News week to 19 Sept 26
News to 19 Sept 26
- Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry- Deborah Torrens, Sovereign Bundjalung and Gumbaynggirr Woman.
- Submission to AUKUS Public Inquiry – Australia needs regional co-operation, not coercion -Erik D Nielsen
- Submission to the AUKUS Public Inquiry -No 37. Louise Fowler-Smith- a Personal View
- Five years into AUKUS, what do we have to show for it? We’ve measured progress on three key metrics
- Wrong way- Australia’s expanding embrace of Israel
- Israel funded the legal assault on Mary Kostakidis
- Social cohesion, far-right astroturfers and the Royal Commission.
- Data centres have existed for decades -So why are they so controversial now?
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”.
BOOK REVIEW: The Reverse Centaur’s Guide to Life After AI by Cory Doctorow
An essential guide for anyone trying to navigate the confusion and noise of the current AI landscape. Is AI good? Is AI bad? Can’t it be both? It manages to be educational without sounding like a textbook and will leave you with a much clearer picture of where we are headed. And yes, you will understand the title of this book after reading it.
JJ Cooper, May 09, 2026
BOOK: The Reverse Centaur’s Guide to Life After AI by Cory Doctorow https://nerdynerdybookbook.substack.com/p/book-review-the-reverse-centaurs
SYNOPSIS:
“In modern tech parlance, a centaur is a person who is able to use technology to be a better, more productive version of themself. A reverse centaur is a person who is forced by technology to work at an inhuman pace—a driver made to deliver all day long, nonstop; a warehouse worker made to work without food or bathroom breaks; a programmer made to crank out impossible amounts of code.
The Reverse Centaur’s Guide to Life After AI is not another anti-AI screed. Cory Doctorow uses AI in his work every day. As a creative person, he has no moral or dogmatic issue with AI—he thinks the technology is useful, even exciting, and full of potential. And yet
AI has arrived surrounded by unprecedented hype driven by a tech industry desperate to maintain its unprecedented valuation based on its own promises of endless financial growth. Despite the fact that almost all of AI’s real-world implementations have proved underwhelming, AI is projected to be worth more than $16 trillion—a number that only makes sense if AI replaces vast swathes of the wage-earning human workforce. To justify that level of “value,” every story about AI must be presented as inevitable, world-changing disruption. Even the tales of the robot apocalypse are a calculated attempt to bolster the fearsome power of AI.”
💬 THE VIBE:
An accessible look at the reality of AI beyond the doomsday headlines.
STANDOUT ELEMENTS:
• It broke down complex technological concepts into a language that is easy for everyone to digest.
• Offered a balanced perspective from someone who actually uses the technology.
• Focused on the human cost and the economic motives behind the boom of AI.
🧠 WHAT STUCK:
This audiobook was perfect for someone who understands a little or a lot about AI. I consider myself about middle of the road regarding my understanding of the current capacity of AI, but after listening to this, it all made so much more sense. It didn’t speak over my head at all. It confirmed some suspicions I had regarding its uses, like gig worker pay, but it also taught me so much more.
One of the biggest takeaways for me was how all of our data is fed to the benefit of companies, and it never defaults to benefiting the consumers…ever. I also learned the crucial different between generative AI and AI that is truly helpful without requiring the human to be the one “helping” the tech. It was eye-opening and a great listen/read for anyone living in this digital age.
WHAT DIDN’T WORK FOR ME:
While I appreciated that it it a consumable length, the nerd in me would have loved more examples of its proper use and misuse.
IF YOU LIKE:
• Social commentary on technology and how it impacts the every day human.
• Books that give you a behind the scenes view of corporate hype.
IF YOU DON’T LIKE:
• Technical nonfiction.
• Knowing how technology can be used against you. Some would rather not know.
📝 FINAL VERDICT:
An essential guide for anyone trying to navigate the confusion and noise of the current AI landscape. Is AI good? Is AI bad? Can’t it be both? It manages to be educational without sounding like a textbook and will leave you with a much clearer picture of where we are headed. And yes, you will understand the title of this book after reading it.
Social cohesion, far-right astroturfers and the Royal Commission
Right-wing astroturfers were given a platform at the Bondi Royal Commission, their history concealed and their testimony uncontested. Wendy Bacon reveals what the Commissioners ignored.
by Wendy Bacon | Sep 16, 2026 , https://michaelwest.com.au/social-cohesion-far-right-astroturfers-and-the-royal-commission/
The last hearing block of the Royal Commission focused on social cohesion, defined as the “national consensus in support of democracy, freedom, and the rule of law”.
Counsel assisting Zelie Heger SC explained that the block would present “measures currently contributing to strengthening social cohesion” and “advancing the interests of all Australians” by promoting “respectful discussion of difficult issues”.
Amongst those chosen by Counsel Assisting were Roz Mendelle and Simonne Whine, co-directors of the Australian Cohesion Forum
The Australian Cohesion Forum
ACF is a national not-for-profit connecting communities across Australia. It claims to be apolitical,
“… we don’t advocate for parties, candidates, or geopolitical positions, and we don’t promote stances on international conflicts. However, we recognise that politics is often central to lived experience. Our focus is on how global events affect Australians here, and our programs create structured, safe spaces to discuss difficult topics with openness, respect, and healthy boundaries.”
In explaining how ACF came into being, Mendelle and Whine told the Commission that in the wake of Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7 2023, they had separately organised to support the Jewish community.
Marketing manager and Israeli citizen Roz Mendelle explained how she moved to Brisbane with her Australian wife Hava, who had ‘made Aliyah’ to Israel.
After October 7, Mendelle felt a
“wall of hate” from protests against Israel.“
She started organising pro-Israel events which were supported by Iranians and Hindus who supported Israel. She realised “this is the trick … these are the people that I need to expand relationships with.”
Meanwhile, Whine had founded a grassroots network in Melbourne called J-United to support the Jewish community.
Whine told the Commission that she kept hearing about Mendelle’s work, telling the Commission, “We want to fill a gap. And so we came up with the Australian Cohesion Forum.”
The ACF organises ‘Impact nets’, ‘coLabs’ and virtual storytelling through which they collect data from attendees to analyse how they can partner together in a “fully collaborative, agile” way.
“As long as “none of us endorses violence against another community, and we don’t wish the elimination of another community, we can work together, we can create beautiful things together,” Mendelle told the Commission.
None of the lawyers present or the Commissioner had any questions, and so Mendelle and Whine were excused.
Astroturfing campaignsThere is an easily identifiable gap in Mendelle and Whine’s evidence about how they came to work together, which in turn raises questions about how they were selected as witnesses who are said to be “advancing the interests of all Australians” by promoting “respectful discussion of difficult issues”.
Mendelle and Whine collaborated in well-funded political astroturfing campaigns in 2024 and 2025 aimed at defeating Greens and Teals. (Astroturfing is the practice of making a top-down political campaign look like a spontaneous grassroots movement.)
Deep Cut News, The Guardian and Australian Jewish News also reported on these campaigns.In March 2025, Whine and Mendelle appeared in a webinar staged by the far-right Australian Jewish Association, then led by David Adler, who was a founder of Advance Australia. Advance campaigned strongly against the 2023 Voice Referendum in terms that many saw as racist.
On this occasion, Mendelle and Whine gave a different version of how they came to work together.
Earlier still, in 2024 Mendelle and her wife Hava began the third party campaigning organisation the Queensland Jewish Collective (QJC). Their strategy was to defeat the Greens by recommending voters put them last on the ballot papers.
Asked how she developed her messaging, Mendelle explained that she chose
“what was screaming in her head”,
which was that the Greens support terror groups and are anti-semitic.”
It was that simple. Australia has no truth in political advertising laws, so it didn’t matter that the Greens completely rejected the allegations.QJC claimed credit for defeating Queensland Greens MP Amy McMahon in October 2024. They then set their sights on the Federal election and established a new third-party organisation called Minority Impact Coalition (MIC) to campaign in Queensland, NSW and Victoria. MIC describes itself as “minority and refugee lead grassroots advocacy“.
MIC and ACF operate from the same address in Apsley, Queensland. Roz Mendelle was an MIC director until January 2026.
J-United director Sharon Kuper later told the pro-Israel L’Chaim radio program that QJC were happy for J-United to replicate their messaging campaign that the Greens were “misinformed, dishonest, fostering hatred and harming social cohesion” and “disregard for human life.”Enter Advance Australia
When J-United needed funds to emulate the QJC campaign in the 2025 Victorian Prahran by-election, they reached out to Advance Australia. Kuper told the L’Chaim radio program that the Advance organisers said, “We’re happy to support you. What do you need? How about if we just support your whole campaign?”
Kuper described this as a “huge boost that they paid for our entire campaign… it took away the security concerns we had, with them endorsing and authorising our campaign.”
Advance went on to work with MIC and J-United on the Federal election under the brand name Put the Greens Last.
In the AJA webinar, Whine confirmed Kuper’s account of Advance providing assistance to J-United, describing it as a “fantastic, efficient, strategic and resource” which was “totally transparent. Very helpful…I think we’ve now built a really good relationship.”
The QJC’s Queensland campaign cost $30,000. Mendelle realised that they needed more funds for the Minority Impact Coalition’s Federal campaign from “people with slightly bigger means”. MIC sought help from Advance, who she found to be “absolutely honest, transparent, direct, and easy to deal with.”
ZIonist astroturfing organisations were not the only Zionists to embrace Advance. Jillian Segal’s husband John Roth donated $50,000 to Advance through a family foundation.
Any hint of this intense political campaigning was missing in Mendelle and Whine’s Royal Commission version of how they came to join forces in ACF.
Women’s International Zionist Organisation
In June, ACF featured in a plenary at the Women’s International Zionist Organisation (WIZO) Australia conference on the Gold Coast. WIZO works in partnership with the Israeli government to strengthen the resilience of Israeli society and raises funds for Israel.
The panel discussion “Cohesion in Action: Strength and Friendship featured Jewish, Iranian, Druze and Torres Strait Islander Australians”, Led by Roz Mendelle, the five speakers each expressed support for Israel.
Minority Impact Coalition
In introducing the Social Cohesion hearings at the RC, Senior Counsel Assisting Richard Lancaster SC explained that staff had already reviewed all submissions and that these informed the choice of witnesses. We can assume then that Counsel were aware of MIC’s 122-page submission.
The key contact for the MIC submission is Roz’s wife, Hava Mendelle, and the submission team includes Roz Mendelle, fellow ACF director Iranian Azin Naghibi, messianic Christian Zionist preacher and lawyer Warren Keir and extreme pro-Israel supporter Joshu Turier.
MIC’s recommendations to the Royal Commission are hard-line, in some cases going beyond Special Envoy Jillian Segal’s recommendations.
Far from showing respect for other Australians, MIC wants Australians who do not support Israel to be penalised and shut down.
According to MIC, accusing Israel of genocide is a “blood libel” sustained through “fabricated casualty figures and weaponised by elected officials, protest organisers and venue operators” to justify the exclusion of Jewish Australians.
“Anti-Zionism is antisemitism“
According to MIC, those who amplify anti-zionist narratives should face enforceable consequences including loss of funding. Institutional silence in the face of documented antisemitic conduct should be considered a failure of duty of care.
Elected officials who promote statements that do not meet the IHRA definition or who operate official Parliamentary events featuring such content are in breach of their duties and should be accountable.
The ABC and the Federal Court should both be investigated for antisemitism for accepting the existence of a ‘lobby’ that pushes pro-Israeli perspectives.
Duties of Counsel Assisting
Counsel assisting Royal Commissions play a key role in developing investigation strategies and ensuring evidence is presented impartially and in a way that does not obscure the truth.
Mendelle and Whine were introduced by Counsel Assisting Tamara Phillips whose manner throughout the Royal Commission has been empathetic.
In December 2023, Phillips was one of more than 450 lawyers who signed a letter which defended Israel and its military tactics against criticism by 1400 lawyers who had signed a letter calling for a ceasefire.
Mark Liebler of law firm Arnold Block Liebler, which represents Federal and State Zionist organisations at the Royal Commission, was a top signatory to the pro-Israeli letter.
All the material in this piece is on the public record. MWM alerted the Royal Commission to published material about their astroturfing activities shortly before Mendelle and Whine gave evidence.
Has the evidence changed?
MWM has been asking for the exhibit of Roz Mendelle for three weeks, and has been told that there are delays “to ensure accuracy is maintained, and legal sensitivities are addressed.” We have responded and asked
how an exhibit once tendered could be changed?
Commission lawyers are now summarising evidence and developing final arguments. The Commissioner alone will then make findings. Meanwhile, the Commission staff continues to hold meetings with selected individuals where no details are published.
In the name of ‘procedural fairness’, those who were called as witnesses will be given a chance to respond to final submissions of Counsel Assisting.
Not so the groups and unnamed but identifiable individuals in the pro-Palestinian movement whom witnesses have accused of antisemitism, including those who wanted to give evidence but were not invited.
For them, there is no right of reply.
Editor: this is Part One in Wendy Bacon’s series on the Royal Commission. In Part Two Advance Australia denies support for astroturfers. Where do they get their money?
Data centres have existed for decades. So why are they so controversial now?
The Conversation, September 14, 2026, Johanna Lim, Research Associate, Strategic Technologies, University of Sydney
Until recently, data centres attracted relatively little public attention. They were largely treated as invisible pieces of digital infrastructure: essential but rarely discussed outside technical and industry circles.
But over the past 12 months across Australia, data centres have become the subject of intense political debate, community opposition, planning disputes and parliamentary inquiries.
Questions are being raised about how much electricity and water they use, where they should be built, who should pay for the infrastructure needed to support them, and whether Australia benefits from their continued expansion.
These questions are feeding into government policy. Following Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s speech at the University of Sydney in July, a National Cabinet meeting in August reaffirmed plans to legislate nationally consistent mandatory standards for large data centres by early next year. These will include requirements around their energy, water and land use.
So how did a piece of digital infrastructure that once attracted relatively little public attention become such a prominent policy issue? Data centres themselves are not new. What has changed is their scale, purpose and the resources required to support their growth………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Australia currently has over 160 operational data centres, with most located in New South Wales and Victoria. There are at least another 90 facilities in the development pipeline.
The data centres now being proposed are also considerably larger than many existing data centres.
Data centres in Australia
A non-exhaustive list of 283 data centres in Australia. Many do not publicly declare their power capacity nor their intended use – not all data centres are used for AI. [MAP HERE on original]……………………….
Data centres in Melbourne
There are at least 58 data centres online or in development in the Melbourne area. Points sized by capacity, the largest being the proposed 2.4GW Plumpton Data Centre. [MAP HERE on original]………………..
Data centres in Sydney
There are at least 82 data centres online or in development in the Sydney area. Points sized by capacity, the largest being the 1.2GW Kemps Creek data centre. [MAP HERE on original]…….. For example, the proposed 1.2 gigawatt Mamre Road Data Centre in Sydney would cover an area equivalent to the size of 52 rugby fields.
If built to its maximum capacity, it would become Australia’s largest single electricity user.
Why AI is driving bigger data centres
Hyperscale data centres typically contain at least 5,000 servers, occupy at least 10,000 square feet of physical space, and can draw over 100 megawatts of power. That’s enough to meet the annual electricity needs of more than 50,000 households.
In 2025, hyperscale operators accounted for 48% of global data centre capacity.
Cloud computing and the growth of everyday digital activity initially drove the expansion of these large, centralised facilities. But since OpenAI launched ChatGPT in late 2022, AI has rapidly accelerated this growth.
AI workloads are far more computationally intensive than traditional digital services. They are expected to account for approximately 70% of data centre demand by 2030.
Training advanced AI models requires dense arrangements of specialised chips working simultaneously to process large volumes of data. This can run continuously for weeks or months.
Once trained, AI models also require computing power to respond to users. This process is known as inference. While a single interaction requires considerably less computing power than training a model, that demand adds up across millions of users………………………………….
What comes next for Australia?
The growth of Australia’s data centre market is unlikely to slow anytime soon.
Australia remains a competitive destination for data centre investment, with strong government support, continued interest from major technology companies and an estimated A$150 billion in data centre buildouts by 2030.
But community opposition is emerging as a significant risk for new developments. This opposition is, in part, because of the land, power and water data centres consume.
But it’s also because there is uncertainty over whether the significant investment in AI infrastructure will truly generate sufficient economic returns – and who will benefit from those returns.
The future growth of Australia’s data centre sector may therefore depend less on whether there is demand or capital to build them, and more on where they can be built, who bears the costs, and whether communities benefit from hosting them. https://theconversation.com/data-centres-have-existed-for-decades-so-why-are-they-so-controversial-now-290253?utm_campaign=the-daily-39522&utm_content=the-daily-39522_au%7C1%7C39522%7C1888424b&utm_medium=email&utm_source=braze&utm_term=explaining+why+we%E2%80%99re+all+talking+about+data+centres+now%2C+and+what+they%E2%80%99re+actually+for
UK Labour delays ordering new attack submarines
Government accused of ‘kicking the can’ after putting off decision on building subs to 2028
Telegraph Pieter Snepvangers Political Reporter. Tony Diver Political Editor, 2 September 2026
Labour has delayed ordering new attack submarines until 2028, The Telegraph
can reveal. Sir Keir Starmer pledged last year to build “up to 12”
nuclear-powered submarines. He said Labour would decide how many vessels to
commission by the time its defence investment plan (DIP) was published.
Despite finally releasing the delayed DIP in June, the Government has
deferred its deadline for committing to buying the subs until 2028, The
Telegraph has learnt. Wes Streeting, the Defence Secretary, wrote to James
Cartlidge, his Conservative shadow: “The DIP clearly sets out our
intention to buy up to 12 SSN-A submarines, but a decision on exact hull
numbers does not need to be taken at this stage. “The programme is
currently midway through its design phase and we anticipate that the number
of submarines will be confirmed before the end of this phase in 2028.”………………………………………………….
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/09/12/labour-delays-buying-new-attack-submarines/
AUKUS — controversial, secretive but given a bipartisan blank cheque
By Dave Sweeney | 12 September 2026, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/aukus–controversial-secretive-but-given-a-bipartisan-blank-cheque,21546
This week marks the fifth anniversary of the AUKUS announcement, a $368 billion defence project shrouded in secrecy with major party bipartisan support that fundamentally changed the Australian political landscape, writes Dave Sweeney.
FIVE YEARS AGO THIS WEEK, the Australian political landscape fundamentally changed when then Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced on September 15 2021, that our nation would join a defence pact with the U.S. and the UK based around the acquisition of nuclear submarines.
The decision was made without scrutiny, consultation, evidence or any Parliamentary process or review.
It was an idea conceived in secrecy and delivered in a highly politicised context, with then Labor Opposition leader Anthony Albanese given negligible time or information before positioning to avoid being wedged and portrayed as “soft” on national security ahead of the looming federal election.
Without clear detail, analysis, or consultation, the Labor leadership signed off on the deeply flawed plan, and since then a short-term political tactic has set the path for a long-term national error.
The years since have seen federal Labor inexplicably defend and extend AUKUS despite growing concerns and multiple opportunities to take an exit ramp.
State premiers in the frontline states of SA and WA have become project promoters, with talk of Class A predators and triple AAA economic ratings, while many trade unions have been seduced or enmeshed with the promise of union jobs.
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) have been granted special powers and the Canberra song sheet is tightly scripted and enjoys bipartisan major party support
The intervening years since have also seen profound political changes here and with our AUKUS partners. The U.S. in particular has become increasingly unreliable and petulant.
The U.S. has also become increasingly enmeshed in Australian military positioning, with a recent Guardian report highlighting unfettered access to over 50 per cent of Australia’s military bases.
Of particular concern to many is the fact that Australia currently accepts America’s policy of nuclear ambiguity or “don’t ask, don’t tell” in relation to the presence of nuclear weapons.
The American B-52 bombers now based at RAAF Tindal near Katherine in the Northern Territory and Virginia-class submarines set to become a regular presence at HMAS Stirling near Fremantle have the potential to carry nuclear weapons.
There is currently no policy or legal protection for Australia against our nuclear-armed AUKUS partners bringing nuclear arms to our skies or seas.
Federal Labor has a national platform commitment to sign the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and this is urgently needed to provide clear guardrails and a red line against our nation drifting towards being either a nuclear weapons enabler or target.
To date, Federal Labor has proven far more adept at managing AUKUS perceptions and protest than in managing the AUKUS program.
There are growing concerns over whether submarines will ever arrive and over the capacity of U.S. and UK shipbuilding yards. These are amplified by wider concerns including spiralling costs and the government’s continued refusal to detail either plans or processes around weapons-grade radioactive waste management.
And it’s not just the usual suspects — many military hawks are questioning the literal bang for the buck or surge in autonomous weapons while fiscal conservatives are aghast at the lack of scrutiny, constraint and the poor track record of Defence in delivering major projects.
Ahead of the July ALP national conference in Adelaide, which was masterfully curated to hide AUKUS concerns, the internal advocacy group Labor against War was joined by over one hundred Labor branches in a call to scrap AUKUS.
In the absence of a Parliamentary inquiry into the plan, a citizen-crowdfunded public inquiry headed by former Labor minister and Midnight Oil frontman Peter Garrett has toured the country, taking hundreds of submissions and detailed evidence and is due to make recommendations and findings later this year.
Pacific Civil Society Groups have joined their Australian partners and allies, with over 170 formally endorsing a new civil society Declaration against nuclear weapons in Australia.
At the moment, these concerns are a slow burn compared to the fast rate of AUKUS, but the planning problems are growing and there is only so far that political spin can cover deep structural flaws.
Against a backdrop of cost-of-living pressure and escalating global tensions, more Australians are asking why this controversial and secretive process is being given a blank public-dollars cheque.
The concerns and questions are likely to grow — and as Australians know, a change in the wind can see a slow burn quickly turn into a firestorm.
Yesterday in Melbourne, a packed house gathered at the MCG to watch two American NFL clubs, but there was no such media attention or scrutiny of the wider American game.
Not all touchdowns are cause for celebration and when it comes to nuclear weapons, Australians have both the right to know and to say no.
First nuclear-capable B-52s deploy to Australia
By Bill Gertz – The Washington Times – Thursday, September 10, 2026
A task force of nuclear-capable B-52 bombers has deployed for the first time to Australia in a show of regional force located to the south of China.
The bombers arrived last week at an upgraded Royal Australian Air Force Base Tindal. Local reports called it a new era in Australia’s military alliance with the U.S.
A Pacific Air Forces spokesman confirmed to Inside the Ring that the bomber task force is underway Down Under………….
The exact number of the strategic bombers from the 2nd Bomber Wing at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, was not disclosed. Most task forces include up to six B-52s.
An Air Force photo of the deployment stated in a caption that the bombers arrived Sept. 1. “Operating from RAAF Base Tindal marks our ability to project, sustain, and regenerate decisive airpower across an expanding extended network,” the caption stated.
The long-range bombers can deliver nuclear bombs or conventional precision-guided weapons.
The Tindal base has been upgraded with new hangars and ramps for the bombers. It is located in northern Australia about 200 miles south of the northernmost coastal city of Darwin and about 2,000 miles from the tense South China Sea.
The base also hosts Australian F-35 stealth jets and MQ-4C Triton surveillance drones.
Currently, U.S. Marines are based in Darwin and a submarine rotational force was set up near Perth, with about 1,000 Navy personnel set to deploy in support of Virginia-class submarine deployment. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/sep/10/first-nuclear-capable-b-52s-deploy-australia/
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
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
Antinuclear 