News week to 19 Sept 26
News to 19 Sept 26
- 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?
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/
US turning Australia into military base
“Over more than a decade, the United States has been preparing the capacity for high-tempo warfighting operations with China, springboarding from Australia. From a Chinese perspective, Australia is not so much hosting US bases on its territory, it’s a US base in its own right… Australia is a serious piece of real estate in the US warfighting machine.”
Wed, 09 Sep 2026 , https://www.sott.net/article/508329-US-turning-Australia-into-military-base-Guardian
USA • Australia military eventThe US is turning Australia into a forward base for potential military operations in the Pacific, with American forces and defense contractors controlling or having access to roughly two-thirds of the country’s military facilities,The Guardian reported on Sunday.
Citing data compiled by the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainability, the newspaper identified 110 facilities across Australia with some form of US military or corporate presence out of 168 surveyed.
The US military directly controls 17 facilities, including the Pine Gap intelligence complex in central Australia, which plays a major role in US surveillance and military operations. The facility tracks missile launches, intercepts communications and provides targeting information for American forces around the world.
Other installations include a naval communications station in Western Australia used to communicate with submerged US submarines and RAAF Base Tindal in the north, which is being expanded to accommodate nuclear-capableB-52 Stratofortress bombers.
The Guardian wrote:
“These aircraft are able to land on Australian soil carrying nuclear weapons. The US government won’t tell Australia if and when they are. The Australian government won’t ask.”
Beyond the facilities it directly controls, the US military has access to dozens of Australian installations, while American defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, operate at others. According to the Nautilus data, 41 of the 168 facilities surveyed have no significant US presence, while the status of another 17 remains unresolved.
The American footprint is also expanding. In June, AFP reported that the US was preparing to establish a permanent stockpile of battle-ready weapons, ammunition, and equipment for the Marine Corps in Australia, with the facility expected to reach full capacity by 2028.
An honorary professorial fellow at the University of Melbourne, Richard Tanter, the author of the Nautilus database, told The Guardian:
“Over more than a decade, the United States has been preparing the capacity for high-tempo warfighting operations with China, springboarding from Australia. From a Chinese perspective, Australia is not so much hosting US bases on its territory, it’s a US base in its own right… Australia is a serious piece of real estate in the US warfighting machine.”
Canberra maintains that the growing American presence strengthens Australia’s security.Defense Minister Richard Marles said in June that the expanding US footprint was important both for building the country’s military capabilities and for its national security.
Marles also argued that the US presence helped counter what he described as China’s “very significant military buildup” in the region.
Former Australian Defense Minister Christopher Pyne has similarly said the 2021 AUKUS pact between Australia, the US, and UK goes beyond Canberra’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines. He described the arrangement as establishing “a new United States submarine base in the Indian Ocean” that would provide Washington with a “massive strategic advantage.”
Tanter criticized Canberra’s approach, calling it:
“A massive institutional failure in Australia, a kind of learned incapacity at a political, parliamentary and bureaucratic level.”
Comment: Tanter is right: Trust and comfort never convey the total picture, nor be they the appropriate guardians of sovereign control.
Skidding Pacts: An AUKUS Delusion Update
9 September 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/skidding-pacts-an-aukus-delusion-update/
In the unpardonable ecosystem of graft, favours and corruption that is defence contracting, defence conferencing and all matters tanking over the thinking – in short, the world of defence – the convenient delusion will always have truck over the inconvenient empirical. Phantoms are elevated and celebrated; bogeymen are treasured by the entire security apparatus that links obeisant academics, overpaid consultants and waxwork politicians. Budgets of criminally unaccountable proportions are approved, not least because the fictional threat is so impressive as to scare the living daylights out of an imbecilic political class.
Even as the Australian public inquiry into the tripartite security pact with the United States and the United Kingdom known as AUKUS rumbles along, the devotees of delusion continue to be busy in Canberra and beyond. For them, defence is not a reality so much as a style: the need to be seen on the circuit, the necessity of keeping the wheels of alliances greased. The Australian establishment hankers to be clubbable, and that club is known as the Anglosphere. On September 2, Michael Pezzullo, a figure disgraced by his conduct when Secretary of the Home Affairs Department, took the stage as sage and pontificator before that very same inquiry. In addressing its members, he was convinced about the Chinese threat. “It’s an aggressive and assertive combination of Marxist-Leninist politics, Chinese nationalism, and aggressive positioning in Asia, that is as terrifying to Japan and the Philippines and other countries in Asia as it should be to us.”
The following comments, published in the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s outlet The Strategist, are even less guarded and worthy of mention. While the publication claims them to be an edited version of Pezzullo’s address, those edits were made with some muscle. In essence, “Australia would favour fighting an offensive campaign, without having to call on the combat forces of the United States or anyone else.” Expressed like a true hardboiled warmonger. Given its limitations, Pezzullo suggests that Australia would find itself going on the defensive “until allied help arrived, until the United States prevailed to the point where it could dictate terms or until conflict was contained in an uneasy truce that arrested a slide into the nuclear abyss of planetary destruction.”
After this febrile nonsense, the sort that makes Tom Clancy’s unspeakable prose passable, Pezzullo hits his stride. Previous submarine plans were not pursued. He has pleasant words for the Rudd government’s 2009 submarine plan that never eventuated, largely because this mirror-gazing bureaucrat was, at the time, deputy secretary of defence. But never mind. “The AUKUS program puts us back on track.” As with so much writing on defence strategy, the language resembles that of a narcotics addict awaiting that cathartic hit: the gift is just around the corner, even if that corner is excruciating in distance. “Acquiring submarines of the US Virginia class and then the Anglo-Australian SSN-AUKUS class – or if the latter fails, joining the USN SSN-X program – will give us a pathway to undersea warfare dominance.” This is playground posturing at its worst.
The logistics of acquiring these needless hulks is not explained, because their relevance is assumed. Pezzullo is a self-styled Ur-warrior, drinking from ancient wells of numbing power. “More crucially, by integrating our submarine industrial and technology base with those of the United States and Britain, we will forge an exclusive club of undersea dominance.” It would be far more accurate to recast dominance as subservience, with the Australian taxpayer providing enormous sums to the submarine industrial bases of both the US and the UK without any enforceable undertaking of returns.
It is worth noting that Pezzullo’s appearances in the media as a specialist – a term so stretched as to have lost meaning – are never qualified by the spoiling conduct that demonstrated his inadequacy as a fair-minded public servant giving advice on the issues of the day. It would be good for audiences to know that one of Australia’s formerly most powerful bureaucrats was a meddlesome sot crazed by visions of war and a shaky grasp of history, not least the US-Australian relationship. He was sacked in November 2023 after revelations that he had used WhatsApp to communicate at length with former New South Wales Liberal Party deputy director Scott Briggs, offering gobbets of advice on party room politics. Frank views about various cabinet ministers were also offered, hardly in keeping with the best traditions of a supposedly uncorrupted public service. An inquiry into Pezzullo’s conduct, a redacted version of which was obtained under Freedom of Information in April, identified 14 breaches of the government code of conduct. Instead, we find his biography on the United States Studies Centre website making no mention of his reputational soiling. “He is now retired, after almost 37 years of service, principally in the areas of defence, national security, immigration, and border protection.”
While Pezzullo was making his interventions in the AUKUS debate, the toadying Defence Minister Richard Marles, whose significance in the AUKUS relationship never rises above that of implausible water carrier, made a journey to the United Kingdom to catch up with the unnervingly chilly Wes Streeting. While Australia’s politicians delude themselves about American submarines they will never receive in the form of their choosing, if at all, the UK side of the bargain, which envisages the construction of the SSN-AUKUS, is even more dubious. In terms of boat production, the British submarine base has proven even tardier than their US counterparts. Sharp reservations have also been expressed about the nuclear reactor core project of the SSN-AUKUS, notably by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA), incarnated as the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA). IPA’s report released at the start of 2025 is grave on the subject: “Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable.” It identified“major issues with project definition, schedule, budget, quality and/or benefits delivery, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability assessed.”
The British proved keen to assure the press – and a credulous Marles – that AUKUS had continued standing and vitality. “AUKUS,” according to Streeting, “says to our adversaries that if you attack one of us, you are challenging a coalition that is willing to stand together to defend the values we cherish and to fight alongside one another.” With little by way of justification, Streeting went so far as to suggest that AUKUS was “global” in nature, able to deliver submarines “which can be deployed everywhere from the Euro-Atlantic to the Mediterranean to the Indo-Pacific.” (Australian personnel, take note.) The US ambassador to the UK, Warren Stephens, was also keen to chant the mantra. “We should be under no illusion,” he stated, “that there are many who do not want this partnership to succeed. It’s not a secret.”
What is also not a secret is that the pact is skidding. The defence establishment operates a permanent, around the clock rinsing facility for the sketchy and mediocre, fostering a tribalism by seeking enemies that, at best, resemble fantasy woodland creatures. On this occasion, the fictional enemy is set to be confronted by fictional nuclear-powered submarines – at enormous cost. Australia, in its remarkable fortune of location and creation, has every reason to be the congenial middleman of international relations, the sage of diplomatic partiality and cool arbitration. Instead, it has opted for the role of Freudian paralytic and emotional cripple, drunk on the terror of abandonment and keen, therefore, to be client, vassal and a sort of wretched facsimile of Jeeves. If only its representatives were as capable.
Submission re AUKUS. Undemocratic decision, strategically flawed, fiscal madness – Anonymous
24. Anonymous
Submission to the AUKUS Public Inquiry
Executive Summary
This submission argues that the AUKUS agreement, announced in 2021 without
public consultation or a parliamentary vote, is a strategically flawed, fiscally
catastrophic, and democratically illegitimate proposal. The planned acquisition of
up to eight nuclear-powered submarines at an estimated cost of $368 billion over
30 years is not a defence strategy but an act of imperial subordination. It will not
secure Australia; it will make Australia a permanent forward target in a
great-power conflict that does not serve its people’s interests.
I call for an immediate moratorium, a reallocation of the vast majority of the
proposed funds towards genuine human and ecological security, and a complete
reorientation towards defensive, transparent, and regionally cooperative defence
postures.
The Democratic Deficit: A Backroom Pact Without a People’s Mandate. The most damning fact about AUKUS is not merely its cost or its nuclear risk, but
its origin. It was announced as a fait accompli—a secretive pact between three
heads of government, bypassing Parliament, the press, and the public. In what
functional democracy does a $368 billion commitment spanning three decades
occur without a single national debate?
I submit that the Inquiry must state plainly: the process itself is a failure of
sovereignty. A decision that binds every Australian, every First Nations person,
and every future generation must be subjected to a parliamentary vote and, given
the nuclear dimension, a national referendum. The absence of either is a stain on
Australian governance.
The Fiscal Madness: $368 Billion as a Monument to Misallocated Sacrifice
Let us be mathematically precise. $368 billion over 30 years is approximately
$12.3 billion per year. That is not a rounding error in the defence budget; it is the
annual equivalent of Australia’s entire higher education funding, or roughly double
the annual expenditure on the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), or the
full cost of transitioning the national electricity grid to 100 per cent renewable
energy with storage.
The advocates of AUKUS speak of “value for money”. But value for whom? The
primary beneficiaries are foreign corporations: General Dynamics Electric Boat
(United States), BAE Systems (United Kingdom), and Lockheed Martin (United
States). Australian taxpayers will pay, Australian workers will build
foreign-designed components, and Australian ports will host foreign-controlled
nuclear material. When cost overruns occur—and they will, as every major military
procurement programme in history has shown—the Australian Treasury will absorb
the blow while corporate profits remain protected.
I am told this is a matter of national security. Yet history teaches that the phrase
“national security” is often used to shield decisions that cannot survive public
scrutiny. Strategic decisions affecting the fate of millions should not be made in
secret by a handful of political leaders. The American and British leaders who
signed AUKUS knew that if they went to the Australian people and said, “We are
cancelling hospitals and housing to buy American-made submarines powered by
foreign-owned nuclear reactors”, the answer would have been a resounding no. So
they did not ask.
Consider the opportunity cost. With $12 billion annually, Australia could:
Build 50,000 units of public housing each year, eliminating homelessness within a
decade.
Fund free public university education for every Australian student.
Establish a Pacific Climate Resilience Fund that would make Australia the
undisputed leader in regional cooperation rather than a gunboat power.
Develop a world-class, land-based air and missile defence network using
conventional, unmanned, and distributed systems—far more survivable than eight
large nuclear submarines.
In my view, the AUKUS submarines are not a defence investment; they are a fiscal
black hole dressed in naval uniform.
The Nuclear Gambit: A Covenant with Catastrophe
Nuclear propulsion is not like diesel propulsion. It is a technology that carries a
half-life measured in millennia, and Australia has no civilian nuclear power
industry, no nuclear waste storage facility, no deep geological repository, and no
public consensus on hosting radioactive materials.
Where will the spent nuclear fuel be stored? The United States and United
Kingdom have explicitly refused to take back Australian waste under current
arrangements. That means high-level radioactive waste will remain on Australian
soil—probably near coastal bases, probably on or near Indigenous land, and
probably for a period longer than the entire history of European settlement on this
continent. The Northern Territory, South Australia, and Western Australia have all
fought against proposed facilities for low-level waste. Now Australians are expected to accept a permanent high-level waste stream without a single
community agreeing to host it.
And what of the operational risks? A nuclear submarine fire in dock—as occurred
on HMS Superb in 2011 and USS Miami in 2012—could release radioactive
particles over a major Australian city. A collision underwater, a grounding in the
Great Barrier Reef, or a reactor coolant leak in the Tasman Sea: each scenario
represents a potential environmental and humanitarian disaster. I submit that the
Inquiry must demand full liability disclosure. Who pays for a nuclear accident in
Sydney Harbour? At present, the answer is simple: nobody knows.
The non-proliferation argument is equally hollow. For decades, Australia has
lectured the world on the importance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Now it is importing weapons-grade uranium, or highly enriched fuel, aboard
foreign warships operating from Australian ports. Our neighbours in the
Pacific—who still bear the scars of French, British, and American nuclear
testing—watch with alarm. In my view, AUKUS does not strengthen the
non-proliferation regime; it undermines Australia’s moral authority to speak
against nuclear proliferation elsewhere. it undermines Australia’s moral authority to speak
against nuclear proliferation elsewhere.
The Strategic Illusion: Buying Vulnerability, Not Security The strategic rationale for AUKUS rests on a single claim: that nuclear-powered submarines are essential to counter China’s growing naval power in the
Indo-Pacific. I believe this claim fails on three grounds: geography, doctrine, and
escalation.
Geography Australia’s strategic interest lies in its immediate neighbourhood—the archipelagos
of South-East Asia, the South Pacific, and the eastern Indian Ocean. Nuclear
submarines are blue-water platforms designed for global power projection, not
littoral defence. The chokepoints through which Australian submarines would need
to transit—the Lombok Strait, the Ombai Strait, and the Torres Strait—are readily
monitored by undersea sensors. In wartime, those chokepoints become killing
zones.
A cheaper, more survivable alternative exists: a fleet of smaller conventionally
powered submarines equipped with air-independent propulsion (AIP), combined
with distributed minefields, long-range land-based anti-ship missiles, and
unmanned underwater vehicles. These systems are available today, cost a fraction
of AUKUS, and do not require nuclear reactors.
Doctrine Who commands these submarines in a crisis? Under AUKUS, they will be built with
American combat systems, American weapons, and integrated into American
naval command structures. Australia is effectively purchasing a ticket to ride on
American strategic decision-making. Yet American strategic decisions are made in
Washington, not Canberra.
In a Taiwan Strait conflict, the United States may decide to use Australian
submarines as forward-deployed assets without Australian parliamentary approval.
In my view, the submarines become triggers for war, not deterrents against it.
Escalation. Nuclear submarines are high-value targets. An adversary confronting AUKUS
submarines will not simply ignore them. It will pre-position hunter-killer
submarines, deploy anti-submarine warfare aircraft, and, if necessary, target the
bases that host them, including HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.
In a major conflict, those bases become legitimate military targets. I believe that
the very act of acquiring these submarines makes Australian territory a target in a
war not of Australia’s making. This is not defence. It is a strategic dependency with
potentially catastrophic consequences.
The Human Cost: First Nations and Forgotten Communities
This submission would be incomplete without recognising the specific impact on
First Nations peoples. The AUKUS agreement was signed without the free, prior,
and informed consent of the Traditional Owners of the lands and waters where
bases will be expanded or constructed. HMAS Stirling on Garden Island (Western
Australia) is situated on Whadjuk Noongar land. The proposed east coast base
locations—potentially Port Kembla (Dharawal Country), Brisbane (Turrbal and
Jagera Country), or Newcastle (Awabakal and Worimi Country)—all lie on unceded
territories. or Newcastle (Awabakal and Worimi Country)—all lie on unceded
territories.
Where will nuclear waste be stored? The most geologically stable locations in Australia are often remote areas, many of which are subject to Native Title claims
or contain sites of cultural significance. The history of nuclear colonialism in
Australia is long. From Maralinga to the Monte Bello Islands, Indigenous communities have borne the burden of British and Australian nuclear testing.
In my view, AUKUS threatens to repeat that history. Radioactive waste, once
created, cannot be unmade. It will remain on or near Indigenous land for
thousands of years—a radioactive monument to a decision made in a foreign
capital without a single Indigenous voice in the room.
I submit that the Inquiry must demand a dedicated process of Indigenous consent,
not merely consultation. Consent includes the right to say no. Without that right, the process is a sham.
Recommendation 3: A New Defensive Naval Strategy
The Australian Defence Force should develop and fund a defensive, affordable, and
transparent naval strategy centred on:
Twelve conventionally powered, air-independent propulsion submarines built in
Australia with technology transfer from non-nuclear states.
A distributed network of land-based anti-ship missile batteries with a range
exceeding 500 kilometres, covering northern approaches.
Unmanned underwater and surface vessels for surveillance and mine warfare.
A legislated doctrine requiring a parliamentary declaration of war before Australian
forces may be deployed in offensive first-strike roles.
Recommendation 4: Indigenous Consent and Nuclear Waste Prohibition
No AUKUS-related facility should be built, expanded, or operated on land subject to
Native Title or Aboriginal Land Rights without the free, prior, and informed consent
of the relevant Traditional Owners, including a legally enforceable right of veto.
Furthermore, the storage of any high-level nuclear waste from AUKUS submarines
on Australian territory should be prohibited unless and until a standalone,
community-approved, multi-party national waste strategy is enacted. As of 2026,
no such strategy exists.
Recommendation 5: Regional Diplomatic Reorientation
The Australian Government should convene a South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone
(SPNFZ) review in partnership with Pacific Islands Forum members to reaffirm and
strengthen regional opposition to nuclear propulsion, radioactive waste, and
nuclear weapons.
Any implementation of AUKUS should be subject to the approval of SPNFZ parties.
Conclusion
I recognise the necessity of defence, the brutality of war, and the importance of
industrial mobilisation in times of national crisis. History demonstrates that
societies are capable of extraordinary transformation when resources are directed
towards genuine national priorities. In my view, AUKUS does the opposite. Rather
than strengthening Australia’s sovereignty, it risks transforming Australia into a
forward operating base within a wider strategic rivalry dominated by larger
powers.
AUKUS is not a defence plan. It is a debt plan. It is a waste plan. It is a radioactive
legacy that will outlive every person in this room. It was signed in secret, sold as
security, and financed by borrowing against our children’s future. The submarines,
if built, will not necessarily deter war; they may instead ensure that Australia
becomes an early target in any major conflict.
The only thing more expensive than cancelling AUKUS is proceeding with it.
Cancellation costs political pride. Proceeding may cost far more.
I urge the Commissioners to recommend cancellation. Failing that, I urge them to
recommend a moratorium, a referendum, and a substantial reallocation of funds
towards housing, healthcare, climate resilience, and genuine human security
rather than the military ambitions of great powers.
Submission 12 re AUKUS- lack of process, transparency, accountability – David Bowyer
This submission is made as a concerned member of the Australian public.It does not oppose AUKUS outright, nor does it dismiss the legitimate security challenges Australia faces in an increasingly contested Indo-
Pacific region. It asks something more fundamental: whether the decision-
making process that produced this commitment met the standard of transparency, rigour, and democratic accountability that Australians should reasonably expect before accepting what may be the most
consequential and expensive defence arrangement in the nation’s history.
Process and transparency The September 2021 announcement was
made abruptly, without prior public deliberation, and appeared to surprise
even some within government. The simultaneous termination of the
existing French Attack-class submarine contract — at significant financial
and diplomatic cost — demonstrated that credible alternatives had been
actively pursued until shortly before the announcement. This inquiry
should establish what documented strategic analysis justified the shift to
this specific capability, why that analysis has never been made available
to the public, and whether the secrecy surrounding the decision was
genuinely operationally necessary or primarily political.
Strategic rationale The publicly stated logic — that nuclear-powered
submarines provide superior area-denial and deterrence capability across
Indo-Pacific sea lanes — has never been openly stress-tested against
Australia’s actual strategic environment. Which specific, credible threat
scenarios require this capability? Have the opportunity costs been
formally assessed — including what equivalent investment in cyber
capability, surface vessels, air defence systems, drone technology, or
regional diplomatic partnerships might deliver? If those assessments exist,
they should be published. If they don’t, that is itself a serious concern.
There is also a capability gap that has received insufficient public
attention. Australia will not have operational submarines under AUKUS
until the late 2030s at the earliest. What is the documented plan for
managing our submarine capability in the intervening period?
Alliance dependency and strategic risk AUKUS creates deep,
structural reliance on US and UK support for training, maintenance,
technology transfer, and nuclear fuel. This is not a criticism of those
relationships — it is a risk that must be honestly named and managed.
ANZUS carries no automatic mutual defence obligation comparable to
NATO’s Article 5. The political volatility demonstrated in US foreign policy
since 2016 shows that alliance commitments previously taken for grantedcan shift.
What contractual, legal, and strategic fallback positions has
Australia secured in the event that US political will changes? Australians
deserve a documented answer, not reassurance based on assumption.
Financial exposure Publicly cited cost figures have varied significantly
and no completed, independently audited cost model appears to exist in
the public domain. Australians carry this liability. They are entitled to know
its full extent — including exit costs — before the commitment becomes
irreversible. The experience of the French contract cancellation, which
itself generated substantial financial and diplomatic costs, should serve as
a warning about the consequences of inadequate financial planning.
Nuclear stewardship Australia has no domestic nuclear power industry
and therefore limited existing institutional capacity to manage naval
reactor waste. Has a decommissioning and long-term storage framework
been formally established? Has it been independently verified by relevant
scientific bodies? Has any environmental impact assessment been
completed and made available for public scrutiny? These are not
hypothetical concerns — they are obligations that will fall to future
generations of Australians.
Conclusion These are not obstructionist questions, and this submission is
not an expression of reflexive opposition. They represent the minimum
standard of accountability and transparency that a functioning democracy
should demand before accepting a generational strategic, financial, and
environmental obligation on behalf of its citizens. This inquiry has an
opportunity — and a responsibility — to provide the public scrutiny that
the original decision conspicuously lacked.
The Trojan Horse of Sovereignty: How US Troops in Australia Became a Strategic Asset – for the United States
Turnbull further warned: “It is naive to imagine that the submarines, if ever acquired, could be used other than in accordance with American wishes. Will AUKUS enhance our security or simply draw Australia into a conflict with China whether we like it or not?”
9 September 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, https://theaimn.net/the-trojan-horse-of-sovereignty-how-us-troops-in-australia-became-a-strategic-asset-for-the-united-states/
Dedicated to the Australian people – whose sovereignty has been traded for a promise of protection that was never real.
Abstract
This article examines the expanding US military presence in Australia under the Force Posture Initiatives and the AUKUS agreement. We argue that the official narrative – that US troops are in Australia to defend Australia – is not supported by the operational reality. The integration of US forces into Australian military infrastructure, the logistical vulnerabilities of forward deployment, and the strategic benefits to the United States collectively demonstrate that Australia is being transformed from a sovereign ally into a forward-operating platform for US power projection. Drawing on expert analysis, parliamentary testimony, and operational data, we conclude that the US presence serves to protect American strategic assets and secure US strategic depth, not to defend Australian sovereignty. We further argue that the Australian government is locked into this relationship for its own political survival, at great cost to the nation’s long-term interests.
1. Introduction: The Unspoken Surrender
The United States military presence in Australia is growing. Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles confirmed that “American force posture in Australia is growing” across every domain, following meetings with US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. This expansion includes the prepositioning of US military equipment, rotating aircraft deployments, and logistics support for US vessels. Under the AUKUS agreement, four US Virginia-class submarines will be housed at HMAS Stirling naval base from 2027.
Yet the Australian public has not been told the full story. The official narrative – that US troops are in Australia to defend Australia – obscures a more complex and troubling reality. The integration of US forces into Australian military infrastructure is not about Australian defence. It is about securing US strategic depth, projecting US power, and protecting US assets.
2. The Official Narrative vs. Operational Reality
2.1 The Claim: Defence of Australia
The Australian government maintains that the US presence enhances Australian security. The Force Posture Initiatives allow US forces to train and store equipment in Australia, including through rotating aircraft deployments and logistics support. The narrative is one of shared interests and mutual defence.
2.2 The Reality: A Forward-Operating Platform for the US
Expert analysis contradicts the official narrative. Professor Chen Hong, Director of the East China Normal University’s Australian Studies Center, has stated that the US is deepening military cooperation with Australia to further integrate the country into its military architecture in the western Pacific. The US seeks to leverage Australia’s strategic location, ports, airfields, and military training facilities, as well as its relatively secure rear area, to facilitate troop rotations and strengthen logistical support for US forces .
This integration, Chen argues, means that “within the US alliance system, Australia is evolving from a traditional ally into a strategic-depth and forward-operating platform for US forces. Its infrastructure and industrial capacity can increasingly be integrated into the US military supply chain and converted into capabilities that support US military operations.”
2.3 The “Basing” Euphemism
Australia finds it “curiously difficult to talk in plain terms about foreign military basing on its territory,” despite being “the most loyal of America’s treaty allies.” This sensitivity is evident in the official language: the US Marine Corps maintains a “rotational” detachment, not a “base.” Yet the reality is that Australia is extending runways and building new facilities at several air bases to accommodate temporary US combat aircraft deployments, and presumably to store US weaponry, fuel and spare parts. As one analyst notes, “This is a form of basing, even if it’s not permanent.”
The “basing” question matters because “a significant expansion to the US forward force posture appears to be underway, and the Australian public needs to be ready for it.”
3. The Logistical Impossibility: Defending Australia from Australian Soil
3.1 The Vulnerability of Forward Deployment
The US military presence in northern Australia is growing, with significant infrastructure expansion. The US is spending between $490 and $970 million to expand RAAF bases in Darwin and Katherine, including command centres, barracks, and hangars. RAAF Base Tindal will host rotations of six nuclear-capable US B-52 bombers. Darwin already hosts an annual rotation of up to 2,500 US Marines.
Yet these forces would be unable to defend Australia against a major power. They are positioned for power projection, not territorial defence. As one analyst has noted, the US is using Australia’s relatively secure rear area to “facilitate troop rotations and strengthen logistical support for US forces.” The troops are not positioned to repel an invasion – they are positioned to project power into the region.
3.2 The “Colossal Sacrifice of Sovereignty”
Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has been a vocal critic of the AUKUS agreement, warning that it represents a “colossal sacrifice of sovereignty” and that Australia has “effectively ceded control of a West Australian naval base to the US navy.” Turnbull’s submission to a public inquiry stated: “Whether we get any nuclear-powered submarines will depend on political decisions in Washington and industrial developments in the US and the UK.”
Turnbull further warned: “It is naive to imagine that the submarines, if ever acquired, could be used other than in accordance with American wishes. Will AUKUS enhance our security or simply draw Australia into a conflict with China whether we like it or not?”
3.3 The Threat to Sovereignty, Not the Solution
Former Labor luminary Bob Carr echoed these concerns, arguing that the US alliance presented more of a threat to Australian sovereignty than protection from potential conflict in the Indo-Pacific. Carr stated: “Why can’t there be a debate about B52s in Australia’s north, about the militarisation of Australia’s north. We’ve suddenly made it a target if there should be a war between the two dominant powers.”
The Australian government has “effectively ceded control” of HMAS Stirling to the US Navy, and the “enduring” presence of US submarines represents a permanent foreign military footprint.
4. The Real Purpose: Protecting US Assets, Not Australia
4.1 Strategic Depth and Power Projection
The US is using Australia as a “strategic-depth and forward-operating platform.” The infrastructure and industrial capacity of Australia are being integrated into the US military supply chain and converted into capabilities that support US military operations.
Airbases in northwestern Australia are being upgraded to “increase the strategic depth of U.S. forces in the region” and “serve as launch and recovery sites for long-range surveillance and strike aircraft.” These bases are being prepared for hosting aerial refueling aircraft, supporting surveillance aircraft and bombers, and serving as an “air bridge” refueling tactical fighter aircraft operating over the South China Sea.
4.2 The Logistics of War
The integrated logistics necessary to undertake combined Australian-US land-based long-range fires have been tested and improved following Exercise Operose 2024. The exercise tested how US Army Pacific specialists can work with their Australian counterparts in developing and confirming their interoperability in providing rapid theatre-level logistical deployment of long-range fire assets from logistic nodes in Australia.
The US has also prepositioned three companies’ worth of vehicles and containers at Bandiana, Victoria, under the Combined Logistics, Sustainment and Maintenance Enterprise (CoLSME) Force Posture Initiative. This prepositioning demonstrates that Australia is being used as a logistical hub for US military operations.
4.3 Protection of US Assets
The physical presence of US troops in Australia is not to defend Australia from an external invasion. It is to protect US assets and maintain US strategic depth. As one analysis notes, Australia is located “closer than Hawaii or the continental US to potential flashpoints like Taiwan and the South China Sea, yet remote enough to be beyond the range of most of China’s missiles. It’s relatively secure as well as politically reliable and imbued with strategic depth.”
Australia is being used to “disperse US forces away from more vulnerable bases in Japan and South Korea, and to position reinforcements in the region in case of a protracted conflict.” This is not Australian defence – it is US power projection.
The physical presence of US troops in Australia is not to defend Australia from an external invasion. It is to protect US assets and maintain US strategic depth. As one analysis notes, Australia is located “closer than Hawaii or the continental US to potential flashpoints like Taiwan and the South China Sea, yet remote enough to be beyond the range of most of China’s missiles. It’s relatively secure as well as politically reliable and imbued with strategic depth.”
Australia is being used to “disperse US forces away from more vulnerable bases in Japan and South Korea, and to position reinforcements in the region in case of a protracted conflict.” This is not Australian defence – it is US power projection.
5. The Cost to Australia: Paying for the Privilege
5.1 The Financial Cost
The AUKUS agreement is the most expensive defence project in Australian history, costing $368 billion. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has described it as a “massive sacrifice of Australian sovereignty” at “the worst possible time to be sacrificing sovereignty.”
5.2 The Strategic Cost
The deeper integration with the US military means Australia is being transformed from a traditional ally into a “strategic-depth and forward-operating platform.” This integration increases the risk that Australia will be drawn into military conflicts “that have never had any business being part of.”
Daryl Guppy, a former national board member of the Australia China Business Council, has warned that AUKUS has a “broader, multi-domain scope that includes rearming and upgrading the Australian military so its forces can serve as part of US military deployments.” This does not enhance regional security as it rests on the assumption that regional conflict is inevitable whenever US interests are threatened.
5.3 The Political Trap
The Australian government is locked into this relationship for its own political survival. The anti-China narrative has become the framework through which all other defence choices are justified. To back away from it would invite political attack. As one analyst has noted, the government’s approach is “sucking up” to the US, which “has undermined” Australia’s sovereignty.
The political trap is evident in the government’s silence on AUKUS. As Turnbull noted, the US Congress is “kept very well informed” about AUKUS, “but they have their own interests to pursue and it’s not always the same as us.” Meanwhile, the UK parliament has held “a thorough inquiry” and “made very severe, serious criticisms,” while “our parliament has done nothing, absolutely nothing.”
6. Conclusion: The Trojan Horse Exposed
The evidence is clear. The US military presence in Australia is not about defending Australia – it is about securing US strategic depth, projecting US power, and protecting US assets. The official narrative is a cover for a profound surrender of sovereignty.
The Australian government is paying for the privilege of being a forward operating base for the US military. It is spending $368 billion on submarines it may never receive, hosting US troops that would be unable to defend Australia, and integrating its military infrastructure into a US-led system that serves American interests.
The “Trojan Horse” of sovereignty is not a conspiracy – it is a visible, documented, and increasingly undeniable reality. The keys to Australian sovereignty have been handed over, not in a secret ceremony, but in plain sight: through treaties, agreements, and a political class too captured to see the obvious.
The task of unravelling this integration will be difficult. But it must be done – if Australia is to survive as a sovereign nation.
References…………………………………………………
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 