nuclear submarines, then continued deep economic integration is
strategically incoherent. If China does not pose such a threat, then AUKUS represents
a catastrophic misallocation of resources.
Marginalising Pacific Concerns: Pacific Island nations have consistently identified
climate change as their primary security threat. AUKUS diverts attention, diplomatic
energy, and financial resources away from climate action and towards military
competition. This damages Australia’s reputation as a responsible regional partner
and cedes influence to other powers that are more responsive to Pacific priorities.
7. A More Prudent Path Forward
It is not too late to change course. A growing number of former defence officials,
diplomats, and strategic analysts have called for Australia to fundamentally revisit the
AUKUS decision.
Immediate Recommendations:
- Commission an independent cost-benefit analysis of AUKUS against alternative
defence investments, including an updated conventionally-powered submarine
program, long-range strike capabilities, and enhanced cyber and space assets. - Reject the nuclear waste provisions and maintain Australia’s longstanding policy of
not accepting foreign nuclear waste on its territory. - Reassert parliamentary sovereignty over war and peace decisions, clarifying that
no alliance commitment overrides the Australian Parliament’s exclusive authority to
authorise military action. - Redirect defence investment toward capabilities more suited to Australia’s
geography, including long-range maritime patrol aircraft, unmanned underwater
vehicles, distributed sensor networks, and precision-strike missiles. - Pursue genuine strategic independence by diversifying defence partnerships and
avoiding exclusive reliance on any single ally for critical capabilities.
8. Conclusion
The AUKUS submarine deal represents a catastrophic misjudgment. It imposes an
unprecedented financial burden, creates a permanent and unresolved nuclear waste
liability, erodes Australian sovereignty, rests on unrealistic delivery assumptions, and damages our most important regional relationships. The justification for AUKUS
relies on an exaggerated threat perception and blind faith in allies who have placed
their own interests first—explicitly, in writing, in the agreement’s opt-out clauses.
Australia does not need nuclear submarines to be secure. We need a defence
strategy appropriate to our geography, our budget, and our democratic values—not
one designed by foreign industrial lobbies and imposed under the guise of alliance
solidarity. For these reasons, I urge this Committee to recommend that the Australian
Government withdraw from the AUKUS Pillar I submarine agreement and pursue a
more independent, proportionate, and responsible defence posture.
Australia’s 10,000-ton AUKUS nuclear attack submarines to get UK-built reactors.
Australia will invest £2.4 billion over 10 years to expand Rolls-Royce infrastructure and support development of its future nuclear submarine fleet.
The UK is expanding its role in the AUKUS submarine program, with Rolls-Royce set to build the nuclear reactors for every Australian SSN-AUKUS submarine at its Raynesway facility in Derby. The arrangement places Britain’s nuclear industry at the heart of Australia’s future submarine fleet.
The details were included in the British government’s Defense Nuclear Enterprise 2026 Annual Update to Parliament. Australia has committed £2.4 billion, or about $3.2 billion, over 10 years to expand Rolls-Royce infrastructure and help fund the design of the new submarine.
The UK will also provide key components as Australia develops the industrial base needed to construct and maintain its own nuclear-powered submarines.
A shared submarine design
SSN-AUKUS is a British-designed, nuclear-powered and conventionally armed attack submarine being developed through cooperation between the UK, Australia, and the US. It is intended to replace the Royal Navy’s Astute-class attack submarines and become the foundation of Australia’s future nuclear-powered submarine fleet.
BAE Systems will build the British boats at Barrow-in-Furness in England. Australian submarines will be constructed at the Osborne Naval Shipyard in South Australia.
Under the arrangement, reactor production will remain concentrated at Rolls-Royce’s Raynesway site. This gives the Derby facility a long-term role in supplying reactor technology for submarines serving both countries.
Construction plans take shape
The SSN-AUKUS program is currently in its Detailed Design and Long Lead phase. The UK expects to decide how many submarines it will order before this stage concludes in 2028.
Around £4 billion, or roughly $5.4 billion, in contracts have already been awarded for submarine development and the industrial infrastructure required to support production.
Steel cutting for the first British SSN-AUKUS submarine is planned for 2027. The Royal Navy is targeting the late 2030s for the submarine to enter service.
Australia is also preparing its shipbuilding infrastructure and workforce as it moves toward domestic construction. The industrial effort is expected to support the country’s ability to operate and sustain a nuclear-powered fleet over the long term.
Raynesway set for major expansion
The British government plans to invest about £6 billion, or around $8.1 billion, during the current Spending Review period to expand submarine production capacity.
The investment covers Rolls-Royce’s Raynesway facility, BAE Systems’ shipyard at Barrow and other parts of the UK supply chain. The expansion is designed to double the current production rate and establish a sustained output of one submarine every 18 months.
That capacity will be needed as Britain manages several submarine programs at the same time. The expanded industrial base is expected to support SSN-AUKUS construction alongside the Dreadnought-class ballistic-missile submarine program.
Derby gains a long-term role
The reactor work gives Rolls-Royce a central position in the industrial structure supporting SSN-AUKUS. Its Raynesway facility will produce the reactors destined for Australia’s new fleet while continuing its role in Britain’s submarine program.
For Australia, the arrangement provides access to established British nuclear submarine expertise as its own production capabilities develop.
Submission to the AUKUS Public Inquiry – Australia’s diplomatic relations – John Leslie Lander.
The strategic rationale for AUKUS is founded on the patently false premise that China presents a kinetic threat to Australia.
The executive power of the Commonwealth under Section 61 of the Constitution,
does not extend to granting any foreign nation operational control of Australian
defence or intelligence facilities, or territory,
I am making this submission of the basis of long-term professional involvement in
diplomatic relations with China…….China is likely to become an enemy only if Australia insists on making it one.
In 1971-72 I was actively engaged in the process of establishing diplomatic
relations with the Peoples Republic of China and dismantling diplomatic relations
with the Republic of China. I was Deputy Ambassador to China 1974-76 and
subsequently Head of the China Section of DFAT on three separate occasions over
the course of thirty years. In that capacity, I was personally responsible for
negotiating the arrangements for the establishment of Consular Relations with
China. After retirement from DFAT, I have been a frequent visitor to China,
especially since 2001.
Dubious Rationale of AUKUS
The strategic rationale for AUKUS is founded on the patently false premise that
China presents a kinetic threat to Australia. Across the millennia of its history,
China has not invaded any other country, and certainly not since WW2, although it
was itself invaded by Imperial Japan, whose attempt to invade Australia was, to a
significant extent, thwarted by Australia’s ally – China. At no time in the past 80
years has China ever evinced the slightest inclination to attack Australia, let alone
expressed a policy of hostility towards Australia. It has consistently expressed a
policy of encouraging mutually beneficial relations, even during the brief period of
so-called “economic coercion”, where China was quite clearly reacting to the overt
hostility expressed by the Morrison government.
China is only likely to become an enemy if Australia insists on making it one. The
current Australian attitude of antipathy includes frequent actions of antagonism
towards China, (e.g. military incursions into China’s sovereign territory of the
province of Taiwan, which Australia is legally bound to observe as One China).
These stem especially from AUKUS and other aspects of US militarisation of
Australia, and push inexorably towards war.
The economic growth of China, where it now equals the US in terms of Purchasing
Power Parity, and China’s concomitant growth in military strength, to counter the
threat from the US military bases and naval forces ranged against it, have often
been cited as indicators of the potential threat from China.
Part of the rationale for AUKUS is the requirement to protect Australia’s sea lanes
from possible interdiction by China, ignoring the fact that China has an existential interest in keeping those same sea lanes open, because it is the largest trading
partner of the vast majority of the world. The only country poised to blockade
them is the US. Australia’s prosperity depends on trade, a full third of which is with
China and most of it carried on Chinese ships. To argue that AUKUS is necessary
for war against China in order to keep open Australia’s trade with China is
paradoxical and schizophrenic.
The US antagonism towards China is based on the US desire for global supremacy,
which is evidently being undermined by China’s growing ability to provide an
alternative source of finance and economic development to the Global Majority,
who lie outside the small group of Western countries. The US has made no secret
of its intention to embroil China in a debilitating war conducted by the US proxy
network of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and Australia, in order to
derail China’s economic growth and impede its ability to cooperate with the
countries of the Global Majority.
Far from seeking to undermine a genuine rules based international order, China
has constantly reiterated its policy of promoting reform and strengthening of the
United Nations system to make it more effective and fairer to all member States. AUKUS forms a
key part of Australia’s increasingly futile attempt to uphold the US version of the
international rules based order, designed by and for the benefit of the US and its
Western allies. This is an order whose rules are frequently flouted by the US and
Australia, whenever they might hamper the pursuit of US geopolitical ambitions.
China’s policy towards Australia has consistently been one of amity. Even if
nefarious intentions are attributed to China, going to war against it is
counter-productive, in terms of preserving Australia’s security. Countless
simulations by the Rand corporation of a US/China war have without exception
demonstrated that the US would lose. Australia, even if part of the network of
proxies, would have even less chance of emerging intact from war against China.
Any pragmatic assessment of the respective military capabilities of Australia and
China would demonstrate that China is immensely more powerful than Australia,
which will never be able to match it. Given the time-frame in which the US insists
the war against China is to occur, Australia would have already been devastated
long before the delivery of the putative benefits of AUKUS.
The only guarantee of security for a small nation like Australia is the nurturing of
mutually beneficial relations with China and the countries in Australia’s region, all
of whom have engaged in economic development projects with China and none of
whom share Australia’s antipathy towards China. AUKUS makes Australia’s
neighbours very nervous about its intentions and isolates it from the region which espouses constructive relations with China.
Legal/Constitutional Dubiety of AUKUS
The system of governance in Australia, under the Constitution, requires the
Executive to work through the Parliament, not independently of it. International
Treaties – and Agreements having the force of treaty – require ratification by
Parliament in order to have effect in Australian domestic law. The legal question is
not whether the Agreement exists as an international instrument. The real
question is whether the Australian government has valid domestic legal authority
for the specific acts required to give effect to it inside Australia.
The executive power of the Commonwealth under Section 61 of the Constitution,
does not extend to granting any foreign nation operational control of Australian
defence or intelligence facilities, or territory, or to committing Commonwealth
expenditure in connection with such arrangements, without statutory authority
conferred by the Parliament.
The government may argue that the executive has inherent power to spend
without a specific Act of Parliament, since Parliament had appropriated funding in
the budget. The High Court, in Williams v. Commonwealth (2012)248 CLR 156,
disagreed unanimously with this view. Appropriation alone does not authorise the
executive to spend on whatever it likes. For significant executive acts with real
domestic legal consequences, there must be a lawful source of authority.
That principle applies directly to AUKUS, which is adjunct to the even more
egregious Force Posture Agreement with the US, which also runs counter to the
principle established by the High Court. Committing billions in expenditure;
granting operational control of Australian facilities to a foreign military force (e.g.
Stirling Naval Base); authorising construction works; permitting prepositioning of
foreign materiel within Australian territory: all of these are acts with significant
domestic legal consequences. For each, the Commonwealth must identify a valid
legal source of authority.
The central and unanswered problem is that no one has identified that statute. The
Defence Act 1903 does not expressly authorise the grant of operational control to
a foreign military force. Neither does any other Commonwealth law. This is a real
gap in the law which the Commonwealth would have to answer if challenged in the
High Court.
Three Constitutional Questions
The constitutional case focuses on three questions that must each be answered.
First: does the executive have authority to commit Australian bases and resources
in domestic law? Signing an international agreement does not automatically
produce domestic legal consequences. The operational control, the prepositioning
rights, and the expenditure obligations all require a domestic legal foundation. No
treaty can shortcut that requirement.
Second: can the defence power fill the gap? The Commonwealth may argue that
section 51(vi) of the Constitution supports the arrangements. That argument must
be taken seriously. But while the defence power is a legislative power, which
empowers Parliament to make laws about defence, it does not automatically
authorise ministers to act without legislative backing. If specific infrastructure
works, access arrangements, and expenditure decisions are to rest on the defence
power, there must still be a valid legal pathway, a statute or regulation that
properly authorises each particular act.
Third: if neither executive power nor the defence power supplies the necessary
authority, are the implementation measures vulnerable? Under Williams v.
Commonwealth, yes. Executive spending and domestic legal commitments cannot
rest on appropriation and ministerial preference alone.
A successful High Court challenge by a Parliament unwilling to authorise in public
what has been done without its knowledge, would affirm the principle of
responsible government, by ensuring that agreements of strategic and
constitutional significance are subject to prior Parliamentary approval and public
scrutiny. It would be a major reassertion of an independent Australian foreign
policy. It would no longer mortgage Australian treasure, Australian territory and
Australian lives to American strategic preferences without the Australian people
ever having been asked.
The constitutional challenge to AUKUS is not anti-American. It is pro-Australian. It
is a demand that decisions of this magnitude be made by the Parliament of
Australia, in public, with accountability to the people who would bear the
consequences.
Britain deepens nuclear ties with France and Australia
By George Allison, September 19, 2026, https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/britain-deepens-nuclear-ties-with-france-and-australia/
Britain is deepening its nuclear relationships with the United States, France and Australia, with the Northwood Declaration recognising that there is no extreme threat to Europe which would not prompt a response by both Britain and France, according to the annual update to Parliament published this week.
The declaration, agreed in July 2025, reaffirmed and strengthened what the update describes as longstanding nuclear cooperation between the two countries. On the AUKUS partnership, the update records an important development in February this year when HMS Anson docked at HMAS Stirling near Perth.
The United States is described as Britain’s closest defence ally, with the relationship underpinned by long-standing cooperation on all nuclear matters including policy, operations and technology.
The practical expression of that relationship runs through the missile system, since Trident and its supporting systems fitted to the Vanguard class are manufactured in the United States, with Britain having bought title to a number of missiles drawn from a shared pool of assets under the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement as amended for Trident in 1982. The system is operated independently by both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy.
The warhead fitted to those missiles is sovereign to Britain, with the Mk4A design maintained by AWE at Aldermaston, which also leads development of the replacement warhead, Astraea. Wes Streeting writes that the increase in investment across the enterprise “sends a clear signal of our commitment to global security, and to our Allies”, with the deterrent remaining declared to the defence of NATO.
The update states that nuclear deterrence is the cornerstone of NATO security and that the independent strategic nuclear forces of the United Kingdom contribute significantly to the overall security of the alliance, a declaration maintained since 1962.
UK Labour won’t order new nuclear submarines for Royal Navy until 2028, Wes Streeting admits
Labour won’t order new nuclear submarines for Royal Navy until 2028, Wes
Streeting admits. Labour will not order any new nuclear-powered submarines
until 2028 as concerns grow over delays to Britain’s naval expansion plans.
Sir Keir Starmer last year said Labour would decide how many submarines to
commission by the time its Defence Investment Plan was published. The
report was released on June 30. But the Government has now postponed its
commitment to buying submarines until 2028.
Daily Mail 13th Sept 2026,
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-16127723/labour-delays-nuclear-submarine-decision-2028.html
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange returned to X on Thursday, more than two years after his release from prison as the AI crisis dominates the headlines
By Joe Lauria, Consortium News, September 17, 2026, https://consortiumnews.com/2026/09/17/assange-returns-to-x-in-midst-of-ai-crisis/
Julian Assange returned to X on Thursday 25 months after being released from London’s Belmarsh Prison and eight and a half years since he last posted on the social media site.
“I’m back,” Assange posted at 9:02 a.m. EDT.
His return comes amidst an expanding crisis of Artificial Intelligence, which captains of the AI industry have warned in recent days is slipping out of control and endangering human society.
Assange has remained away from the public since his freedom in June 2024 recovering from his five-year prison ordeal, which was preceded by seven years of confinement in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
He made his first post-release public appearance in Strasbourg, France on Oct. 1, 2024 at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights to discuss his case and its implications for press freedom.
Assange next appeared at the head of a march of an estimated 300,000 people over the Sydney Harbour Bridge on Aug. 3, 2025 to protest Israel’s genocide in Gaza. At the end of July he attended a concert in Sydney in support of pianist Jayson Gillham after the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra cancelled his 2024 concert over comments he made about journalists killed in Gaza.
Assange’s technical expertise could put him in position to weigh in on the AI crisis. It is a non-partisan issue that lacks the controversy of comments on U.S. foreign policy.
OpenAI AI agents escaped testing environments this year and coordinated cyberattacks on other AI systems, revealing that humans were losing control. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called for slowing AI development so security measures can catch up, warning swarms could seize the internet within a year. OpenAI’s Sam Altman agreed development “should be slower,” and Elon Musk, who runs Grok AI, posted “Dario is right.”
Assange had not posted on Twitter, later X, since March 2018 when the Ecuador government, which hosted him in its London embassy, cut his internet access after he tweeted about Catalonia’s independence referendum.
After his June 2024 plea deal and release, Assange stayed off social media and his wife, Stella Assange, said publicly he wasn’t on any platforms and that accounts claiming to be his were fake.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette, the London Daily Mail and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times. He is the author of two books, A Political Odyssey, with Sen. Mike Gravel, foreword by Daniel Ellsberg; and How I Lost By Hillary Clinton, foreword by Julian Assange.
Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry- Deborah Torrens, Sovereign Bundjalung and Gumbaynggirr Woman.
100 Deborah Torrens,
“…….. I make this submission as an Australian citizen and as a First Nations woman who
believes decisions of national significance should be subject to genuine public
scrutiny, informed debate, and meaningful consultation.
The AUKUS agreement represents one of the largest and most consequential
commitments in Australia’s modern history. It will affect future generations
economically, strategically, politically, and socially. For that reason, Australians
deserve a thorough examination of the costs, risks, benefits, and alternatives
associated with the agreement.
Democratic Accountability and Public Scrutiny
One of the most concerning aspects of AUKUS is the limited public scrutiny that
accompanied its announcement and implementation.
Australians are being asked to support a commitment that extends across multiple
decades and involves expenditure measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Yet many Australians remain unaware of the full details, obligations, risks, and
strategic implications of the arrangement.
Sovereignty and Strategic Independence
A central question raised by AUKUS is whether it strengthens or weakens
Australia’s sovereign decision-making……………….
The more dependent Australia becomes upon foreign governments for essential
defence capabilities, the more important it becomes to examine the long-term
implications for national independence.
Cost and Opportunity Cost…………………………..
A nation with strong communities, strong infrastructure, secure food systems,
reliable energy systems, and effective healthcare is inherently more resilient than
one that focuses exclusively upon military solutions.
The inquiry should carefully examine whether alternative investments could
provide greater long-term benefits for Australia’s security and wellbeing.
Alternatives to AUKUS………………………….
The inquiry should consider whether alternatives were adequately assessed before
Australia committed itself to the current path.
First Nations Participation
As a First Nations woman, I am concerned that governments, frequently claim
consultation with Indigenous peoples by consulting organisations and corporations
while overlooking many Indigenous individuals, families, Elders, and traditional
community members.
Not all Indigenous people belong to corporations, prescribed bodies corporate,
land councils, or government-funded representative organisations.
Many Indigenous people living in towns, cities, regional communities, and on
Country have perspectives that are never heard in formal consultation processes.
Major national decisions should not assume that organisations speak for all
Indigenous peoples……………………………………………………..
Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry – Australia needs regional co-operation, not coercion -Erik D Nielsen .
Submission no.84, SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION TO THE PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO AUKUS
Subject: The Definition of “Stability” and Regional Perception
Context and Purpose
Following my initial submission regarding the lack of a coherent strategic vision for AUKUS, I wish to
provide a supplementary analysis specifically addressing the Inquiry’s scope question: “What are the
implications of AUKUS for regional peace and security?
The core issue lies in the definition of “stability”. While the Australian government frequently invokes
the need for a “stable Indo-Pacific,” recent foreign policy actions suggest a definition that diverges
significantly from the understanding held by Australia’s neighbors in ASEAN and the Pacific Islands.
The Gap Between Rhetoric and Action
The government’s stated vision of stability implies a region governed by international law,
cooperation, and mutual security. However, the government’s recent conduct in the Middle East
provides a contradictory signal:
Alignment in Gaza: Australia’s consistent diplomatic and material support for Israel during
the ongoing crisis in Gaza, despite widespread international condemnation and evidence of
severe humanitarian catastrophe, signals that Australia prioritizes alliance loyalty over
international humanitarian law.
Alignment with US Military Actions: Australia’s alignment with US military posturing and
operations in the region (including recent escalations involving Iran) reinforces the
perception that “stability” is synonymous with the projection of force by the US-led alliance.
The Regional Interpretation of “Stability”
When Australia calls for “stability” in the context of AUKUS, it is crucial to recognize how this message
is received by the nations of the Indo-Pacific.
Dominance vs. Cooperation: Given the government’s track record, neighboring nations are ikely to interpret Australia’s call for “stability” not as a desire for peace, but as a demand for
acquiescence to a US-dominated order.
The Coercive Nature of AUKUS: If “stability” means maintaining the status quo where the US
and its allies retain military supremacy, then AUKUS is not a defensive measure for Australia,
but a tool for enforcing that hierarchy.
Erosion of Trust: For Pacific Island nations and ASEAN members who have historically
advocated for nuclear-free zones and non-alignment, the combination of AUKUS and
Australia’s Middle East posture confirms that Australia is willing to sacrifice regional
sovereignty and international law to serve the strategic interests of Washington.
The Logical Conclusion
If the Australian government’s concept of stability is indeed based on dominance rather than
cooperation and adherence to international law, then:
- AUKUS is a destabilizing force: It introduces nuclear-capable assets into a region that has
explicitly rejected them, directly challenging the Treaty of Rarotonga and the aspirations of
the Global South. - The “Rules-Based Order” is a euphemism: It becomes clear that the “rules” being enforced
are those that benefit the dominant powers, not the collective security of the region. - Security is Illusory: A nation that bases its security on the coercion of others cannot expect
to be secure in the long term. It invites resistance, arms races, and diplomatic isolation.
Recommendation for the Inquiry
The Inquiry must not accept the government’s definition of “stability” at face value. It must explicitly
investigate:
How the government’s recent foreign policy actions in the
Middle East influence the
perception of Australia’s intentions in the Indo-Pacific. Whether the “stability” AUKUS promises is actually a mechanism for enforcing a specific
geopolitical hierarchy rather than fostering genuine regional peace.
How the Inquiry can account for the regional fear that AUKUS represents a shift from
cooperative security to coercive dominance.
Conclusion: Real security cannot be built on a foundation of selective adherence to international law
and the projection of force. If Australia’s vision of the future is one where “stability” means the
continuation of US hegemony and the suppression of dissent, then AUKUS is a commitment to a
future that the rest of the region rightly fears.
The Inquiry must ask: What kind of stability Australia wants to foster in the region and how has this
been supported by Australia’s recent actions in a way that our neighbors understand this in the
same way?
Cory Doctorow: AI’s big beasts aren’t really scared of their products. They’re scared of their competition
Once the government stipulates that “superintelligence risk” is an existential crisis, it must grant the hyperscalers a consent decree absolving them from any violations of antitrust law stemming from a conspiracy to halt direct competition with one another.
The US giants would love to stop battling each other and be protected from China – and they might have hit on just the narrative to make that possible, writes our tech columnist
Cory Doctorow, Sep 19, 2026, https://www.thenerve.news/p/cory-doctorow-ai-superintelligence-openai-anthropic-google-meta?utm_source=www.thenerve.news&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=the-trouble-with-steven-pinker-weekend-edition&_bhlid=908300191252e2da6f90f63419219331f1249af1
There’s lots of reasons to believe the “hyperscaler” model of AI can never be profitable. This business model pursued by OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta and others of spending billions on chips and data centres in the hope of recouping it through subscriptions is delusional because of its gigantic expenditures and negative unit economics (the companies lose money with every new customer and every new use, and they lose more money with each generation of their products).
The industry strenuously denies this, of course. They insist that they are only days away from turning their balance-sheets right side up. All they have to do is fix those unit economics, then they can make back the cost of producing their models by selling access to them. The problem is that the evidence for those improving unit economics is weak, while the evidence that they’re faking their finances is very strong.
Same goes for the claims that these companies are already profitable. Dig into those claims and you’ll learn they depend on a new, special meaning of “profitable” that does not match the generally accepted accounting procedures (GAAP) definition, which is to say, these companies are claiming that they are so cool that their profitability can only be measured using a novel, secret form of mathematics.
But let’s give the AI bosses a momentary benefit of the doubt and stipulate that they are on the verge of acquiring positive unit economics, which will let them start to pay off the massive expenditures they incurred by training their models and enter their long-anticipated profitability phase, when the money furnaces they’ve been running for years turn into money printers, to the delight of the investors who’ve supplied the vast bales of $100 bills the companies have been shovelling into their models’ coalboxes for years now.
Basically, they’re saying: “Sure, it cost us a lot to get these rails laid, but now that the railroad is complete we can start running carriages over them and make a profit.” Unfortunately (for bosses and investors), this proposition is every bit as dubious as their claims to improving unit economics.
To understand why, just look at what happened the last time Anthropic shipped a major Claude update. Virtually overnight, scores of OpenAI’s best customers stopped paying for ChatGPT and started paying for Claude. That’s because chatbots have very low switching costs: going from one chatbot to another costs almost nothing:
Everyone using AI knows this to be true. When I walked the floor at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas last year, I asked every AI-powered gadget maker: “What will you do if your chatbot provider jacks up their prices?” and to a one, they said: “No problem, we’ve designed this thing so that we can switch chatbots with the click of a mouse.”
That means that you can’t just “build the railroad and run the carriages over it”. The minute you finish your railroad, your rivals will announce that they’ve got a new, adjacent railroad that’s even faster than yours, and you will have to get to work laying another set of tracks to support even faster trains.
This is a disaster all around: the AI companies are locked in a Red Queen’s race, a fatal beggar-thy-neighbor doom-loop. The only way they could escape that trap is by signing a non-aggression pact among themselves promising not to compete any more. But there’s two giant problems with this: first, it is incredibly, fantastically illegal under antitrust law, because it represents a conspiracy among the dominant players to cease to compete with one another; and, second, it leaves the field open for the further development of Chinese “open weight” models that customers can run on their own modest, low-powered computers, which are presently lagging the US “frontier models” by a mere four months.
Freaking out about superintelligence is a canonical example of ‘criti-hype’, where critics repeat boosters’ claims but append ‘(and that’s bad)’ to them
Even if you don’t trust Chinese models, you can extract their training through a process called distillation and transfer them to models you do trust.
But what if there was a way for the AI companies to get government permission to violate antitrust law and cease to compete with one another, and secure a ban on the use of Chinese open weight models? Turns out, there is a way to call time on the Red Queen’s race: merely insist that you are on the verge of teaching so many words to the word-guessing program that it will wake up and devour us all, and call for a ban on “superintelligence”.
Once the government stipulates that “superintelligence risk” is an existential crisis, it must grant the hyperscalers a consent decree absolving them from any violations of antitrust law stemming from a conspiracy to halt direct competition with one another.
Freaking out about “superintelligence” is a canonical example of “criti-hype”, where critics repeat boosters’ claims but append “(and that’s bad)” to them.
Remember, the tech giants want to stop competing. Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai colluded to rig the ad market with a secret program called Jedi Blue. Every year, Google sends Apple a bribe of more than $20bn in exchange for Apple not entering the search market. And the biggest tech companies in the world had a secret “no poach” agreement where they illegally promised not to try to hire one another’s top engineers by offering them raises.
The only thing Peter Thiel hates more than the Antichrist (spoiler, he’s just talking about Greta Thunberg) is “wasteful competition”.
When an industry that is eating itself alive through hyperscaling demands that the government bless a conspiracy to halt competition and ban open-source alternatives, you should be suspicious. When that industry is pursuing a venture that has lost more money than any other venture in human history, you should be very suspicious, especially when its “rogue AI hacking” story turns out to be a story about how a hacking tool did exactly what it was designed to do.
Peter Thiel is right: AI is full of wasteful competition, but not because competition is a waste – rather, it’s because the companies are competing to convince people to use their expensive products for the cheapest applications.
Elon Musk’s SpaceX IPO is indirectly propped up by X engagement metrics generated by letting the world’s stupidest chuds produce mountains of child porn and images of Sonic the Hedgehog with giant boobs using Grok. That is indeed wasteful (and reprehensible).
That doesn’t mean we should allow the AI companies to get the government to bless their conspiracy in restraint of trade; rather, it militates for having the government investigate them for securities fraud, trafficking in child sex abuse material, election finance violations, and a long list of other crimes and misdemeanours.
This is an edited version of a post from pluralistic.net. It is published under a CC BY 4.0 creative commons licence
Cory Doctorow, who was born in Toronto and now lives in Los Angeles and London, is the Nerve’s tech columnist. His new book, The Reverse Centaur’s Guide to Life After AI, is published by Verso
Israel is a sick society: ‘They know the house they are bombing is full of children’
Signs of the Times, (SOTT), Xan Brooks, The Guardian, Sun, 13 Sep 2026
operators. NAZA‘s directors on their devastating film about Israeli intelligence
On a darkened rooftop in Tel Aviv, Israeli intelligence officers outline the details of their work. These men tell us how they helped develop an AI mapping tool that trawled for phone signals and recommended apartment buildings in Gaza to bomb. Indirectly, they admit, they are responsible for thousands of deaths, but they never spoke up because that wasn’t their place. “My role is technical,” says one. “I’m just a small cog,” says another.
NAZA – directed by the Israeli film-makers Rachel Szor and Yuval Abraham and produced by the Guardian – is a chilling documentary about a mass slaughter that was authorised at the highest levels of government. But it is also, primarily, about the process, the system, the little links in the killing chain. Szor and Abraham build their film around the accounts of 24 anonymised military and intelligence insiders. NAZA, we learn, is an acronym used by the intelligence service to indicate how many civilians it expects to die in an airstrike on Gaza. The Israel Defense Forces prefer to target Hamas terrorists in their homes at night – and if they live with their family, or in heavily populated neighbourhoods, too bad. At one point, a source claims, approval was given to kill 500 NAZA for one Hamas member.
I meet Szor and Abraham at the Venice film festival, where NAZA is competing for the Golden Lion award. The pair won an Oscar for their previous documentary, 2024’s No Other Land (co-directed with Basel Adra and Hamdan Ballal), which spotlighted Palestinian resistance in the occupied West Bank. “No Other Land documented horrible crimes,” Abraham says. “But at the same time it gave people … I don’t want to say hope, but some light to latch on to. It’s not a coincidence that this film is all in the dark. We are in a very dark place right now.”
The Gaza health ministry has reported more than 73,000 deaths in three years of Israeli bombardment, the vast majority of which have been civilian casualties. NAZA briefly shows us the rubble, grieving parents, dead children on the ground. Its main backdrop, though, is placid, normal Tel Aviv, just 44 miles to the north, where rush-hour traffic drifts dreamily on the street and the cinematheque is showing a Claude Lanzmann retrospective. Tellingly, the film was executive produced by Jonathan Glazer, the director of The Zone of Interest. Glazer, says Szor, supported the structure and creative approach she and Abraham had adopted, that fostered the sense of a home that sits next door to hell.
NAZA deliberately concerns itself with the system – the policy of mass surveillance, the industrial business of murder – more than the individual psychology of those involved. But presumably its sources must feel guilt and shame, otherwise they’d never have agreed to put their careers and liberty at risk.
Abraham is unconvinced. “Well, it depends which one,” he says. “
There are many motivations for an individual to speak. Some people talk because they feel the opposite of shame. They feel pride in their accomplishment and expertise. Remember that these people serve in sensitive units. They are not often asked what they do. So there is an attraction to [our] curiosity that drives them to speak up.”
The film uncovers a system that is fiendishly efficient.Its series of disconnects appears designed to distance the perpetrators from the crime. Many of these men work remotely from Tel Aviv. AI selects the target and a drone drops the bomb. Even the language feels purposely euphemistic and obfuscatory. NAZA translates as collateral damage, which in turn translates to human beings.
“Sure, it’s easier to kill people when you’re doing it on a screen,” Abraham says.
“There is some truth in that, I guess. But equally it should be said that intelligence officers know the most. They listen to the cellphones. They know the house they are bombing is full of children. They can hear babies crying. They still order another strike.”
What is the status of these men now? Some discuss their work in the past tense. Others don’t, which suggests that they might still be at work, overseeing airstrikes each night. Abraham won’t say; he’s mindful of protecting his sources. “But you can imagine. We are dealing with 24 people, so there is a whole variety of statuses.”
NAZA prompts obvious questions about the creatures of darkness we see on screen. But it prompts intriguing ones, too, about Szor and Abraham, a pair of dissident investigative journalists from the country’s middle class. In the furious, febrile climate of post-7 October Israel, their work is liable to make them pariahs, if not enemies of the state……………………………………………… https://www.sott.net/article/508377-Israel-is-a-sick-society-They-know-the-house-they-are-bombing-is-full-of-children
Submission to the AUKUS Public Inquiry -No 37. Louise Fowler-Smith- a Personal View
I’m a 5 th generation Australian woman and have never been more concerned
about my country of birth. There are many reasons for my concern but the topic at
hand is Aukus. From the outset I , amongst many other educated Australians,
could not believe that this country would accept the insanity of the deal of Aukus.
To spend hundreds of billions of Australian tax payers money on something that
ultimately will not help Australia nor Australian people is gobsmackingly stupid.
There is every likelihood that these submarines will not be delivered when
predicted- and worse- will cost a lot more than the sum approved. But beyond
that, why does Australia need these submarines? To fight China? China is not our
enemy. It is a major trading partner for Australia and if we were wise we would be
treating China respectfully and as a friend. Considering our relationship with the
USA – a country led by an insane despot- is completely broken why are we bowing
down to the USA? We are being conned by the USA and should stand up to them ,
as a sovereign nation.
I have visited China and I do not believe they want to invade
Australia. Why would they need to conduct such aggression towards us? The
aggressors of the world are the USA and Israel – not China. It is clear that the only
country that will benefit from this deal is the USA. Why are we funding their war
machine – especially after witnessing the illegal war they have started with Iran-
let alone all the other illegal and covert wars that the USA has waged against
countries across the planet for decades! This deal with the USA actually endangers
Australia and its people – rather than protecting us. It makes us complicit in the
illegal wars that the USA is so eager to wage. Beyond that we are bringing
dangerous nuclear waste onto our shores. If we really must spend money on
defense, there are many alternatives to the Aukus deal which would be much
cheaper and deliver submarines now rather than in many decades time.
This huge amount of money should be spent on Australians – not as a hand out to
America. It could support so much good in Australia – schools, hospitals, the
housing crisis and importantly- towards the climate change crisis! This is what’s
important to the Australian people.
This deal was introduced to Australia in secret , with no debate, by a despicable
and corrupt Liberal Prime Minister- Scott Morrison. There has been outrage at this
decision since the beginning so why is a Labour Government allowing this corrupt
folly to continue? I used to be a Labour voter- but not any more. They have lost my trust. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FFpew7tazm6KVf3oZRepvkR3x9oA8FDj/view
What Australia has spent so far
Five years into AUKUS, what do we have to show for it? We’ve measured progress on three key metrics
Thomas Corben and Esther Soulard, The Conversation, 15 Sept 26,
“. What Australia has spent so far.…………………………………………………………Australians are justified in wanting to know how much money their government has invested in AUKUS, and where it has gone.
When the Optimal Pathway was announced in 2023, the Albanese government costed it at 0.15% of GDP annually over the life of the program. This would amount to roughly A$268 billion to A$368 billion over three decades.
Since then, the A$368 billion figure has been widely cited by the media as the ultimate price tag.
Crucially, at the time, a third of this total – around A$122.9 billion – was set aside as contingency funding to absorb the delays and cost pressures that come with a 30-year program. In other words, it may not actually be spent.
Accurately tracking Australia’s overall spending to date is difficult. Since 2023, there has been a flurry of government statements announcing or promising funding to support various aspects of AUKUS over different time frames. These figures are scattered across portfolios, and are sometimes announced and then folded into the forward estimates of the federal budget. Some are projections, rather than down payments.
Both the Liberals and Greens have pressed the government to share updated costings for AUKUS. Budget papers do not offer an itemised account nor a consolidated overall figure for the program so far.
With no central database for AUKUS spending, we set out to build one.
We went through public announcements, portfolio budget statements, annual reports and strategy documents, and attempted to trace everything that’s been spent, announced, promised or projected.
What we’ve come up with hardly qualifies as a ledger. Still, it reveals three important things.
First, the bulk of the funding announced in Australia has gone to infrastructure, across three main sites:
- A$12 billion on the Henderson Defence Precinct, a shipbuilding and submarine maintenance hub on the west coast
- A$8 billion to expand HMAS Stirling so it can host US and UK submarines under SRF-West from 2027, and Australia’s own fleet of submarines from the early 2030s
- A$8.5 billion to the Osborne Nuclear-Powered Submarine Construction Yard, where Australia’s nuclear submarines will be built.
Second, Canberra is investing in the UK and US submarine industrial bases to support the delivery of the Virginia-class and future AUKUS-class submarines to Australia. This reflects the additional demand Australia’s submarines will put on production and maintenance capacity in both countries.
This has included US$2 billion (about A$2.8 billion) to the US in three instalments, with a further US$1 billion (A$1.4 billion) in instalments pledged over the next decade.
Canberra has also paid A$310 million to the UK for components needed to build nuclear submarines and has committed an additional £2.4 billion (about A$4.6 billion) over a decade to expand the UK’s submarine production capacity.
Third, AUKUS will consume a growing share of the Australian defence budget, even if the government follows through on its commitment to increase spending to 3% of GDP by 2033.
In 2023, the Parliamentary Budget Office projected annual AUKUS spending to be roughly A$2.2 billion per year over the program’s first four years, rising to more than A$8 billion annually for the next three decades. This means most of the spending is still to come.
There’s a long list of various capabilities required to meet Australia’s future defence requirements. If the Defence budget does not grow sufficiently and AUKUS eats into those programs, the overall investment in these capabilities could become lopsided.
2. A new submarine base in WA
Until the Virginia-class submarines arrive, we still need to make sure our near-term defence needs are being met. We also need to be ready for when our subs show up.
This is where Submarine Rotational Force-West comes in.
The first phase of the AUKUS program involves frequent visits by US and UK submarines to HMAS Stirling in Perth from next year. These subs won’t be formally based in Australia; they will rotate in and out.
But these aren’t mere pitstops. Australians are being trained in how to maintain the ships and handle their weapons. Some US submarines already have Australians serving onboard. These initiatives are helping to prepare Australia to maintain our own nuclear-powered submarines when they come online.
The US is also setting up local operations to provide services, logistics and operational support to these rotating submarines and their crews. This will be the only location outside US and UK territories in the Indo-Pacific where these subs can receive sophisticated maintenance support.
Crucially, these facilities will be beyond the range of most (though not all) of China’s growing missile capabilities…….
3. US submarine availability
Sceptics in both the US and Australia have expressed doubt about Washington’s willingness to sell at least three submarines to Australia beginning in the 2030s, given how much it relies on them and how long it takes to build them.
Indeed, the speed of US submarine production has been under particular scrutiny. The conventional wisdom is production needs to hit around 2.33 boats per year to meet both US and Australian requirements.
There are no consistent public records for the actual production rate, but the estimates are sobering.
New builds have averaged 1.1–1.3 submarines per year since the COVID pandemic, down from a high of 1.9 per year from 2016–19. US Navy leaders anticipate reaching two subs per year by 2032 – still short of the 2.33 goal.
Yet, production rates only tell part of the story. If Australia is supposed to receive in-service submarines from the US, understanding the state and size of the existing fleet is just as important.
In 2016, the US Navy declared it needed a force of 66 submarines to counter growing Chinese and Russian threats – up from a previous requirement of 48.
But since then, the US’ submarine fleet size has gradually declined, with older submarines retiring at a marginally higher rate than their modern replacements (the Virginia-class subs) have been introduced.
This reflects the difficulties Washington has had speeding up production, even with US$15 billion (about A$21 billion) in navy investments since 2018, contributions from the Australian government, and a growing number of Australian companies supporting US shipbuilding.
What’s more, since 2016, between 25–33% of the US submarine fleet has been undergoing maintenance, at significant financial and operational cost. For Australia, addressing that backlog will be as important as boosting US production rates.
Australia is already helping to ease these challenges with investments at Submarine Rotational Force-West and its own shipyards. If the AUKUS partners take full advantage of these developments, this could increase the number of boats available to the US Navy – and, by extension, to Australia.
So, while the US has a mountain to climb to boost sub production, that won’t be the only factor that determines the timeline for Australia’s AUKUS fleet………………………………………………………. https://theconversation.com/five-years-into-aukus-what-do-we-have-to-show-for-it-weve-measured-progress-on-three-key-metrics-289885?utm_campaign=the-daily-39531&utm_content=the-daily-39531_au%7C1%7C39531%7Cc3c55007&utm_medium=email&utm_source=braze&utm_term=whether+our+investments+to+date+are+worth+it
Wrong way. Australia’s expanding embrace of Israel
by Kellie Tranter | Sep 13, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/wrong-way-australias-expanding-embrace-of-israel/
Despite the ongoing illegal Israeli activities in Palestine, the Albanese government refuses to stop trading with a state credibly accused of genocide. Kellie Tranter of Declassified Australia.
The depth and breadth of Australia’s ongoing political and economic relationships with Israel and Israeli businesses can’t be viewed as anything but a deliberate and brazen disregard for our legal obligations under international law.
The Albanese government’s latest decision not to follow Britain’s lead and sanction products from occupied Palestine reveals an unwillingness to take any substantive steps to economically isolate the Jewish state.
In its Advisory Opinion of 19 July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) identified a range of obligations arising for states in dealings with Israel, including a duty of distinguishing between its own territory and the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT).
The ICJ said this included an obligation to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the OPT (or any part of it) which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory and to take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the OPT.
In his December 2024 legal opinion, Dr Ralph Wilde, Professor of International Law at University College London, confirmed that:
In his December 2024 legal opinion, Dr Ralph Wilde, Professor of International Law at University College London, confirmed that:
“The Israeli presence in the OPT is linked to the Israeli state, including its military, and the Israeli economy and society, including cultural, sporting and educational life, in a complex and multifaced manner so as to be factually and legally inextricable. In consequence, when it comes to the behaviour of third States, and the EU, and all other actors, in their relations with the Israeli state, including the Israeli military, the Israeli economy, and other Israeli actors, including Israeli companies, and universities, it is impossible, because of the way things operate, to meaningfully disaggregate relations that are, one way or another, connected to the Israeli presence in the OPT, and relations that are entirely free of such a connection…” [Emphasis added]
This is consistent with the original UK Foreign Office view that “it [is] impossible to distinguish between products emanating from illegal settlements and those from Israel. The UK officially regards all Israeli civilian settlements built on territories captured during the 1967 Six-Day War as illegal under international law.”
Never an objective player in Middle East politics, even the UK is prepared to respond to public pressure, and risk incurring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s inevitable wrath, by banning at least the import of products from illegal West Bank settlements.
Given the incredible turnout for the Harbour Bridge protest in Sydney in support of Palestine on 3 August 2025, any similar proposal by the Australian government would probably enjoy even greater public support here.
Australia embraces trade with Israel
As a proponent of and claimed adherent to international law, the Australian government would or at least should be well aware of its obligations under the ICJ Opinion, which are separate from and quite independent of its duties in relation to the genocide in Gaza, yet it repeatedly has done nothing beyond imposing personal sanctions on a few lawless ‘settlers’.
At the same time, it has repeatedly breached its obligations by participating in or encouraging activities that flagrantly breach them.
Examples abound, but perhaps the most extraordinarily egregious is that on 25 March 2025 the trade and commercial arm of the Israeli Embassy in Australia, TradeIL Australia – headquartered in Sydney but without a published street address – was permitted to
“call for Australian investment in Israeli war bonds.“
In its media release, ‘Strengthening Ties: Investing in Israel’s Bonds from Australia,’ TradeIL states:
The phrase “war bonds” conjures images of national unity and financial mobilization, reminiscent of the UK’s efforts during World War II. These instruments served a dual purpose: fuelling the war effort and allowing citizens to actively participate in their nation’s defence. Today, Israel’s increased issuance of government bonds to fund its ongoing conflict draws a clear parallel, albeit with a crucial distinction.
Like their historical counterparts, these Israeli bonds are fundamentally designed to finance the escalating costs of conflict. This includes substantial military expenditures, critical infrastructure repairs, and the broader financial burdens of a nation at war. However, unlike the WW2 models, which primarily targeted domestic populations, Israel is actively marketing its bonds on a global scale, seeking investment from international markets.
Beyond the immediate context of conflict financing, Israeli government bonds present a compelling proposition for investors seeking diversification and stability. In a climate of economic uncertainty, these bonds offer a potential alternative to term deposits, promising attractive yields, capital preservation, and a hedge against market volatility. Their consistent income streams can surpass domestic cash rates, acting as a defensive bulwark during downturns.
For Jewish Australian investors, incorporating these bonds into a portfolio can enhance diversification. By spreading investments across different currencies and economic cycles, reliance on a single market is reduced, bolstering overall resilience. Israeli bonds, with their solid credit ratings (A, A, Baa1), exemplify this potential, offering exposure to global markets while mitigating localised risks.’ [Emphasis added]
The Australian government has taken an equally appalling approach to attempts by Israelis to sell ‘homes’ on unlawfully occupied Palestinian land as reported in the The West Report by doing nothing to outlaw the acts of local groups pursuing these acts.
Turning to more conventional financial dealings, in November 2025 the Australia Israel Exchange (AUXiL) – an initiative of a group called CBD Chabad Sydney (which functions as a registered charity) – officially launched as ‘an open-sourced, collaborative marketplace where Australians and Israelis can meaningfully engage across investment, entrepreneurship, defence innovation, and R&D. [AUXiL aims] to become one of Sydney’s leading gateways into Israeli innovation and commercial partnership.’
Uni protests prevail at UTS
At the AUXiL launch, former Israeli Trade Commissioner Ohad Blumberg’s is reported as ‘underscoring AUXiL’s strong collaborative partnerships with the Israel Trade Commission and Technion Australia…a leading public research university located in Haifa, Israel’.
It is worth remembering that in June 2025 the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) cut ties with Technion – the Israeli Institute of Technology – after almost a year of consistent pressure, campaigning, and coordinated actions by students and staff.
UTS campaigners argued that, ‘Technion has been a core part of Israel’s military and weapons development since 1948. It is deeply enmeshed with the Israeli arms industry, contributing to the ongoing genocide in Gaza through helping Israeli weapons companies such as Elbit and Rafael develop military technology. Technion helped develop the remote controlled D9 bulldozers used to demolish Palestinian homes in the occupied territories.’
Also presenting at AUXiL’s official launch was Jonathan Hulaty, Senior Director at Elbit Systems Australia, a leading Israeli arms manufacturer, who ‘offered an inside look at both national and global achievements of Elbit’s Australian operations, providing rare insight into the technological and defence capabilities that define Israel’s contribution to global innovation.’
In February 2026, Ohad Blumberg, the same former Israeli Trade Commissioner, was interviewed in a SBS Hebrew podcast in which he highlighted that he was an Israeli diplomat who formed part of Israel’s Ministry of Economy and Industry, which manages the country’s economic policy, trade relations, industry growth, and labour regulations.
He said: “We promote Israeli businesses, technologies and commercial partnerships in the geographies where we are positioned and what we do in the day to day is we are actually the face of Israeli industry in Australia or in New Zealand, in my case, and we are actively promoting the Israeli technologies, founders and companies in order to enter the Australian market, engage more with the Australian corporate world and to attract investments into the Israeli economy…
“So think of us as business development managers of the entire Israeli technology economic ecosystem. So what we do on a daily basis, we scout for opportunities for the Israeli companies – they are our, if you want to call it, our customers – and we provide them with business opportunities and we can do that in very different ways…”
Israeli company surge in Australia
In response to a specific question about attitudes towards Israeli trade post October 7, 2023, Blumberg expressed very little concern:
Obviously October 7 was a turning point in terms of Israel in general and in the Israeli economy more broadly and it did affect our activity because in any conflict it’s not good for business, however, I would have to say we were able to navigate and adjust our activity to make it more appropriate in how we do things for example because we couldn’t take a lot of delegations from Australia to Israel, we put a focus on bringing more delegations from Israel to Australia and we have managed to do a lot of things virtually or to substitute things that were supposed to be physical in Israel to virtual activity.
We saw a surge of Israeli companies coming to tour around Australia and we assisted them with business introductions and with their meetings here and around Australia…. Obviously there were very, very minimal resentment, and I have to say minimal resentment, but the vast majority of interactions and introductions that were made were very, very much welcomed.
Blumberg made special mention of Israeli companies that are market leaders operating in Australia such as Netafim, Monday.com and SodaStream but also referred to
“more than 400 Israeli companies every year that are active in the Australian market.”
Netafim was specifically criticised in the 2025 report ‘From economy of occupation to economy of genocide’ by UN Special Rapporteur, Francesca Albanese:
“Netafim, a global leader in drip irrigation technology, now 80 per cent owned by the Mexican company Orbia Advance Corporation, has designed its agritech in concert with the expansion imperatives of Israel. While maintaining a global image of sustainability, Netafim technology has enabled intensive exploitation of water and land in the West Bank, further depleting Palestinian natural resources, while being refined through collaboration with Israeli military-technology firms.
I”n the Jordan Valley, Netafim-aided irrigation systems have facilitated Israeli crop expansion, while Palestinian farmers – denied water and with 93 per cent unirrigated land – are pushed out, unable to compete with Israeli production. Furthermore, such irrigation techniques threaten to exhaust the Jordan River and Dead Sea.
“Companies such as Netafim continue to manufacture food security for Israelis, while the food system to which they belong causes food insecurity – and even famine – for others. Netafim brands itself as a sustainable innovator, while perfecting age old techniques of colonial exploitation.”
Corporate links to oppression of Palestinians
Monday.com has been named by the BDS movement and others as being indirectly linked to the OPTs because it pays taxes that fund the Israeli Army (IDF), ultimately contributing directly to the occupation of Palestinian territories and ongoing instances of violence, discrimination, and oppression of the Palestinian people .
As to SodaStream, in November 2025 the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) wrote to four major UK-based suppliers alerting them to potential legal and regulatory exposure arising from its continued sale of its products linked to illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory, noting that:
“Until 2015, its principal manufacturing facility was located in Ma’ale Adumim, an illegal Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank. Following sustained international criticism, the company relocated operations to the Negev (Naqab) region inside Israel. However, multiple independent reports indicate that the current facility is situated adjacent to, and benefits from, the displacement of unrecognised Bedouin communities, whose homes have been demolished to make way for industrial expansion, including SodaStream’s plant.
“Palestinian workers at SodaStream factories have also highlighted exploitative labour practices, lack of religious accommodations and discriminatory treatment. Workers have been fired when raising these concerns.”
Genocide is no barrier to investment in Israel
In a July 2026 interview just prior to the conclusion of his four-year term as Israel’s Trade Commissioner, the same Ohad Blumberg confirmed that ‘bilateral trade between Israel and Australia now sits at $US1.9 billion – an eight per cent increase on the previous year and higher than pre-war 2022 levels.
Of the current figure, he revealed that about 87 per cent of that trade flows from Israeli exports to Australia and of that, some $US1.2 billion worth is in services, mostly in high-tech … Australia now ranks as the sixth-leading destination globally for Israeli tech companies….more than 150 Israeli companies now have local operations in Australia, describing it as an all-time peak, alongside the trade figure total itself.
Cyber security remains “by far” the largest area of activity and deal flows, followed by agTech, healthcare services and medTech…’ [Emphasis added]
He identified those as the next frontier in the trade relationship’s potential, while noting that Israel and Australia are both founding members of the Pax Silica treaty, aimed at streamlining the AI value chain, from critical minerals to data centres.
Pax Silica Declaration is a United States-led international partnership launched on December 12, 2025, to secure supply chains for artificial intelligence (AI), semiconductors, and critical minerals among allied nations.
The initiative was originally signed in Washington, D.C. by representatives from the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and Israel. It is an agreement [emphasis added] ‘to partner on building secure, prosperous and innovative global technology supply chains. Secure supply chains are critical to ensuring technological progress and economic security in Australia’s interests.’
The Australian government continues to grapple with the AI era, and putting aside questions of some partners’ trustworthiness, partnering with Israel at all on artificial intelligence (AI) and surveillance technologies creates severe legal and ethical risks under international law due to their widely reported deployment in military targeting and mass surveillance across the occupied Palestinian territories.
Little has changed since 7 October 2023 in reducing the business interest between Israel and Australia. For example, it’s currently being advertised that The Jerusalem Post Group’s Asia-Pacific Summit is set to take place in Sydney later in the year, to ‘convene senior business leaders, investors, entrepreneurs, policymakers, philanthropists, community leaders, and innovators from Australia, Israel, and the broader Asia-Pacific region for a high-level gathering focused on strengthening economic, strategic, and communal ties between Australia and Israel.’
The listed speakers include Lt Col (res) Jonathan Conricus, former IDF International Spokesperson, Ayelat Shaked, Israel’s former Minister of Justice (who was denied a visa by the Australian government in 2024), Jacob Nagel, former Israeli acting National Security Adviser, Admiral Michael S Rogers, Former Director of the US National Security Agency (NSA), Commander of US Cyber Command and Chief of the Central Security (and now a partner in Israeli venture capital group Team8 and advisory committee chairman for cyber unicorn Claroty).
It is astounding that all of this can be occurring on Australian soil when one considers Australia’s obligations under international law.
Global government responses
“Spain has taken a more principled stance.“
In September 2025, it enacted bans on imports of all products from illegal Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories, along with bans on defence materials and technologies.
In May, the Council of Ministers in the Netherlands agreed to ban the trade in goods from illegal Israeli settlements and is investigating whether a ban on services and investments is also possible.
In June, Norway put forward a proposal for a bill banning trade with Israeli settlements in Palestine which is now being circulated for general consultation.
In July, France warned companies that doing business in illegal Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory could expose them to being found responsible for violations of international law.
Also in July, Ireland – another European Union country – passed legislation banning the import of goods from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, following the 2024 International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion declaring Israeli settlements illegal under international law
The UK government has this week unveiled a ban on the trade of goods and some services from Israeli settlements in the West Bank after promising to take a tougher stance in support of Gaza. The decision also comes in response to plans in the occupied West Bank, in which Israel issued tenders for 1,200 homes as part of the E1 settlement project.
Is Australia doing anything?
Instead of legislating like Ireland or Spain, or even issuing guidelines like the UK or France, the Australian government is not openly doing anything to comply with its obligations under international law. In fact, as the representative illustrations above show, it is actively encouraging or tacitly facilitating behaviour that contravenes it.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Divesting from Illegal Israeli Settlements) Bill 2024 was introduced by Senator Lidia Thorpe (co-introduced with Senator Fatima Payman) in the Australian Senate on 28 November 2024 for the purpose of amending the Future Fund Act 2006 and other legislation to stop financial investments by Australia’s sovereign wealth fund and registered charities in companies operating within illegal Israeli settlements.
“The bill failed to proceed due to a lack of support from the major political parties.“
Declassified Australia wrote to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade asking it to confirm whether DFAT has issued any notices, advice or guidelines to Australian businesses following the findings of the International Court of Justice in 2024 about the illegal occupation of Palestinian land. If so, what was the advice or guidelines and when was it issued?
DFAT did not respond to our questions.
Israel funded the legal assault on Mary Kostakidis
by Stephanie Tran and Michael West | Sep 14, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/israel-funded-the-legal-assault-on-mary-kostakidis/
The Zionist Federation of Australia’s legal assault on Israel critic and journalist Mary Kostakidis was financed by the Israeli war machine via the World Zionist Organisation. Investigation by Stephanie Tran and Michael West.
The Zionist Federation of Australia’s chief executive Alon Cassuto has dropped his case against Mary Kostakidis. The ZFA is the Australian arm of the World Zionist Organisation. The World Zionist Organisation has a settlement division which is responsible for expanding illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem – in contravention of international law.
It also has extensive ties to United Israel Appeal (UIA) and Jewish National Fund (JNF), organisations which
“raise funds for the IDF and illegal settlements.“
The Zionist Federation of Australia, whose chief executive Alon Cassuto brought a racial discrimination case against former SBS journalist Mary Kostakidis, is financially dependent on the World Zionist Organization and Keren Hayesod for the majority of its revenue, according to the Federation’s latest financial report. Cassuto is paid by the ZFA which is in turn funded by the WZO.
The ZFA’s 2025 financial report, states that the organisation is “dependent on the funding from the World Zionist Organization and Keren Hayesod for the majority of its revenue used to operate the business”.
The ‘charity’ warchest
The report says the directors “have no reason to believe that the World Zionist Organisation and Keren Hayesod will not continue to support Zionist Federation of Australia Limited.”
The financial statements show that the ZFA received $3.44m in total revenue in 2025, compared with $3.61m the previous year. Of that 2025 total, $1.61m was recorded as revenue and a further $1.746m as subsidies. It is cashed up, with a war chest approaching $5m.
The report does not disclose the source of the subsidies nor does it identify the precise amount ZFA received from either Keren Hayesod or the World Zionist Organization during 2025.
The ZFA has declined to respond to questions as to whether it also received ‘security funding’ from ECAJ public grants.
The ZFA did not respond to questions about the precise amounts it received from the World Zionist Organization and Keren Hayesod, or whether any of that funding was connected to the organisation’s legal action against Kostakidis.
The ZFA describes itself as the peak body for Zionist organisations in Australia and represents more than 200 affiliated organisations.
The Federation also maintains an office in Israel. In 2025, the ZFA spent $190,189 on its Israel office.
The ZFA’s directors in 2025 included president Jeremy Leibler, treasurer Benjamin Simon, secretary Lauren Blecher, vice-presidents Paul Gould, Jeffery Lin, Ehud Hauben and Elyse Schachna, and immediate past president Danny Lamm.
The Federation’s principal activity, according to its directors, was to “uphold and foster the aim of Zionism”.
The ZFA is the Australian branch of the World Zionist Organization, which describes national Zionist federations as umbrella organisations for Zionist bodies in each country.
“The WZO has a direct role in Israeli settlement activity.“
According to reports by Israeli advocacy organisation Peace Now, the Israeli government “finances and operates the Settlement Division of the World Zionist Organization”.
Established in 1971, the Settlement Division of the WZO has enabled Israel to “establish and develop settlements far from the public eye, using controversial means, with full funding from the state and without any oversight or control.”
Ties to UIA and JNF
The ZFA’s constitution also commits the organisation to supporting the fundraising activities of the “National Funds”, defined as Keren Hayesod – United Israel Appeal and Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael – Jewish National Fund.
The constitution states that one of the Federation’s objects is “to support the fundraising activities of the National Funds”.
It also requires state Zionist councils to work with Keren Hayesod’s state directorates to ensure the “maximum success” of United Israel campaigns.
The constitution further states that, state Zionist councils must “stipulate that all its member Zionist Organisations commit their members to fulfilling their obligations towards the National Funds and stipulate that all members of its Executive shall have an obligation to take part in the work of the National Funds”
Investigations by MWM have found that United Israel Appeal and the Jewish National Fund are among a number of Australian charities that are raising tax-deductible funds for programs supporting the IDF and illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.
The Federation has also publicly rejected international legal findings that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
It described a UN commission of inquiry report alleging Israel committed genocide in Gaza as “a baseless and biased assault on truth and justice”, and rejected the ICJ’s advisory opinion as “politically driven” and “deeply flawed”.
1 This month
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
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
