While Palantir refines its “kill chain” in Gaza, Australia is engaged in the largest military transfer of wealth in its history.
The submarines will not arrive until the early 2040s. In the meantime, Australia has established an export licence-free environment with the UK and US, allowing military and dual-use goods to be transferred between AUKUS partners without oversight. This includes AI and autonomy technologies
The line between Australian defence procurement and U.S. military-industrial interests has effectively dissolved.
On December 10, 2025, Responsible Statecraft published a report that should have shaken capitals around the world. Buried in the details of President Trump’s 20-point “peace plan” for Gaza was a revelation: two American surveillance firms, Palantir and Dataminr, had embedded personnel inside the U.S.-run Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) in southern Israel.
Their presence was not incidental. Palantir’s Project Maven – an “AI-powered battlefield platform” that collects surveillance data from satellites, drones, and intercepted communications to “optimize the kill chain” – was being positioned to shape Gaza’s post-war security architecture. Dataminr, which scans social media to provide “event, threat, and risk intelligence” to governments and law enforcement, was also inside the room.
This is not conspiracy. This is confluence – the quiet alignment of corporate interests, military objectives, and political capture. This article traces that confluence from the battlefields of Gaza to the boardrooms of Australia, and asks a simple question: Who benefits?
Part One: The Business Model – AI as Occupation
Palantir’s “Kill Chain” Optimisation
Palantir Technologies has been explicit about its ambitions. CEO Alex Karp has described the company’s technology as “optimising the kill chain.” Project Maven, for which Palantir recently secured a $10 billion Pentagon contract, sucks information from multiple sources and “packages it into a common, searchable app for commanders and support groups.” It has already been deployed to guide U.S. airstrikes across the Middle East, including in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq.
Since January 2024, Palantir has been in a “strategic partnership” with Israel’s military for “war-related missions”. The company has expanded its Tel Aviv office significantly over the last two years. Karp defended this collaboration amid international concerns over war crimes, saying Palantir was the first to be “completely anti-woke”.
The Gaza Laboratory
For the last two years, Gaza has functioned as an incubator for militarised AI. Israel’s Lavender system, an AI-assisted surveillance tool, used predictive analytics to rank Palestinians’ likelihood of being connected to militant groups, based on an opaque set of criteria. Public sector workers – healthcare workers, teachers, police officers – were included on kill lists because they had ties to Hamas by virtue of working in a territory the group governed.
The Gospel system functioned as a “mass assassination factory.” One source admitted spending only “20 seconds” per target before authorising bombing – just enough to confirm the Lavender-marked target was male.
Under Trump’s proposed “peace plan,” these technologies would be scaled up. The plan envisions “Alternative Safe Communities” – fenced, heavily monitored compounds where Palestinians would be relocated, their movements tracked by AI systems, their online activity scanned by Dataminr, their phones monitored by Palantir’s platforms. Entry would be contingent on approval by Israel’s Shin Bet, with criteria that could disqualify hundreds of thousands based on algorithmic “risk scores.”
For tech companies, war is opportunity. Access to vast datasets, real-world testing for new military systems, and long-term contracts for post-war surveillance infrastructure.
For Israel, the arrangement offers a way to outsource occupation while maintaining control.
For Palestinians, it promises more of what they have already endured: unremitting horror, dragnet surveillance, and death by algorithm.
Part Two: The Australian Connection – Wealth Transfer and Complicity
AUKUS: The $368 Billion Commitment
While Palantir refines its “kill chain” in Gaza, Australia is engaged in the largest military transfer of wealth in its history. The AUKUS nuclear submarine program is estimated to cost $368 billion over coming decades, with $53–63 billion allocated for the first decade alone.
The submarines will not arrive until the early 2040s. In the meantime, Australia has established an export licence-free environment with the UK and US, allowing military and dual-use goods to be transferred between AUKUS partners without oversight. This includes AI and autonomy technologies developed under Pillar 2 of the agreement, which focuses on “artificial intelligence and autonomy, quantum science, advanced cyber, and electronic warfare.”
The same technologies being tested on Palestinian populations in Gaza are, under AUKUS, being integrated into Australia’s defence infrastructure.
The Ghost Shark Precedent
In September 2025, the government announced a $1.7 billion investment in “Ghost Shark” autonomous submarines – underwater drones developed by Australian company Anduril, whose U.S. parent has close ties to the defence establishment. Assistant Minister Matt Thistlethwaite described the technology as so impressive that “the Americans have invested in the company.”
The line between Australian defence procurement and U.S. military-industrial interests has effectively dissolved.
The Cost of Living vs. The Cost of War
While this wealth transfers to the United States, Australians struggle with a cost-of-living crisis that the government refuses to adequately address. The Robodebt scheme – an automated system that raised unlawful debts against welfare recipients – offers a template for how algorithmic governance can devastate vulnerable populations .
The National Anti-Corruption Commission recently found two public servants engaged in “serious corrupt conduct” in relation to Robodebt. But as Economic Justice Australia noted:
“The system punishes only the vulnerable. The main sanction for damaging behaviour at the top levels of the Department has been naming and shaming.”
No one went to jail. No one lost their pension. The system protected itself.
The same pattern is now repeating at scale: algorithms making life-and-death decisions, with no one accountable when they fail.
Part Three: The Segal Nexus – Silencing Critics, Enabling the Agenda
The Envoy’s Role
Jillian Segal AO, Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, occupies a unique position at the intersection of power. Her credentials are impeccable: former ASIC deputy chair, board member of the Sydney Opera House Trust, the Garvan Institute, and the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce. She is deeply embedded in the networks that connect Australian business to Israeli interests.
In December 2025, the Albanese Government formally adopted Segal’s Plan to Combat Antisemitism, accepting all 13 recommendations………………………………………………………………………………………..
The framework created by the antisemitism envoy – however well-intentioned – provides cover for those who would shut down debate. Critics are not engaged; they are managed. Those who persist are not answered; they are silenced.
The Business Connection
Segal’s husband’s company, Henroth Investments, donated $50,000 to Advance Australia, a right-wing lobby group that has shared anti-immigration content and claimed Palestinians in Australia were a “risk to security.” She has disclaimed knowledge of the donation, and government ministers have accepted her statement .
But the appearance matters. When the antisemitism envoy is married to a donor to an organisation that promotes anti-Palestinian rhetoric, it feeds a perception that her role serves a particular political agenda rather than a genuine anti-racism brief. When her networks connect Australian business to Israeli interests, and when those interests align with the very AI companies testing their technologies on Palestinian populations, the confluence becomes visible.
Part Four: The Alignment of Values
In a bizarre way, the values of Palantir’s leadership align with the values of Australia’s political class…………………………………………………………………………………
What if they were, instead, a mechanism to enable and facilitate Israel’s transition to an AI-driven economy independent of the United States?
Consider the logic:
Israel seeks economic independence. Netanyahu has announced plans to “taper off” U.S. military aid, pivoting toward AI sovereignty. A $200 million joint AI and quantum science center with the U.S. is in development.
A state reliant on a single product must ensure demand. If Israel’s future exports are AI-driven surveillance and warfare technologies, it needs customers. It needs a demonstrated market. It needs a proof of concept.
Gaza provides the laboratory. The technologies tested there—Lavender, Gospel, the Maven platform – are refined in real-world conditions, with a population that cannot resist, cannot refuse, cannot escape.
Critics must be silenced. This is where the antisemitism framework becomes essential. If criticism of Israel’s actions can be reframed as antisemitism, if legitimate concerns about algorithmic warfare can be dismissed as hatred, if the very people documenting war crimes can be delegitimised – then the business model is protected.
Australia plays its part. By adopting the antisemitism envoy’s recommendations, by embedding the IHRA definition into policy, by creating legal frameworks that can be used to silence critics, Australia becomes an enabler of this system. Not through conspiracy—through confluence. Through the quiet alignment of interests that requires no coordination, only opportunity
Part Six: The Accountability Vacuum
The Robodebt scheme offers a template for what comes next………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..Conclusion: What We Have Discovered
This article has traced a network of connections that is not conspiracy but confluence:
Palantir and Dataminr embedded in Gaza, testing AI systems on a captive population, refining technologies that will be exported worldwide.
AUKUS transferring Australian wealth to the U.S. military-industrial complex, integrating the same AI and autonomy technologies into our defence infrastructure.
Jillian Segal positioned at the nexus of Australian business, government, and Israeli interests, her office providing the framework that silences critics.
The antisemitism claim deployed not against genuine hatred, but against legitimate criticism of Israeli policy – protecting the business model, enabling the silence. · The accountability vacuum ensuring that when things go wrong, no one is responsible.
The pattern is consistent. The players are visible. The evidence is documented.
Australian news analysis
What remains is for Australians to ask themselves: Is this who we want to be?
Do we want our wealth transferred to corporations that “optimize the kill chain“? Do we want our government to enable the testing of AI warfare on a captive population? Do we want our political class to silence critics while profiting from death?
The answer, for those with eyes to see, should be clear.
But the system is designed to keep those eyes closed. To cry “antisemitism” at anyone who questions. To ensure that the only voices heard are those that align with the business model.
I’ve just read an article about planning nuclear power for a “post-Trump world” I’m wondering how many people are actually doing just that – planning for a “post Trump world.” Well, Donald Trump isn’t one of them. He’s got a pretty good plan for re-election in 2028. Never mind the fact that the USA Constitution forbids a President from having a third term in office. Heck, by 2028 there won’t be an American Constitution if Trump is still in office.
One way or another, I’d bet that Trump won’t be in office for that third term. By 2028, the apparently dim-witted American public might just not vote for Donald Trump, however colourful and entertaining he might be. Or the Republicans might have had enough, and somehow kicked him out in the meantime. Or some more dramatic events might have made him lose his grip on power – a nuclear war? He might even be in gaol – though I guess that’s a silly left-wing fantasy. Or even the seemingly immortally healthy Donald might get sick, or even die.
I just hope and pray that he is not assassinated. That would turn him into a martyr. A saint? As a recovered Catholic, I do think kindly of my old church. I just can’t imagine that current Catholicism could stomach the idea of Saint Donald Trump.
But anyway, I digress. And indeed this whole post is a digression. But to try to get to the point – what is wrong with the leaders of the Western world? It seems that only Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchéz has denounced the USA/Israel’s illegal attack on Iran. Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney in January, briefly saw through Donald Trump, but by March, Carney had second thoughts, and fell into line in the conga dance behind him. The UK wavered and waffled, but ended up supporting the war. Confusion reigns in the EU. As for Australia – words fail me, as the ruling so-called Labor Party wriggles about, trying to deny that it supports the USA/Israel war. Twas so nice of Albanese to present Trump with a pretty little statue-thing of an AUKUS submarine.
It’s not just the war on Iran. It’s the support for Israel’s genocide. It’s the spectacle over two years, of politicians giving Trump standing ovations, smiling happily as they shake hands with this deranged, ignorant, sociopathic President of the USA. Surely they could manage mere politeness, and not a complete vision of fawning servility.
And when it all goes to shit, as it surely will, what will be their legacy? Will they be remembered as leaders of insight and integrity? Will they be remembered at all. Most likely, they’ll be gone and forgotten after the next election.
Let’s just remember, that pathetic lying confidence man, Trump, could not have done so much damage, so much harm, caused all that suffering, without their support.
An Australian charity receiving over $200 million in tax-deductible donations is ignoring international law, while the Government looks the other way. Stephanie Tran reports.
Jewish National Fund Australia (JNF Australia) has remitted more than $125.4m to Israel since 2009, according to financial records, while receiving $213m in tax-deductible donations since 2013.
In 2024 alone, the organisation reported $12m in donations and bequests, with $10.4m transferred to Israel.
Despite JNF Australia’s assertion that it operates independently of its Israeli parent, Keren Kayemet LeYisrael (KKL-JNF), an investigation by MWM has revealed that tax-deductible donations raised by JNF Australia have been directly transferred to KKL-JNF. Some of these funds have been used to support IDF soldiers and fund illegal settlements.
Independent really?
NF Australia has repeatedly stated that it operates independently of KKL-JNF in Israel.
In 2017, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu demanded that KKL-JNF transfer 80% of its revenue to the Finance Ministry to help fund state-run infrastructure projects or risk losing its tax-exempt status.
Following the announcement, JNF Australia declared that it was a “separate independent entity” from KKL-JNF. They stated that “funds raised by JNF Australia go directly towards these projects, with not one dollar used to fund KKL”
In 2021, KKL-JNF’s board voted to officially permit the purchase of private land in the occupied West Bank for settlement expansion, a decision that was criticised as an open violation of international law.
Shortly after the decision, JNF Australia’s president and CEO again attempted to distance the organisation from its Israeli parent, stating that the Australian body was “an independent entity from KKL”.
“JNF Australia only applies donor contributions towards JNF Australia projects and priorities [and] is therefore unaffected by any changes to KKL’s priorities and policies, whether in respect to land acquisition or elsewhere,” they said, adding that the organisation “has no representatives on the KKL board, nor is it involved with or bound by any of their decisions”.
However, our analysis of Israeli financial filings shows that JNF Australia has transferred millions of dollars directly to KKL-JNF (also known as the Israel National Fund) since making these statements.
Although the sources of foreign donations were redacted in Israel National Fund’s 2024 financial report, financial reports lodged in previous years identify Australia as a source of overseas donations.
Between 2021 and 2024, KKL-JNF received 41.86m Shekels ($19.4 million) in donations from Australia and New Zealand.
The financial reports state that these donations “are received from residents of various countries, including through KKL-JNF offices abroad”.
The Jewish National Fund was founded in 1901 to purchase land in Palestine for Jewish settlement, decades before the establishment of Israel. Over the past century, KKL-JNF has played a central role in land acquisition and large-scale “forestation” projects across the occupied Palestinian territories.
These activities have long been intertwined with the displacement of Palestinians. An investigation by Haaretz revealed that the Israeli Defence Ministry recruited KKL-JNF to secretly purchase Palestinian land in the West Bank for settlers. Israeli NGO Zochrot has accused JNF of contributing to the “ongoing Nakba” through projects that plant forests or develop parks on land where Palestinian communities once stood, while supporting illegal settlement initiatives.
In July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a landmark advisory opinion finding that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal under international law.
The ICJ held that Israel must end its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible, and immediately cease all new settlement activity. The Court also held that third states have an obligation “not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.
In a subsequent position paper responding to the ruling, the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel, said states should not provide tax deductibility for donations to organisations that support illegal occupation.
JNF supporting illegal settlements
The Jewish National Fund was founded in 1901 to purchase land in Palestine for Jewish settlement, decades before the establishment of Israel. Over the past century, KKL-JNF has played a central role in land acquisition and large-scale “forestation” projects across the occupied Palestinian territories.These activities have long been intertwined with the displacement of Palestinians. An investigation by Haaretz revealed that the Israeli Defence Ministry recruited KKL-JNF to secretly purchase Palestinian land in the West Bank for settlers. Israeli NGO Zochrot has accused JNF of contributing to the “ongoing Nakba” through projects that plant forests or develop parks on land where Palestinian communities once stood, while supporting illegal settlement initiatives.
In July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a landmark advisory opinion finding that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal under international law.
The ICJ held that Israel must end its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory as rapidly as possible, and immediately cease all new settlement activity. The Court also held that third states have an obligation “not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.
In a subsequent position paper responding to the ruling, the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem and Israel, said states should not provide tax deductibility for donations to organisations that support illegal occupation.
“States shall not give support to these organizations, for example, through allowing the organization to have tax-exempt status or providing tax deductibility for donations to the organization and must ensure that financial contributions to support the unlawful occupation, including settlements and settlers, cease,” the Commission said.
Chris Sidoti, a commissioner on the UN inquiry, said the implications for Australian charities that fund Israeli settlements were clear.
“We should end tax deductibility for any Australian charities that provide funding for Israeli settlements or for Israeli organisations that support the establishment or maintenance of settlements,” he said, “Any organisation that is financially or politically supporting the unlawful occupation, including funding settlements,
“should have its tax-exempt status removed and should be deregistered.”
Despite the UN General Assembly adopting a a resolution in September 2024 demanding that Israel end its unlawful occupation no later than 12 months after the adoption of the resolution, the Israeli government has accelerated settlements in the West Bank.
Last month, Israel’s security cabinet repealed land laws, enabling settlers to purchase land in the West Bank without limitation and without government oversight to “enable accelerated development of settlement on the ground”.
Since the US-Israeli war with Iran began, Israel has imposed a total military closure on the West Bank and Israeli settlers have seized the opportunity to expel more Palestinian communities from their land.
Support for IDF soldiers and settlers
Jewish National Fund Australia publicly promotes programs providing financial support to soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), including “Ach Gadol”, “Atidim Lone Soldier Education Support” and “Panim el Panim”.
The Ach Gadol initiative offers one-on-one support for “lone soldiers” serving in the IDF. The project aims to create a support system for lone soldiers throughout their army service and “deepen the values of Zionism and love of the land among young new immigrants”.
According to JNF, “there are over 7,000 lone soldiers currently serving in the IDF. About 45% of these soldiers are new immigrants, coming from Jewish communities all over the world.”
Panim-El-Panim is a program launched in cooperation with the IDF Chief Rabbinate to “provide the soldiers with the tools and ability to cope with the complex challenges they face during their military service and life afterwards”. According to JNF Australia, Panim-El-Panim meets with over 90 thousand soldiers annually.
Atidim Lone Soldier Education Support assists lone immigrant soldiers after their service, providing the “support they need to become part of Israel’s vital nation building”.
According to Al Jazeera, more than 50,000 foreign soldiers have fought for IDF during Gaza genocide. 621 of these soldiers are Australian citizens.
JNF Australia has also fundraised for Ateret Cohanim, an extremist settler group active in East Jerusalem. Ateret Cohanim has filed eviction lawsuits against around 100 Palestinian families living in East Jerusalem. JNF Australia removed the fundraiser from its website after members of the Australian Jewish Democratic Society wrote an article about the fundraiser.
Daniel Luria is the executive director and spokesman of Ateret Cohanim later claimed that “Ateret Cohanim does not receive any money from the JNF Australia and Ateret Cohanim has not appeared on the JNF site as a partner project.”
MWM put questions to JNF Australia regarding their relationship to KKL-JNF and their funding of IDF soldiers and settlers. They did not respond to the request for comment.
“Public Benevolent Institution”
JNF Australia operates through three charities registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC):
All hold deductible gift recipient (DGR) status. The Jewish National Fund (Australia) Pty Limited is also registered as a public benevolent institution (PBI).
Under Australian law, charities must pursue exclusively charitable purposes and comply with governance and external conduct standards, including obligations relating to overseas activities.
PBIs receive the most concessional treatment under Australia’s charity law, including exemption from income tax, eligibility to receive tax-deductible donations, and access to fringe benefits tax concessions not available to most other charities.
The three charities are overseen by the same 8 person board. Doron Lazarus is the CEO of JNF Australia and long-time board member Pamela Krail is the current president.
ACNC response
MWM put questions to the ACNC, regarding whether providing funds to the IDF and illegal settlements was compatible with JNF Australia’s DGR and PBI requirements. They stated that:
“The United Nations’ view that settling civilian populations in an occupied territory is contrary to international law has not, at this stage, been incorporated into domestic Australian law. The ACNC cannot enforce international law unless that law has been incorporated into Australian domestic legislation.”
See the ACNC’s full response below: [on original]
………….Violating international law
Despite the ACNC’s assertion that they “can’t enforce international law”, legal experts say the use of tax-deductible donations to fund projects connected to Israeli settlements and the IDF raises significant issues under both Australian law and international legal obligations.
The Australian Centre for International Justice (ACIJ), which has been monitoring potentially unlawful activities of Australian charities operating in the occupied Palestinian territories, said the legal position regarding settlements is well established.
“It is well established that Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory are unlawful under international law, and this position has been repeatedly affirmed by the international community,
“including through Australia’s own foreign policy.“
According to ACIJ, Australian charities supporting activities connected to settlements could face scrutiny under Australia’s criminal and taxation laws.
“Australian charities supporting activities connected to unlawful settlements raise serious questions about compliance that extend beyond charity regulation to broader concerns under Australia’s criminal and taxation laws,” the organisation said.
“Conduct that amounts to direct or indirect participation in the transfer of the civilian population of an occupying power into territory it occupies is a criminal offence under Australia’s Commonwealth Criminal Code.”
ACIJ also warned that funding directed to the IDF may raise additional legal risks given the current proceedings against Israel and its leadership in the ICJ and ICC:
“Directly or indirectly funding the Israeli military raises additional concerns, particularly in circumstances where Israel is currently before the International Court of Justice over alleged violations of the Genocide Convention, and where senior Israeli leadership, including the Prime Minister, is subject to arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes,
“These circumstances raise serious questions about the risks of complicity for those financially supporting Israel’s military apparatus.”
Human rights lawyer Rita Jabri Markwell, who is part of the coalition of lawyers developing the proposed “Red Lines Package” legislation aimed at preventing Australian institutions from supporting genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, said the issue also engages Australia’s international obligations.
“In July 2024, the International Court of Justice found that all third-party states, including Australia, have a mandatory positive obligation not to render aid or assistance that would maintain Israel’s illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territory.
“The court further stated that all states must abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel concerning the occupied Palestinian territory or parts thereof which may entrench its unlawful presence in the territory.”
Markwell noted that Australia supported the UN General Assembly resolution calling on Israel to end its unlawful presence in the occupied territories.
“Australia has recently voted in favour of a United Nations resolution demanding that Israel rapidly end its unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territories, aligning ourselves with 142 other nations, including the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand,” she said.
“What we say at the United Nations must be matched by what we do at home.”
Markwell said the Red Lines Package seeks to close the gap in Australian law.
“This gap in domestic law is precisely why the upcoming Red Lines Package is urgently needed. The bill incorporates these international obligations into domestic law and empowers the ACNC commissioner to revoke charity status where there are breaches.”
“Tax-deductible donations are a form of public subsidy. Every Australian taxpayer contributes when charities are granted Deductible Gift Recipient status. It is therefore vital that charities ensure these funds are used solely for genuine public benefit,” she said.
“Under this system of occupation, settler violence against Palestinians is rife, often armed, protected and facilitated by the Israeli Military. In the West Bank, Israeli settlers have assaulted, tortured, and committed sexual violence against Palestinians, stolen their belongings and livestock, threatened to kill them if they did not leave permanently, and destroyed their homes and schools under the cover of the ongoing campaign in Gaza and now Iran.”
“Behind every donation are attacks on real people and lives, and real suffering.”
In 2024, the Canada Revenue Agency revoked the charitable status of the Jewish National Fund of Canada over the use of donations for Israeli military infrastructure projects.
There is an ongoing campaign in the UK to revoke the charitable status of JNF UK for its role in funding the Israeli military and supporting Israel’s illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory.
It seems incongruous that with a fleet of nine nuclear powered submarines the United Kingdom has only one operational vessel from the fleet which has been sent to Garden Island in Western Australia instead of using it for protective deployment around the British Isles
That submarine being HMS Anson still requires some minor maintenance work for its continued operations which is being undertaken at Garden Island
It appears that the real reason for Anson being sent to Australia is for the United Kingdom to demonstrate some capacity in being able to be an active participant in the AUKUS agreement but this may be a rather hopeless exercise in view of the strained relationship with the United States over the Iran war
The lack of naval capacity of the United Kingdom is best demonstrated by the fact that the destroyer HMS Dragon proposed to be send to Cyprus for protection of its naval 1 of 2 base on the island cannot be put to sea due to the incapacity of undertaking the necessary dockyard work for it seagoing status
All of this should be borne in mind when planning for the future development of the AUKUS proposals
It is therefore beyond the wildest dreams to contemplate
the design and subsequent construction of the SSN- AUKUS submarine
How will the Australian government react to this situation when AUKUS is a major part of its defence strategy?
The Australian political landscape is currently being squeezed by a powerful vice. On one side, we are witnessing the alarming and undeniable rise of the far-right, supercharged by a mastery of social media that has the major parties looking like digital dinosaurs. On the other, a growing tide of progressive disappointment with the Albanese government is curdling into outright anger, fueled by perceptions of secrecy, a moral failure on Gaza, and a lack of spine in standing up to the belligerence of the Trump administration. These two forces, seemingly opposed, are feeding off each other, and the result is a political discourse that is becoming increasingly toxic and fragmented.
The most immediate shock to the system is the surging popularity of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation. Recent polling is nothing short of a political earthquake, with One Nation tying with the Liberal-National Coalition on 23 per cent of the primary vote. This isn’t just a protest vote; it’s a realignment. Analysts point to a “perfect storm” of factors: a Coalition riddled with infighting, the “cost-of-living crisis biting hard,” and a sophisticated, decades-long mastery of direct communication.
Senator Hanson and her team have effectively bypassed traditional media gatekeepers. They dominate Facebook and use YouTube for “comedic and sometimes quite bizarre content” that feeds directly into the algorithms that capture younger viewers. This isn’t just politics; it’s a highly effective content engine that peddles consistency and certainty in an uncertain world. The recent call by Labor frontbencher Julian Hill for the Liberal Party to stop “playing footie” with these “populist forces” feels less like a strategy and more like a desperate plea. The horse has already bolted, and it’s wearing a “Please Explain” t-shirt.
The danger here is profound. As an ABC investigation has shown, the lines between populist protest movements and organised neo-Nazi groups are becoming dangerously blurred. While One Nation distances itself from the most extreme fringes, its rhetoric creates the fertile ground in which they grow. When Minister Hill warns that our society is being “ripped apart” and that Muslim women in his community are “scared to go to the shops,” he is describing the real-world consequences of a political debate that has lost its moorings.
If the rise of the hard right represents one side of the vice, the government’s perceived timidity represents the other. For many who voted for change in the 2025 election, the Albanese government has become a cipher. The disappointment is multifaceted, but three failures stand out.
First, there is the perception of secrecy and a lack of courage in foreign policy. The government’s response to Donald Trump’s invitation to join his so-called “Board of Peace” was emblematic. While the world braced for the return of Trump’s brand of disruptive diplomacy, reports emerged that the government’s internal strategy was simply to hope the “hot potato” would “just fizzle out.” This is not leadership. It is a fearful hope that a problem will disappear, a posture that does nothing to assure allies or inform the public.
This timidity pales, however, in comparison to the government’s stance on Gaza. The moral weight of the conflict has landed heavily on Australian shores. There is a deep and growing sense of betrayal among pro-Palestinian advocates, and indeed many human rights-focused Australians, who see a government that has bent over backwards to avoid upsetting Israel. This sentiment is amplified by the international treatment of UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese.
While the news is careful to distinguish between the UN official Francesca Albanese and our Prime Minister, the public discourse often conflates the two, creating a cloud of confusion and frustration. For many, the spectacle of the Trump administration sanctioning Albanese – and her family suing over it – while European nations call for her resignation, is a clear litmus test. Regardless of one’s view of her rhetoric, she is seen as a voice holding Israel to account. Against this backdrop, the Australian government’s quiet diplomacy and failure to issue more forceful condemnations is perceived not as prudence, but as pandering. It looks like a lack of courage to stand up for Palestinian civilians and a capitulation to the same US-led pressure campaign that targets her.
So, here we are. We have a government that appears paralysed, hoping difficult issues will “go away” while simultaneously losing the narrative to a far-right machine that offers simplistic, and often hateful, answers to complex problems. The government’s silence on the issues that matter to its progressive base – whether it’s housing policy or a principled foreign policy – creates a vacuum. And into that vacuum rushes the certainty of the hard right.
The great danger for Australia is that this dynamic becomes self-perpetuating. The more the government fails to articulate a bold, humane, and courageous vision, the more disillusioned voters will look elsewhere. Some will go to the Greens, but a significant and growing number are being seduced by the siren song of the far-right. We are left with a discourse dominated by either the inflammatory culture war talking points of the fringe or the cautious, fearful whispers of a government that has forgotten how to lead. Until the Labor party finds its voice and its courage, this perfect storm will only continue to gather strength.
Today marks three years since a widely criticised media series predicted Australia would be at war with China within three years.
The Red Alert series was published by the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age, and featured a panel of national security experts who claimed war was just around the corner and Australia was woefully unprepared.
“As it turns out all five “experts” were wrong and the authors of the series, Peter Hartcher andMatthew Knott, were also wrong,” said AWPR President and former Senator Andrew Bartlett.
No doubt all of Australia is breathing a sigh of relief today as the threat of annihilation recedes.
While it is easy to make fun of this laughable series of reports, it is depressing to think that the views expressed in the articles are common among establishment defence commentators.
We have had years of fearmongering about imminent threats to Australia, all of which have been shown to lack any credibility. Yet this is what currently passes for mainstream defence expertise.
Rarely does a day go by without a news article featuring a so called expert, demonising our largest trading partner and demanding that Australia spends billions more on the military.
This is despite the fact that the government’s own Defence Strategic Review in 2023 found that there is very little risk of an invasion.
Many commentators regularly suggest that if a war over Taiwan erupted, Australia would be compelled to get involved.
This is a dangerous suggestion and should be rejected outright. The Australian government has the right to decline any US request to join foreign wars.
This is why Australia should urgently re-visit War Powers Reform, which would ensure the whole parliament gets a say on overseas wars.
The John Howard-style ‘captain’s call’ decision-making, which we saw over the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is no longer acceptable in modern Australia” Mr Bartlett concluded.
Andrew Fowler’s book Nuked: The submarine fiasco that sank Australia’s sovereignty critically examines the decision by the Australian government – under the leadership of Liberal prime minister Scott Morrison – to enter into the most expensive military acquisition agreement in Australia’s history.
On September 15, 2021, Australia signed a trilateral security agreement with the US and the United Kingdom, known as AUKUS.
The selling point was that Australia would acquire nuclear-powered submarines to replace its ageing Collins-class conventionally-powered fleet. The cost? $368 billion – and possibly, the sovereignty of the nation.
Amid a deep web of lies, deception and media spin, Fowler painstakingly unpacks the extensive efforts Morrison took to deceive the French government as he concocted a highly secretive plan to acquire nuclear submarines.
A mission that, Fowler suggests, has led not only to a massive financial commitment but has ultimately “sunk” Australian sovereignty.
Fowler is well-placed to offer such a deeply penetrating account into Australia’s decision to enter AUKUS. He is an award-winning investigative journalist having previously worked for the ABC’s Four Corners and Foreign Correspondent programs.
Through interviewing many of the main people involved and talking to sources in Paris, London, Washington, and Canberra, Fowler pieces together a devastating account of Australia’s latest military acquisition agreement.
Key themes
Throughout the book, Fowler addresses key themes from the Liberal Party’s long-term desire for closer ties to Washington, to the incremental loss of Australia’s sovereignty in the alliance, and the secrecy around the chain of events that led to the scuttling of the French submarine deal and negotiations for AUKUS.
Liberal Party and US alliance
Central to the story is the long-running narrative within the Liberal Party of Australia’s deep desire to become increasingly tied with the US, despite the lack of guaranteed reciprocity.
From the activation of ANZUS after 9/11, to Australia’s unquestioned following of the US into Iraq, to John Howard’s “captain’s call” on the F35 Joint Strike fighter, Fowler argues that successive Australian governments – particularly conservative Liberal governments – have often made questionable foreign policy decisions to bolster the relationship with the US.
To this end, he shows how even in the lead-up to signing the French submarine deal, there was a push among conservative elements of the Liberal Party to instead go for the inferior Japanese option because that would enable closer cooperation in US-led naval missions.
One of the other interesting issues pointed out was the degree to which the Labor Party felt hamstrung by the agreement. According to Fowler, this was largely due to Labor’s fear of being accused of being weak on matters of national security.
So, pushing back on the agreement was a political minefield ahead of the 2022 election.
Loss of sovereignty
Key to the book is an analysis of the impact of the AUKUS deal on Australia’s sovereignty.
Fowler begins by unpacking the somewhat lopsided history of the alliance as military cooperation grew closer – noting that the Australian government has not always been fully aware of the functions of major military installations like Pine Gap, whose operations, up until the 1970s, had been kept from the government.
Similarly, he touches on the use of other military infrastructure across Australia that is used to relay battlefield commands – and possibly in the future, a nuclear strike.
Fowler makes the case that while there are numerous instances in Australia’s history in which sovereignty has been challenged by alliance partners, AUKUS takes this problem to another level.
Citing a lack of expertise in nuclear-trained operatives, the lack of a domestic nuclear industry, and an acquisition contract in which Australia essentially ceded all negotiating rights, Fowler argues that Australia’s future defence will essentially be at the mercy of the US – a situation that Australia would not have found itself in under the French agreement.
Secrecy and issues in foreign policy
Perhaps one of the most significant issues has to do with the level of secrecy and lack of oversight that is evidently possible in making Australian foreign policy.
Fowler shows how Morrison went about sowing seeds of doubt in the agreement with the French, and used the media to create a sense of urgency by inflating the possibility of conflict with China so that the AUKUS announcement would be received with irreverence.
In doing so, it evaded public debate – and even debate within his own government by keeping the prospective deal secret even from Barnaby Joyce, then leader of the Nationals – on an issue that would ultimately come to undermine Australia’s sovereign capabilities for decades to come.
Conclusion
Nuked is essential reading for researchers and the broader public alike.
Fowler challenges the unquestioning faith in the US alliance held by many on the political right and advances a compelling narrative of Australia’s loss of sovereignty as it edges closer and closer to the US.
The book comes during a critical period in the Australia-US alliance. When written, Joe Biden was in the White House.
While many of the book’s criticisms speak to issues around the decimation of Australian sovereignty resulting from AUKUS, the re-election of President Donald Trump certainly amplifies the need for a critical re-evaluation of AUKUS as the US seems set on departing from its democratic ideals.
Significantly, Fowler raises important questions not just about the future viability of AUKUS, but of the processes of future military acquisition and the significant gaps in checks and balances when it comes to foreign policy decision-making.
The broader implications of AUKUS are immense. Given the political climate and the growing concerns around the viability of AUKUS, the importance of this book has grown.
Overall, Fowler provides the reader – whether an academic or lay person – with a well-written, comprehensively researched account of the events that resulted in the sinking of the French submarine deal through stealth-like manoeuvring to establish AUKUS.
The era of British nuclear testing in Australia was exrraordinary, and its secrets are still being uncovered. Because of ongoing British secrecy, we may not discover them all. In her talk Professor Tynan will examine the complex circumstances taht led the British first to Monte Bello Islands off the coast of Western Australia, then Emu Field and Maralinga in South Australia, to test their atomic weapons. The decision to do so followed the United States’ exclusion of Britain from nuclear weapons and energy R&D after World War II, ostensibly because of the detection of Manhattan Project spies. Australia acquiesced to the atomic tests without asking hard questions, and as a result considerable damage and suffering was inflicted, particularly on Indigenous people and service personnel.
Those hard questions only came decades later, and there are still many to be asked. The British conducted their testing with a greater emphasis on speed than safety. The recklessness of some of the tests carried out in Australia is stunning. Tynan will share specific stories of these dangerous tests and their deadly ramifications for Australians. She will also cover what happened after the British terminated the test series and deliberately misinformed the Australian government about the extent of contamination they left behind. All three test sites were abandoned without proper remediation. The aftermath led to a judicial enquiry, known in Australia as a Royal Commission, in the mid-1980s. This enquiry makred a major shift in Australian attitudes to the tests, and was an important mileestone in an era of uncovering and truth-telling that continues.
Professor Elizabeth Tynan is Head of the Professional Development Program at James Cook University’s Graduate Research School, where she teaches academic writing, editing, and critical thinking skills to postgraduate researchers. She is a former science journalist in both print and broadcast media. Her PhD from the Australian National University examined aspects of the British nuclear tests in Australia in the 1950s and 1960s.
The Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, gave Donald Trump a gift of a model nuclear submarine with golden plates and finishes, internal documents reveal, during his visit to the White House last year which sealed the president’s support for the Aukus pact.
The prime minister also presented the US first lady, Melania Trump, with a A$3,000 Paspaley pearl pendant.
The information, obtained by Guardian Australia from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet after a four-month freedom of information process, revealed more about the delicate diplomatic planning and charm offensive that went into Albanese’s long-awaited first face-to-face meeting with Trump.
“Gift form” documents from the department reveal Albanese came to the White House bearing a two-foot-long model Virginia-class submarine, mounted on a base with gold plates, and a pearl necklace from one of Australia’s most famous jewellers.
Albanese had previously stated he’d given the Trumps a model submarine and jewellery, but at the time neither Albanese’s office nor his department would reveal any further information about the gifts.
The decision by Adelaide University to withdraw a venue booking for an event featuring a leading United Nations human rights expert has ignited a fierce debate about academic freedom and censorship in South Australia.
The controversy surrounds a panel discussion titled “Settler Colonialism: What It Can Tell Us About the Conflict in Israel/Palestine,” which was scheduled to be held at the university’s Elder Hall. The event is part of the Constellations: Not Writers Week, a breakout festival created in response to the recent cancellation of the official Adelaide Writers’ Week.
The panel features Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, who was to appear via video link, alongside esteemed historian Henry Reynolds and UNSW academic Lana Tatour.
According to event moderator Chris Sidoti, Elder Hall had been booked a month in advance. However, on Tuesday, the university informed organisers that the booking was being revoked, citing “health and safety” concerns.
In a statement, an Adelaide University spokesperson defended the decision, stating they were only made aware of the external event the previous Friday. The university claimed it could not accept the booking because it:
“… did not go through the required review and approval process in accordance with the required policy and procedure.”
The spokesperson added that the university could not “ensure the safety, respect and comfort of those attending” and suggested an alternative venue – the National Wine Centre – at a significantly higher cost of $23,500, compared to the $750 fee for the university hall.
This explanation has done little to quell the criticism. Mr. Sidoti described the move as a “sad reflection on the state of Adelaide University today,” arguing that the institution’s core role is precisely “to provide forums for these kinds of discussions – and it’s failing in that.”
The cancellation has drawn sharp rebukes from political figures, who see it as part of a worrying trend of silencing dissenting voices.
Democracy education resources
Greens Senator for South Australia, Sarah Hanson-Young, demanded the university explain its actions, calling the reports “concerning.” She linked the decision to the earlier controversies surrounding Writers’ Week, suggesting a broader “culture of fear infecting our institutions.”
“You cannot cancel curiosity, you cannot cancel compassion, and you cannot silence a city that believes in the exchange of ideas and freedom of expression,” Senator Hanson-Young said. She accused the university of capitulating to external pressure, stating that “seeking to silence a distinguished international human rights expert undermines academic freedom, weakens intellectual integrity, and contradicts the very principles universities are meant to uphold.”
The event is part of the Constellations festival, which was formed after the official Adelaide Writers’ Week was cancelled this year. That decision followed the withdrawal of hundreds of authors protesting the treatment of Palestinian-Australian writer Randa Abdel-Fattah, who was controversially uninvited from the original lineup.
When questioned directly about whether concerns regarding Ms. Albanese’s appearance – particularly in light of past criticism and US sanctions – influenced the decision, the university spokesperson did not provide a direct answer. They reiterated that the institution prides itself on being a place for the free exchange of ideas.
Event to Proceed at New Venue
Despite the university’s withdrawal, the discussion will go ahead. Organisers have secured the Norwood Concert Hall in Adelaide’s eastern suburbs for Thursday evening, where a sold-out crowd is expected to attend.
Senator Hanson-Young highlighted the public response as a rebuke to the university’s decision:
“Thankfully the event will go ahead… showing that South Australian audiences aren’t as fearful as these institutions,” she said.
Antinuclear 