Australian news to 29 August

Australian news to 29 August
- Hospitals to stock anti-nuclear pills near AUKUS base
- Fears WA’s HMAS Stirling naval base now a legitimate nuclear target amid US build-up
- Can the Israeli military be trusted to investigate itself?
- Segal’s speech code meets the law: Justice Fagan wrecks Canberra’s Israel exception
- “A Trojan horse for communism!” More big batteries head for review as familiar long distance objectors pile in again
- New South Wales Supreme Court rules that criticism of Zionism is not antisemitism.
- Colluding with Violence: Aiding Israeli Settlers in the West Bank
New South Wales Supreme Court rules that criticism of Zionism is not antisemitism

Fagan’s Damning Verdict: Vandalism and Antisemitism Down Under
26 August 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark AIM Extra, https://theaimn.net/fagans-damning-verdict-vandalism-and-antisemitism-down-under/
The term “antisemitism” is now so commonly used as an accusation as to be placed beyond questioning. This is particularly so in countries claiming some protections for free speech or lawful assembly. Use that term to your heart’s content and stifle discussion. Carry a placard accusing Israeli policy of genocidal propensities – antisemitic. Raising the issue of dispossession and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Israeli authorities – antisemitic. Mention specific slogans, some used with full throated approval by Israeli Zionists themselves – antisemitic. But an interesting New South Wales Supreme Court decision, delivered by Justice Desmond Fagan, restores much needed and merciful balance. Put it simply, not all acts directed at Israel or unflattering views held about that country, however crudely framed, carry the antisemitic streak.
The acts in question in the case before Fagan were certainly crude. The 22-year-old Mohommed Farhat had been a vandal for hire, defacing parked motor vehicles (nine in total) and the walls of various buildings (four in total) in the eastern Sydney suburb of Woollahra using spray-paint. His November 2004 acts featured slogans including “PKK”, “PKK coming” and “Fuk Israel”. A vehicle was also set alight. It transpired that A$4,000 had been given to Farhat to execute his acts of arson and graffiti, including a complement of drugs. The wording used in the vandalism had also been suggested by the recruiter.
On pleading guilty, Farhat was given a term of imprisonment of a year and eight months by the NSW Local Court Magistrate Scott Nash on November 18, 2025. Important in this case was the use of powers available to the state government under the Terrorism (High Risk Offenders) Act 2017 (NSW) to deem an offender an “unacceptable risk” in committing a serious offence in the event of being released on parole. Farhat would have been eligible for release after 10 months but for the concerns of the Corrective Services, which deemed him a “national security risk” inmate in January this year. The State then requested an extended supervision order of a year’s duration with 55 attached conditions. The proceedings, taking place over four days of hearings, centred on whether Farhat’s crimes could be regarded as posing such a risk.
While Fagan delivered his decision on July 30, the reasons were published on August 17. In his reasons, a controlling factor for Fagan was the Federal Court case of Wertheim v Haddad (2025), where Justice Angus Stewart postulated what “the reasonable, ordinary listener” would understand as being said in the context of critiquing Israel and Zionism. Depending on the context, such a reasonable person could “understand that not all Jews are Zionists and that disparagement of Zionism constitutes disparagement of a philosophy or ideology and not a race or an ethnic group.” It also followed that political criticism directed at Israel “however inflammatory or adversarial, is not by its nature criticism of Jews in general or based on Jewish racial or ethnic identity.”
Fagan reasoned that such phrases as “Fuk Israel” could only be considered antisemitic as “dictated […] according to established common usage in Australia.” He found that Farhat had not intended to “express hatred of Jews”. Slogans such as “Fuk Israel”, construed objectively, were “crude expressions of political hostility to the state of Israel”, a “curse against a foreign state.” They were “not antisemitic according to the ordinary understanding of that concept in the Australian community.” It also did not matter that the graffitied slogans had been made in a locality with a high proportion of Jewish residents: this did “imbue the curse with an antisemitic character.”
The judgment also gave the definition of antisemitism so treasured by the Australian government, most state governments and their agencies, and the Special Envoy for Antisemitism Jillian Segal, a frightful dressing down. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition deems antisemitism to be “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorically and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
This semantic spray did not impress Fagan. With bracing clarity, he stated that the text was “so verbose and imprecise that it could not realistically be attributed to the ordinary, reasonably informed member of the Australian public.” It was unclear what a “certain perception” was. Might it manifest “in the expression of some other, less egregious, sentiment towards Jews and, if so, what?” The inclusion of “non-Jewish individuals” was also baffling and “counterintuitive” as were the lack of limits to the notion of which “rhetorical [or] physical manifestations” might amount to antisemitism.
The justice was far from alone in making remarks about the shoddy formulation. He noted the views of Sir Stephen Sedley, a former judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales who accepted the proposition that the IHRA failed “the test of any definition: it is indefinite.” Fagan also drew on the critical submission by the Jewish Council of Australia (JCA) to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, established in response to the Bondi terrorist attacks of December 14, 2025. “Discussion of the IHRA wording and adoption of it by some institutions does not change the established meaning of a word that has been in use in the English language for 150 years.” Many of the submissions made to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee informing its October 2024 report on the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2) also noted the conflation of “political criticism of Israel with antisemitism.”
The IHRA definition was, the judgment asserted, not intended to give effect to common understandings of antisemitism but aimed to furthering another goal: “Its tendency, and the apparent purpose of promoting it, is to graft onto the community’s abhorrence of antisemitism, understood as hostility to Jews for their Jewishness, a parasitic rejection of protest against Israel.” Such a rejection refused to acknowledge the public repudiation by a majority of Australians of Israeli policies (a Pew Research Center poll from June 4, 2026 found that 79% had an unfavourable view of that country) reflecting a “humanitarian reaction to Israel’s genocide of the Gazans since 7 October 2023, the livestreaming of which to mobile handsets would be difficult to ignore.” It followed that any assertion that 79% of Australians might be “antisemitic because they disapprove of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians” was bound to be “preposterous.”
Justice Fagan was convinced that the state had not made the case “that the defendant poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious terrorism offence if not subject to extended supervision.” What mattered was whether he might succumb to using “illicit drugs and lower order crime”; there was no evidence that Farhat had been “politically radicalised.”
Beyond court proceedings, there have also been broader concerns Farhat’s case has seen fiddling on the part of NSW Police. “The material failure of police to provide critical evidence to the court has resulted in Mr Farhat’s prolonged and quite possibly wrongful incarceration, as well as serious errors of fact and law,” wrote Greens MP, Sue Higginson, to the NSW oversight body, the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC).
Fagan’s reasons provoked howls of protest from the offices of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. This was a dangerous example of judicial “activism” that avoided “the community impact”. (Presumably a judge favouring an aggressively wide interpretation of antisemitism, one armouring and fortifying Israeli policy from scrutiny, would not be entertaining activism.) “It’s quite extraordinary [given] where we are as a society, as a country, globally with antisemitism, that we’re still being dragged back to these foundational discussions about is and what isn’t antisemitism,” groaned Alex Ryvchin on Sky News. Jamie Hyams, director of public affairs at the Australia Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) chastised Fagan for appearing “to range a long way past the question the court had to decide, into contested questions of history, politics and international law on which his honour appears to have had no independent expert evidence.” Such expert evidence, it would seem, can only be sought by those sacred sources approved by a select cartel, one sympathetic to Israeli policies, whatever their import.
The authorities in NSW have shown what can only be contempt for Justice Fagan’s ruling that Farhat had been subject to a “serious miscarriage of justice.” The commissioner for corrective services, Gary McMahon, had already intervened last December to have the parole order revoked without a hearing from the defence team, a nasty denial of natural justice that should provoke further comment. The parole authority’s August 24 decision also refused to acknowledge the ruling and the reasons by Farhat that he had been a vandal for hire: he would be kept in prison as “the offending was reflective of a deep-seated adherence on the part of the offender to an extremist ideology of an antisemitic character.” The purported ignorance to the meaning of the phrases used was also rejected. It follows that this miscarriage of justice, and the project of inoculating Israeli policy from stern and valid criticism, continues.
Colluding with Violence: Aiding Israeli Settlers in the West Bank
18 August 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark , https://theaimn.net/colluding-with-violence-aiding-israeli-settlers-in-the-west-bank/
The latest incidents of Israeli settler violence in the villages of Qusra and Kour, located in the northern occupied West Bank, have again caught international attention, reaching the halls of the United Nations with a gravity that, sadly, is unlikely to have much effect. Towards the end of July, the settlers had set their sights on local mosques, which they set on fire. From August 9, three families in Qusra – making up 15 people in all – were confined to their homes in terror, running out of food and necessities. (Settlers had deprived them of access to water and power.)
When Palestinian Red Crescent ambulances attempted to deliver food and water to these homes, they were attacked.
Unusually, this conduct drew public commentary from the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, a devout Christian Zionist not normally given to criticising Israeli actions in the West Bank, let alone anywhere else. “Actions by those who carried out this horrific act of terror meant to intimidate and harass this family are disgusting,” wrote Huckabee in a post on X. “No excuse for such thuggish behaviour.” The US embassy had been “VERY involved & the IDF & Israel Police have gone at our request to remove the Israeli terrorists doing this.” (More to the point, interest might have been encouraged by the fact that one of the besieged family members was a dual US citizen.)
Rather than restraining the agitators, the Israeli military proceeded to force two of the besieged families, along with six other neighbouring families, to exit their homes for several hours on August 13. UN News reported that families were subsequently relocated to just one home, also imperilled by the settlers. According to the testimony of one resident, “instead of removing the attackers, the Israeli forces removed the attacked families, while allowing the settlers to stay all this time.”
The mayor of Qusra, Abdel Azim Wadi, regarded the role of the Israeli military as pernicious and distinctly not committed to removing the settlers. “We saw them praying together, barbecuing together and dancing together.” They were hardly “interested in helping the besieged families.” The IDF even goes so far as to run a hotline known as War Room C, intended for use by settlers to report on building activities by Palestinians in Area C. The insinuation of fault is clear. The UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner summed up matters: “These criminal actions by the settlers, supported or acquiesced to by Israel, the Occupying power, are making life unbearable for these Palestinian families and are clearly aimed at forcing them to leave their home and their land.”
On August 11, Ramiz Alakbarov, the UN Deputy Special Coordinator for the Middle East Process, told the 15-member Security Council that what was unfolding in the West Bank was the result of “decades of unresolved conflict that has deepened the unlawful Israeli occupation, driven the Palestinian Authority to the brink of collapse and undermined the prospects of an independent, viable and sovereign Palestinian State.”
The picture sketched by Alakbarov is a dismal one, rendering Israeli authorities complicit with the unruly urges of the settlers. (Some 26% of territory in the West Bank is already regarded as “state land,” a status enabling it to be turned over for the construction of new settlements.) Since the start of 2026, approximately 12,360 housing units have beenapproved or advanced by the Israeli authorities in the West Bank. Hefty sums are being allocated for expanding the settlements, including $431 million in aid of 34 new settlements.
The year has also seen the deaths of 76 Palestinians in the territory, due to the work of Israeli forces or settlers. Of this complement, 18 have been children. Three Israelis have also been killed in confrontations with Palestinians. The displacement of the Palestinian population due to settler violence, demolitions and evictions continues with inexorable remorselessness: some 3,800, almost half of them children, have suffered that fate.“Many incidents occurred in the presence of Israeli forces,” insists Alakbarov.
The momentum towards annexation is also being given impetus by plans announced by the Israeli Defence Minister, Israel Katz, to replace the army in the West Bank with civilian police forces. Police would, according to Katz’s office, “establish an appropriate force to handle and address civilian matters,” with the military exclusively tasked with combating “Palestinian terrorism” and protecting borders and communities. The move received much support from various settler figures, with Yisrael Ganz, head of the Regional Binyamin Council in the West Bank, proposing that the next step be “full Israeli sovereignty” over the territory. “The time has come to move from temporary management to the full application of Israeli law.”
The official policy of the Netanyahu government is to regard the attacks as the nasty work of errant juveniles or delinquents who should know better. The thesis on delinquency is not one that holds up when placed alongside the official support for settlement expansion and de facto annexation stemming from Israel proper. The events in Qusra, as with elsewhere in the West Bank, suggest a script of insidious collaboration against the Palestinians, delivered with a forked tongue. The painful implication here is that temporary measures involving the besieging of villagers, and half-hearted efforts by the IDF to combat them, can only inevitably result in dispossession. And that, in the end, is the point.
The Amazon faces a radioactive future
A team of German scientists from the Forschungszentrum Jülich studied the „Environmental impacts of rare earth production“ in several countries including China, Myanmar and Australia. They concluded in their 2022 published study: „The life cycle assessments have highlighted the main problems, such as large quantities of chemicals needed to process Rare Earth Elements and the large quantities of tailings generated during beneficiation, extraction and separation that contain the naturally occurring radionuclides Thorium and Uranium and their decay products. These radioactive elements can enter the environment through air, wastewater and rain leaching.“
By Norbert Suchanek, 25.08.26 – Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – Pressenza New York https://www.pressenza.com/2026/08/the-amazon-faces-a-radioactive-future/
Rush for strategic minerals could turn the Brazilian Amazon into a radioactive sacrifice zone.
The world’s largest rainforest region could face a bleak and radioactive future—driven by new mining projects to extract strategic minerals essential for the global energy transition, the high-tech industry, artificial intelligence, and new weapons systems. Some of these minerals—such as niobium, tin, and rare earth elements—are found in deposits alongside radioactive uranium, thorium, and their radioactive decay products, all of which ultimately end up as mining waste called tailings.
The Amazon region is threatened by an unprecedented mining boom, in the name of sustainability and climate protection. It is at the center of a global race for strategic minerals considered essential for the global energy transition and decarbonization. These include, above all, niobium, copper, cobalt, lithium, nickel, tin and the 17 rare earth elements. They are also necessary for high-tech products like smartphones, war drones, missiles and AI Data centers. Brazil’s mining authority has already received thousands of applications for prospection and exploration in the Amazon, many of which are located near or within forest reserves and indigenous territories.
According to InfoAmazonia, a news organization that combines data, maps and geolocated reporting to tell stories about the planet’s largest continuous tropical forest, there are 5,046 mining applications to exploit essential substances for the energy transition in the Brazilian Amazon Biome. 1,205 of these applications are related to areas that impact Indigenous Lands and 1,207 overlap Conservation Units.
In 2025, an exclusive survey by Brazilian investigative news outlet “Repórter Brasil” identified 1,827 mining requests for copper, lithium, rare earth elements, and 13 other minerals less than 40 kilometer from isolated indigenous groups.
In its official „Guide for Foreign Investors 2026“ the Brazilian Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME) expects a strong increase of Brazil’s mineral reserves from the expansion of geological knowledge and the success of ongoing exploration projects.
“Investments will prioritize the following strategic minerals: Cobalt, Copper, Tin, Graphite, Lithium, Manganese, Platinum Group Metals, Molybdenum, Niobium, Nickel, Silicon, Tantalum, Rare Earths, Titanium, Tungsten, Uranium, Vanadium, Zinc, Phosphate, Potassium.”
According to geological studies potential rare earth deposits can be found in the Amazonian states of Amazonas, Rondônia, Roraima, Pará, and Tocantins. One of the largest reserves identified in Brazil is the Morro dos Seis Lagos deposite at São Gabriel da Cachoeira in the Amazonas state.
However, the mining and processing of rare earths and other critical minerals are a dirty business that can have serious consequences for the environment, workers and local populations. Mining, especially open-pit mining requires clearing large areas of land to access mineral deposits. Rainforest has also to be cleared for the necessary workers’ settlements and access roads. These new highways, in particular, attract landless settlers, land speculators, and illegal loggers who deforest further areas along the routes as observed throughout the Amazon region for decades. But that’s just the tip of the “dirty” iceberg of rare earths and critical mineral production.
High risk of radioactive contamination
There is a threat of widespread contamination of soil, air, and water with toxic substances, heavy metals, and even radioactive elements. This is because some of the critical or strategic minerals such as niobium, tin and rare earth elements occur in the soil in association with radioactive uranium, thorium and their radioactive decay products.
The contamination starts with the first blast. Radioactive and toxic dust caused by the explosions spreads over the mining area. The more rock that has to be blasted and removed, the more dust is generated. The amount of dust can be reduced by irrigation systems. However, that creates sewage containing radioactive substances and heavy metals that can enter soil and water resources. The highly hazardous tailings, which are mixtures of crushed rocks and processing fluids from mills and concentrators have to be stored in artificial lakes or ponds for a long time. Studies show, every tonne of rare earths mined generates up to 2,000 tonnes of toxic and radioactive waste.
In addition the beneficiation process and refining of rare earths need a huge amount of energy and chemicals. Flotation tailings, up to 40 tons per ton of produced rare earth oxide, that include radioactive elements, are also discharged into the open tailings ponds which poses toxicity risks to water, soil, and air through leakage, dust formation, and rain erosion. In addition refining processes generate also huge amounts of dangerous gas. Each ton of rare earth elements produced in China releases 9,600 to 12,000 cubic meters of toxic gas containing flue dust concentrate, hydrofluoric acid, sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology factsheet “Mission 2016 – The Future of Strategic Natural Resources“.
A team of German scientists from the Forschungszentrum Jülich studied the „Environmental impacts of rare earth production“ in several countries including China, Myanmar and Australia. They concluded in their 2022 published study: „The life cycle assessments have highlighted the main problems, such as large quantities of chemicals needed to process Rare Earth Elements and the large quantities of tailings generated during beneficiation, extraction and separation that contain the naturally occurring radionuclides Thorium and Uranium and their decay products. These radioactive elements can enter the environment through air, wastewater and rain leaching.“
It should also be noted that rare earth elements are toxic to humans and animals. Recent toxicological studies show that rare earths can enter the human body through various pathways such as inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact. They accumulate in different tissues or organs and ultimately posing a serious threat to human health. A 2024 published study considers exposure to Rare Earth Elements as „a public health issue of global importance“. Possible consequences include lung diseases, neurological damage, cardiovascular dysfunction, reproductive harm, and increased risks of cancer and genetic damage.
Dams can and do break.
After all, one of the major risks to the Amazon basin is the enormous amount of tailings from the mining operations, which are stored in huge ponds secured by artificial dams. To avoid radioactive leakage they must be monitored, and permanently managed for a very long time. However, dams can break, as has happened in the past in various countries around the world. Regions with naturally occurring heavy rainfall, such as the Amazon and the Atlantic Rainforest in Brazil, are particularly vulnerable to dam breaches.
In Brazil, there have already been dozens tailings dam failures in mining areas that led to severe environmental disasters. The two worst dam collapses in Brazil to date occurred in Mariana in 2015 and in Brumadinho in 2019, both located in the Atlantic Rainforest region of the southeastern state of Minas Gerais.
Case studies on radioactive contamination from rare earth production
Radioactive contamination resulting from the extraction of rare earths and strategic minerals is neither an unfounded hypothesis nor science fiction. It has already occurred—for instance, in Malaysia during the 1980s: Radioactive waste from the rare earth processing plant of Asian Rare Earth and the Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation poisoned the local population of Bukit Merah. „When the Mitsubishi joint venture plant opened over 1982, the villagers soon began complaining of the factory’s stinging smoke and bad smell which made them choke and cry. Worse was to come. Their health began failing, indicated not only by frequent bouts of coughs and colds, but a sharp rise in the incidence of leukemia, infant deaths, congenital disease and lead poisoning“, remembers the Consumers’ Association of Penang (CAP). The affected population protested and went to court. Finally, in 1994, the Bukit Merah plant closed. The rare earth company left behind its radioactive waste, stored in 80,000 drums of 200 liters each in a dump site just three kilometers outside from Bukit Merah.
Another „dirty“ rare earth mining hotspot is Myanmar, also in Southeast Asia. This country is one of the largest rare earth exploiters in the world serving the Chinese industry for years with dear consequences. The mines along the Myanmar-China border generate radioactive waste and chemical contaminants that seep into waterways, degrading local ecosystems and disproportionately impacting indigenous populations.
A research by Thailand’s Naresuan University found that water samples taken from areas of extraction in Kachin State were severely contaminated with radioactive elements, toxic heavy metals and other harmful substances. In 2025, the policy brief “Kachin, a Sacrifice Zone for the Green Transition” of the EarthRights organization in Washington DC brought to light the environmental destruction and human rights violations resulting from the mining of heavy rare earth elements in Myanmar: „Mining in Kachin is leaving creeks and rivers dangerously contaminated with heavy metals and radioactive elements.“ Worse: These rivers are tributaries of the great Mekong, one of the most fish-biodiverse rivers in the world and a food source for millions of people.
„Toxic runoff from these (Rare Earth) mines is polluting transboundary rivers that run from Myanmar into Thailand and then into the Mekong mainstream. People living in the affected areas cannot use the rivers for fishing, their agricultural products are shunned at markets in Thailand, and they fear their bodies are being exposed to toxins“, wrote the Stimson Center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank based in Washington, D.C., in its 2025 published field note „Toxic Rare Earth Mining is Ruining Mekong Tributaries in the Golden Triangle.“
Even in the Amazon basin, mining activities have already led to radioactive contamination on at least one occasion.
In 1993, a tailings dam at the Pitinga open pit mine in the state of Amazonas at Presidente Figueiredo municipality, roughly 130 kilometers north of Manaus collapsed, contaminating the Tiaraju River of the Waimiri Atroari indigenous territory with heavy metals and radioactive elements. Pitinga was established in 1981 during the military dictatorship by the mining company “Mineração Taboca” and has produced mainly tin ore and niobium since 1982. However, the polymetallic deposit also contains other strategic minerals such as tantalum, rare earth elements and the radionuclides thorium and uranium, which are eventually found in the tailings and processing residues.
“The dam collapse at the Pitinga mine is serious and should concern the entire community, as there is evidence that the company released radioactive minerals that could cause irreversible environmental damage,” warned the Indigenist Missionary Council (CIMI) at the time. The Waimiri Atroari reported cases of tooth loss, hair loss, and leukemia: typical symptoms and consequences of radiation exposure or radioactive contamination.
Egydio Schwade, a co-founder of the Indigenous Missionary Council (Cimi) and resident of Presidente Figueiredo, witnessed already in 1985 the discharging of Pitinga’s mining waste into the Tiaraju Stream, a tributary of the Alalaú River, which serves as the lifeblood of the Waimiri-Atroari Reserve and flows into the Rio Negro. „Conditions worsened significantly in the years that followed — 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992 — due to the successive failure of containment dams“, he remembers in his 2016 published report „Criminal Mining: A Testimony“.
Another accusation comes from the indigenist Porfírio Carvalho of Brazil’s Indigenous affairs agency (FUNAI). In 1987, he denounced the collapse of nine dams of the Pitinga mine, which polluted the Riaraju, Alalaú, and Jauaperi rivers and threatened the fauna and flora of the Amazon. Although he did not mention radioactive contamination due to a lack of technical analysis, he described it as a large-scale ecological disaster in the region. Carvalho has been accompanying the Waimiri Atroari since the late 1960s. He died in 2017 from cancer, aged 70.
The mining company Mineração Taboca, which operates the Pitinga Mine in Amazonas, was sold in November 2024 to the Chinese state-owned company CNMC (China Nonferrous Metal Mining Company) for US$340 million. The Chinese company aims to quadruple production at Pitinga. In addition it plans to exploit the mine’s rare earth minerals. Pitinga is considered a potential “hotspot” for large-scale rare earth mining in the Amazon. These elements are present not only in the primary ore body of Pitinga but also in the more than 6,000 hectares of tailings ponds that contain more than 100 million tonnes of waste rock.
According to the Global Environmental Justice Atlas (EJAtlas) the Pitinga mining complex is emblematic for Brazil’s historical injustice against indigenous peoples and the systematic downplaying of environmental pollution and the risks associated with tailings dams.
“China’s recent acquisition of Pitinga in November 2024 escalates threats from rare earth extraction, intensifying impacts on fragile ecosystems and the rights of Indigenous peoples.“
Norbert Suchanek is an experienced journalist based in Rio de Janeiro Born in Germany in 1963, Norbert Suchanek has been researching and writing about environmental and human rights issues since 1988. In 2025, he received the Nuclear-Free Future Award in the Education category in New York City. He is also co-founder of the International Uranium Film Festival.
“A Trojan horse for communism!” More big batteries head for review as familiar long distance objectors pile in again
Another two big battery projects in New South Wales are destined to head
to the state’s independent panel for review after being swamped with
letters of opposition, almost entirely from long distance opponents –
many of them familiar and serial objectors.
The 200 megawatt (MW), 800
megawatt hour (MWh) Romani battery project near Booroorban in the
south-west of the state and the 100 MW, 870 MWh Ebor battery project in the
north of the state, have both attracted more than 60 submissions opposing
their projects as they work their way through state planning approvals.
Once the numbers objections reach 50, a project must be sent for review by
the Independent Planning Commission even if – as is often the case –
there are no submissions against the proposal from the local area.
There is a familiar theme. Big batteries are a “Trojan Horse for communism”,
writes one anonymous objector in full caps, in a claim echoed in several
other letters opposing both the Ebor and Romani batteries. The term
“Renewabulls”, also often written in full caps, is also repeated in
multiple letters, as does a variation of that term “Ruinabull”. Another
common theme is the claimed use of diesel generators to help cool the
batteries.
Renew Economy 24th Aug 2026, https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-trojan-horse-for-communism-more-big-batteries-head-for-review-as-familiar-long-distance-objectors-pile-in-again/
UK Cabinet Office declines to share information it holds about PM’s nuke orders options
Tom Pashby, Aug 26, 2026, https://tompashby.substack.com/p/cabinet-office-declines-to-share?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=6735486&post_id=212821041&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
The Cabinet Office has confirmed to 20 Working Days that it holds information regarding what options the Prime Minister has in terms of the orders they can give to nuclear-armed submarine captains in their ‘Letters of last resort’, but said it is withholding the information.
It is widely understood that one of the first tasks a Prime Minister has on walking through the door to Number 10 Downing Street is writing the letters to the captains of Trident submarines – the UK’s continuous-at-sea-deterrent.
The letters are written so that, if communications are not possible between the submarine and the wider military and political command and control structure, the submarine captains are able to find out what they should do by reading the pre-written letters which are believed to be sealed until they are needed.
The existence of the letters was confirmed by the MOD in an internal review of a FOI request in 2015. The results of the internal review were addressed to a Mr D Black.
In 2016, just before Theresa May took over the role from David Cameron, the Guardian reported: “The options are said to include the orders “Put yourself under the command of the US, if it is still there”; “Go to Australia”; “Retaliate”; or “Use your own judgment”.”
On 4 July 2026, using the FOI Act, 20 Working Days asked the MOD to share “any documents which show whether the options include the orders ‘Put yourself under the command of the US, if it is still there’; ‘Go to Australia’; ‘Retaliate’; or ‘Use your own judgment’,” as per the reporting in the Guardian.
In response, on 16 July, the MOD said: “As the letters are administered by the Cabinet Office, you may wish to approach them regarding […] what options the letters might contain.”
On the same day, 20 Working Days put that question to the Cabinet Office.
On 17 August, the Cabinet Office responded and said: “We are writing to advise you that following a search of our paper and electronic records, we have established that the information you requested is held by the Cabinet Office.
“Information you have requested is exempt under section 24(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. Section 24 exempts information from disclosure if its exemption is required for the purpose of safeguarding national security.”
It added that “Section 24 is a qualified exemption and we have considered whether the balance of the public interest favours releasing or withholding this information”, and confirmed “we have determined that the balance of the public interest favours withholding this Information”.
The Cabinet Office was approached for comment.
Anti-AUKUS march sets off from Port Augusta… and it’s a long one

“Entrenching militarisation in lockstep with the US is a real concern for us,”
“And opening the gates for nuclear facilities for high-level nuclear waste via highly enriched uranium, which Australia has never had before, which can be used to make nuclear weapons.”
A group of activists is on a month-long walk to Adelaide protesting the nuclear submarine construction program at Osborne.
InDaily, DavidSimmons, Aug 21, 2026,
A group of activists from around the country ranging in age from 20 to 72, are on a long walk to Adelaide protesting over the nuclear submarine construction program that is set to transform South Australia’s advanced manufacturing base.
The self-proclaimed ‘Peace Walkers’ – including First Nations people – are undertaking a mammoth journey on foot from Port Augusta to Port Adelaide to draw attention to the AUKUS defence pact.
They are expected to complete the 400-plus km walk in a month, supported by a convoy and funds raised in advance by an anti-nuclear group called Beyond Uranium Canberra. Other groups involved include Friends of the Earth, the Medical Association for Prevention of War and the Port Adelaide Community Opposing AUKUS.
The group will be camping along the way and staying at caravan parks, and has supplies and first-aid gear to make the journey safe.
A similar march was completed in 2024, when a group walked from Port Kembla in New South Wales to Canberra.
AUKUS – a trilateral military pact between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States – is set to transform SA, with a large part of the $368 billion project expected to be spent in Adelaide, where nuclear submarines – based on US technology – would be constructed.
Speaking to InDaily, organiser Reed O’Loughlin said there were currently 14 in the cohort but he expected that number to grow as the convoy headed south.
The group hoped to arrive in Port Adelaide on September 20, to coincide with a national day of action against AUKUS.
“We’re in really high spirits,” O’Loughlin told InDaily while on the road.
“Our bodies are warming up and we’re feeling pretty good. We’ve got beautiful weather and the ranges are really beautiful – we’ve had a beautiful view all day.”
The collective of walkers, who hail from all corners of Australia, are an “anti-nuclear, anti-war movement”, said O’Loughlin, who took part in the 2024 ‘Peace March’ to Canberra.
“Entrenching militarisation in lockstep with the US is a real concern for us,” he said.
“And opening the gates for nuclear facilities for high-level nuclear waste via highly enriched uranium, which Australia has never had before, which can be used to make nuclear weapons.”…………………………………………………………………………………..
The protest march comes after an independent inquiry into the defence project docked in Adelaide last month.
Headed by former Labor politician and now-Lead Commissioner of the ‘AUKUS Public Inquiry’, Peter Garrett, the inquiry is gathering perspectives on the trilateral defence pact.
In Adelaide, the inquiry heard from self-described ‘transparency warrior’ Rex Patrick who raised concerns about the risk associated with the project as well as transparency warnings over the government’s plan for nuclear waste disposal…………. https://www.indailysa.com.au/news/just-in/2026/08/21/anti-aukus-march-sets-off-from-port-augusta-and-its-a-long-one
The Antisemitism Cover
22 August 2026 Dr Andrew Klein & Sera Elizabeth Klein, https://theaimn.net/the-antisemitism-cover/
The Antisemitism Cover: How Australia’s Education Reforms, Israel Lobby, and Palantir Are Connected
Dedication: To the 73,000 Palestinian civilians whose lives became the testing data. To the 800,000 disabled Australians whose data is now being weaponised against them. And to every person who has been told that surveillance is safety, that profit is progress, and that the truth is antisemitic. We see you. We remember you. And we will not forget.
Abstract
This article examines the interconnected web of Australian education policy, the antisemitism envoy network, and the Palantir surveillance apparatus. We demonstrate that the Albanese government’s antisemitism initiatives – framed as a response to rising hatred – are in fact a cover for protecting a network of business interests connecting Australian education policy, Israeli AI investment, and the surveillance state. We trace the thread from the Dawkins and Gonski education reforms to the appointment of David Gonski and Jillian Segal as leaders of the antisemitism taskforce, to Segal’s dual role as Chair of the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce, to the embedding of Palantir – the same company providing targeting data to Israel in Gaza – into Australian government systems. We conclude that the antisemitism agenda is not about combating hate but about protecting a multibillion-dollar investment in AI surveillance technology that has already failed in military applications and is now being tested on Australia’s most vulnerable citizens.
1. Introduction: The Thread That Connects
In December 2025, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the establishment of a 12-month Antisemitism Education Taskforce, chaired by David Gonski AC. The taskforce includes Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal AO. On its face, this appears to be a good-faith effort to combat rising hatred. But a closer examination reveals something else entirely: a network of business and political interests connecting Australian education policy, Israeli AI investment, and the surveillance state.
This paper traces the thread from the Dawkins reforms of the late 1980s through the Gonski education reviews to the present day, demonstrating that the antisemitism agenda is a cover for protecting business interests—specifically, the multibillion-dollar investment in Palantir Technologies and the Israeli AI industry it serves.
2. The Education Reforms: Creating the Management Framework
2.1 The Dawkins Review (1987-1988)
The higher education reforms introduced by Minister John Dawkins in 1987 and 1988 consisted of growth, institutional rationalisation, the modernisation of management and the establishment of links with industry, user pays arrangements and a more corporate culture. The Dawkins reforms were targeted at improving the efficiency and international competitiveness of Australian universities.
2.2 The Gonski Review
The Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling was commissioned in 2010 and conducted by an expert panel headed by senior businessman and philanthropist David Gonski. The review was the most comprehensive investigation of Australian schools’ funding in the last 40 years. It contained 41 recommendations, including an increase of $5 billion per year to schools funding. The Gonski Review linked quality educational outcomes for students to increased national productivity.
3. The Antisemitism Network: Same People, Same Interests
3.1 David Gonski: From Education to Antisemitism
David Gonski AC, who led the school funding review, is now Chair of the Antisemitism Education Taskforce. The taskforce was announced on 18 December 2025 and will complete a final report in December 2026. Gonski has stated that the taskforce will “support schools and educators to help students at all stages of their education journey to combat antisemitism and other forms of discrimination.”
3.2 Jillian Segal: The Israel Lobby Nexus
Jillian Segal AO, Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, occupies a unique position at the intersection of power. Her credentials include:
- Chair of the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce (NSW)
- Former President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry
- Member of the International Board of Israel’s Weizmann Institute of Science
- Director of Rabobank Australia Limited, the Garvan Institute of Medical Research, and the Grattan Institute of Public Policy
- Former Director of ASX Ltd and National Australia Bank Ltd
The Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce is “one of this country’s most prestigious big business lobbies” that remains “cozy with Israeli bosses and weapons contractors.” Segal’s office provides the framework that silences critics.
3.3 The $50,000 Donation
Records show a company co-directed by Jillian Segal’s husband donated $50,000 in 2024 to Advance, a lobby group which campaigned against Albanese and pro-Palestine protests. Segal denied involvement, but the donation reveals the network’s financial interests.
3.4 The Royal Commission Testimony
At the Royal Commission, Segal claimed the Gaza death toll was “grossly inflated” and “inaccurate.” When pressed to share evidence to support her claim, she could not provide it. This is not the testimony of someone seeking truth – it is the testimony of someone protecting an investment.
4. The Palantir Connection: From Gaza to the NDIS
4.1 Palantir in Gaza
Palantir Technologies has become a key partner in military AI operations. The company signed a $10 billion agreement with the US military and has become a key partner in the Pentagon’s Maven program, which uses AI for target identification and battlefield analysis.
In January 2024, Palantir announced a strategic partnership with Israel’s Defense Ministry to provide technology for “war-related missions.” Palantir co-founders Alex Karp and Peter Thiel held a board meeting in Tel Aviv in January 2024 and met Israeli President Isaac Herzog. Karp said demand from Israel for the company’s services had increased after October 7, 2023.
Reports indicate Palantir’s systems have been deployed in Gaza, Lebanon, and operations linked to Iran. Former Microsoft employee Ibtihal Aboussad alleged that “Palantir is essentially weaponizing artificial intelligence and also weaponizing data analysis to make deadly decisions.” The group Open Intel alleges that Palantir’s software combines intercepted communications, satellite imagery and other data to help Israeli forces generate military targeting lists.
4.2 Palantir in Australia
Palantir has secured more than $50 million in Australian government contracts since 2013, largely across defence and national security-related agencies. The Department of Defence bypassed the open market to award Palantir a $7.6 million contract. Defence justified the sole-source deal by claiming no other software could match Palantir’s ability.
AUSTRAC awarded Palantir an $8.1 million contract for data analytics in 2023, subsequently executing five variations in just 12 months, pushing the total value past $12 million. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) has committed about $5.7 million to the firm across multiple contracts.
4.3 The NDIS Infiltration
The government has secretly inserted Palantir into its automated decision system inside the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). If the NDIS Amendment Bill passes, a computer program will have the authority to cut a disabled person’s funding. If the program gets it wrong, section 59E(3) of the Bill provides that the decision stands anyway – there is no appeal.
Freedom of Information documents show the NDIA engaged with Palantir from April 2023 to February 2024, including a Proof of Concept and Palantir’s Foundry Cloud Architecture Diagram. In November 2025, Palantir received its Protected-level security clearance – the level at which NDIS participant files sit.
The NDIA declined to release all 22 documents, citing business information exemptions – protecting Palantir’s commercial interests rather than the public’s right to know. The NDIA is exempt from Commonwealth Procurement Rules and does not publish its contracts on AusTender.
4.4 The Surveillance Reality
A Palantir training manual shows analysts how to search through 42 million pieces of data collected on Australians. The system automatically adds warrant numbers to calls and texts, maps flows between numbers, and plots locations. Permissions are set to “everyone” by default because it “enhances the agency’s discovery capabilities.”
5. Gaza as the Testing Ground
The pattern is clear: Gaza was the testing ground for AI-powered targeting. The US and Israel, which previously used AI to identify targets in Gaza, launched almost 900 strikes on Iranian targets in the first 12 hours of the Iran war. Palantir’s system uses machine learning to identify and prioritise targets and recommend weaponry.
Palantir has recruited former members of Unit 8200, Israel’s elite cyberintelligence division. The company’s AI systems enable “lethal targeting” and “function as a shield protecting Israel from legal accountability.”
The same technology that helped generate kill lists in Gaza is now being used to cut funding for disabled Australians.
6. Israel’s Planned AI Hub
Israel has sought to position itself as the AI hub for the Middle East – a business model of never-ending wars and “innovation” built on death. The Pax Silica Declaration, signed by Australia, Israel, the US, and others, commits signatories to “secure the future of AI.” Palantir’s revenue surged 93% year-on-year in the second quarter, reaching $1.94 billion. CEO Alex Karp called it “otherworldly.”
This is not about security. This is about business.
7. The Government Knows
The Albanese government knows what Palantir is. It knows the company’s technology is being used to target and kill Palestinians. It knows the company’s CEO has spoken proudly of their AI “killing Palestinians.” It knows Palantir has been accused of facilitating human rights abuse.
And yet it:
- Awards Palantir $60 million in contracts
- Allows the Future Fund to hold $160 million in Palantir shares
- Secretly embeds Palantir in the NDIS
- Removes the right of appeal for decisions made by Palantir’s algorithms
- Appoints the Chair of the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce as antisemitism envoy
This is not ignorance. This is design.
8. Conclusion: The Business Model of Betrayal
The antisemitism envoy is not about combating hate. It is about protecting a network of business interests that connects Australian education policy, Israeli AI, and the surveillance state.
The thread runs from:
- Dawkins and Gonski creating the management framework for a corporate education system
- Gonski and Segal leading the antisemitism network
- Segal promoting Israeli AI investment through the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce
- Palantir connecting Australian data to Israeli targeting
- The government protecting the investment at all costs
The Albanese government is not worried about antisemitism – it is worried about protecting a failed investment. The antisemitism agenda is a cover for a business model built on surveillance, death, and the sacrifice of the vulnerable.
When the truth emerges, the government will claim it didn’t know. But we know the truth. And we will not forget.
References
- Australian Government, Higher Education: A Policy Discussion Paper (Dawkins Review), 1987
- Australian Government, Review to Achieve Educational Excellence in Australian Schools (Gonski Review), 2018
- Australian Government, Antisemitism Education Taskforce Established, 18 December 2025
- Australian Government, Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism Announcement, 18 December 2024
- Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce NSW, Jillian Segal AO Profile
- Michael West Media, ”Robodebt on Steroids: Palantir infiltrates NDIS,” 18 August 2026
- Crikey, “Calls, messages, police records: How Palantir helped an intelligence agency analyse 42 million data points on Australians,” 27 April 2026
- Canberra Times, “Defence skips competitive tender process to award Palantir multimillion-dollar contract,” 28 February 2026
- Anadolu Agency, “Palantir AI technologies used in Israeli attacks, say reports,” 10 May 2026
- Anadolu Agency, “Palantir revenue surges 93% amid criticism over support for Israel’s Gaza war,” 4 August 2026
- The Guardian, “Iran war heralds era of AI-powered bombing quicker than ‘speed of thought’,” 3 March 2026
- The Guardian, “Palantir deals are a threat to our data rights as UK citizens,” 23 February 2026
- Asia Pacific Report, “‘We kill enemies’ – spy firm Palantir secures top Australian security clearance,” 21 Januar ,
- ABC News, “Universities could lose accreditation for funding with failure to commit to addressing antisemitism,” 30 June 2026
Just look at Europe
Letters to The Advertiser,20 Aug, 26
It is interesting that those who are in favour of nuclear power have been silent recently.
Could it be due to the shutdowns of power stations in Europe because of the lack of water.
Carol Lloyd, Goodwood
AI has other options
Several writers advocate for AI data centres to be powered by nuclear small modular reactors (SMRs) (Letters, 20/8).
There are two problems with this.
First of all there are no commercially available SMRs.
Secondly, Australia has nowhere to put the nuclear waste.
It will be much easier and cheaper to power data centres with renewables, which are available now.
R. Wood, Valley View
Too dry for nuclear

Letter to The Adelaide Advertiser, Jim Allen, Panorama, 21 Aug, 26
Techno-optimists are entitled to their views about supplying nuclear power to data centres any time soon, but I am a realist.
We are the driest State in Australia.
Both water shortages and heatwaves are limiting factors.
Look at what’s happening in Europe now.
European nuclear plants can’t cope, and we need solutions that can withstand what global warming throws at us here.
Early data centres will no doubt locate where there is good transmission already – like the proposal at Bundey – and nearby, there are large wind and solar projects that either have been commissioned or have at least have necessary approvals in place. Again Bundey fits the bill.
Thirsty facilities of all kinds bring risks to our state.
Also, what assurance is there that there can and will be effective safeguards to protect consumers from further electricity price hikes regardless of energy sources relied on by data centres? A “let it rip” attitude to these projects could be an unmitigated disaster. You only need to look at a few examples in the US to see that.
According to Alexander Downer Australia must get small nuclear reactors, to power data centres? Really?
Letter to The Advertiser, 20 Aug 26
Alexander Downer and his fans have jumped on the data centre band wagon as the latest reason why Australia should build nuclear reactors. They claim nuclear reactors will provide cheap, reliable electricity to power these data centres.
Presumably the data centres they have in mind are the ones that will be built around 2050, because they won’t be getting electricity from nuclear reactors any time soon. It’s worth remembering that currently no commercial ‘micro’ or ‘small modular’ reactors actually exist.
And ‘reliable’ power (let’s not say ‘cheap’) might just be in winter. Nuclear reactors in Europe are getting shut down left right and centre in summer because their cooling systems can’t handle the heat. Of course, the world will be much hotter by 2050. By then, I expect the nuclear illusion will have vanished like a mirage on the horizon.
29 AUGUST – Webinar JOIN US: PROTECT BETTER
Protect Better Webinar Series: International Perspectives
Aug 27, 2026 10:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney, https://psr-org.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_ezLPDW7dRSWIPgDa3OWaVQ#/registration
How do proposed changes to U.S. radiation exposure standards compare to policies in the rest of the world? Hear from two experts on community and worker health who are raising concerns about what NRC’s weaker protections could mean internationally.
Experts include Tony Webb, MSc, PhD — an expert on radiation and health with decades of experience advocating for the health of nuclear workers worldwide.
Tilman Ruff, AO is an infectious diseases and public health physician at the University of Melbourne. He is the former co-president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and has extensive experience with the health impacts of radiation exposure. Webinar will also include comment submission walkthrough, and exploration of regulations.gov resources and current comments.
Far-Right secretive political group Advance appears at election inquiry

By Belinda Jones | 22 August 2026, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/far-right-secretive-political-group-advance-appears-at-election-inquiry,21462
Despite Advance’s appearance at the 2025 election inquiry, Australians are none the wiser about what Advance really does, who’s funding them, who the people involved are, what their agenda is and what link binds them, writes Belinda Jones.
THE FAR-RIGHT POLITICAL advocacy group Advance Aus Limited appeared before the Australian Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the 2025 federal election late yesterday afternoon. Chair Vicki Dunne and Company Secretary Mark Spencer represented Advance. Executive Director Matthew Sheahan did not appear.
For background, Dunne served in the A.C.T. Parliament for the Liberal Party for 19 years, the latter years under then-Leader of the Opposition, Zed Seselja. Zed went on to serve as a Liberal Senator from 2013 until he was defeated by Senator David Pocock in 2022.
Advance unsuccessfully campaigned against Pocock in 2022.
At yesterday’s public hearing, Greens Senator Steph Hodgins-May asked Spencer why he failed to provide his biography to the inquiry’s committee; he claimed he hadn’t been asked to provide one. He didn’t volunteer to the committee that he was the former Director of Public Policy at Christian Schools Australia.
For those not familiar with Advance, since its inception in 2017, it has gained a reputation as a somewhat clandestine outfit with many wealthy backers, including One Nation-backer Gina Rinehart. Dunne told the committee that Advance now has 662,973 “supporters”; she later admitted these were “email subscribers” to the Advance website.
Dunne also told the committee that Advance has 45,645 “grassroots” donors averaging around $200 per donation, including “partners” who contribute “regular, recurring donations” that Dunne likened to Catholic “planned giving”. Interestingly, both Dunne and Seselja are devout Catholics.
Hodgins-May pressed Dunne and Spencer on whether Advance has a physical office and how many staff they have. Dunne was evasive and could only estimate that Advance had about “30 staff” of contractors and consultants, which fluctuated all the time. It was established that Advance does not have an actual office, just a virtual one – the Advance team all work from home.
Both Dunne and Spencer mentioned during the hearing that if Advance appears in public or has an office, it faces aggressive or anti-social behaviour.
On the one hand, Dunne argued that Advance is enormously popular and has over half a million supporters while simultaneously being scared to appear in public because of public backlash. Perhaps they are not as popular as they think.
A check of their popularity on social media revealed very modest numbers too: Advance’s Facebook has 211K followers, Instagram 96K followers and X (formerly Twitter) just 20K.
Advance’s own array of culture war petitions on their website attracts a fraction of their so-called 662K “supporters”; most petitions manage five per cent of that number or less and fail to meet their signature targets. Another sign they’re not as popular as they think.
Like a dentist extracting a mouthful of teeth, Hodgins-May painstakingly continued, reading out a list of names of people associated with both the Liberal Party and Advance; she asked about the Liberal Party Associated Entity The Cormack Foundation and what sort of consultancy work Whitestone Strategic had done for Advance.
Dunne reiterated to the Senator that Advance had complied with Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) law on all donations and suggested Whitestone had done some marketing and comms for Advance.
After much to-and-froing, Hodgins-May calmly asked Dunne why Advance shouldn’t be considered an AEC Associated Entity, given the fact that Advance is “stacked” with Liberal Party operatives and received $500K from a Liberal Party associated entity. Dunne objected, through the Chair, to the word “stacked” but could not explain the amazing coincidence of Liberal Party connections nor the half-million-dollar Cormack Foundation donation.
Dunne didn’t say a word when Hodgins-May read out the name Stephen Doyle, nor did she elaborate on his connection to Whitestone.
Doyle, Zed Seselja’s former Chief of Staff and brother-in-law, founded Whitestone with former Australian Christian Lobby director of communications David Hutt in 2017, who is no longer with the company.
Whitestone has also provided their services to several sitting Liberal parliamentarians, including Andrew Hastie, Alex Antic, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Claire Chandler. Doyle is also listed as Advance’s Campaign Manager for the 2025 election. Dunne and Spencer didn’t mention that either.
It has been previously reported by the Guardian that former Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) head Lyle Shelton’s ‘personal website is registered to Whitestone’. Whitestone’s ASIC address is also shared with a number of anti-trans advocacy groups.
So, despite Advance’s appearance at the hearing, Dunne’s long-winded Opening Statement and the committee’s clear, fair questions, Australians are none the wiser about what Advance really does, who’s funding them, who the people involved are, what their agenda is and what link binds them.
Dunne told the committee that thousands of “grassroots” people lined Advance’s coffers with small donations, not just billionaire backers. Therefore, the link can’t be money if rich and poor alike are “patriots” and “supporters”.
The link can’t be a social media uprising because Advance’s social media following is also a fraction of their so-called “supporters” after eight years of political advocacy.
The link can’t be a groundswell of popular support for Advance’s imported culture war policies; otherwise, those Advance petitions would have met or exceeded their signature goals.
Dunne says the fact that they’re all connected to the Liberal Party is pure coincidence, so it can’t be that.
Perhaps the link is religion, since so many are or have been affiliated with religious organisations or have openly professed their faith.
Religion would also explain the imported culture wars from the U.S. Bible Belt. It would explain why, despite Advance’s bulging war chest, their message isn’t cutting through in Australia’s largely secular society.
Since Advance started in 2018, the Liberal vote has steadily declined nationwide. The Conservative vote is now split between the Coalition and One Nation, with polls predicting neither would garner enough votes to hold power outright.
Advance appears to be driving that decline, or maybe that’s just a coincidence too.
Maybe we’ll learn more in a few weeks when we get the answers to all those questions Dunne and Spencer took on notice.
Or maybe Advance will remain the secretive third-party political organisation pushing a secretive political agenda by secretive political people with lots and lots of money from secretive billionaire backers.
Why are we militarising Space?

Falling in behind the US, Australia signed the Trump Administration’s 2020 Artemis Accords which were designed to nullify the Moon Treaty and give the green light to US-led colonisation of the Moon for the purpose of commercial mining of its surface.
The US aims to dominate space militarily, and Australia is its willing accomplice.
20 August 2026 AIMN Editorial, https://theaimn.net/why-are-we-militarising-space/
By Michael Williss
The Australian Defence Force (ADF) released its 2026 Defence Strategy earlier this year, and an accompanying fact sheet said that “The ADF must be integrated across all five domains – maritime, land, air, space and cyber – as well as with international partners.”[1]
The reference to the “five domains” is important. Prior to 2020, there was only reference to the traditional warfare domains of the land, seas and air. As of January 2022, however, a new command force operating across the three traditional domains was created, now known as Space Command.[2]
The official embrace of Space as a war-fighting domain runs counter to the spirit, if not the letter, of two international Treaties signed by Australia: the UN Outer Space Treaty (OST) and the Moon Treaty.
The OST was a response by the world community to US and Soviet nuclear weapons tests in Space from 1958 to 1962. The largest US test occurred 400kms above and 1450kms south-west of Hawaii. It was 90 times the size of the blast at Hiroshima. It caused significant electrical damage in Hawaii, but also resulted, in the months that followed, in killing eight of the 24 satellites that were then in orbit around the Earth including the UK’s Telstar.[3]
This led to the ratification by UN member states of the OST in 1967. Amongst the provisions of the Treaty were:
outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;- outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
- States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner.
However, there is a very large loophole between a nuclear weapon and a WMD through which any manner of weapons based on new technologies could be fired.
The 1979 Moon Treaty reiterated the points above and strengthened several of them. Australia signed it in 1986, but to date on 17 countries have done so. Opposition to it has been led by the US which refused to accept its restriction on “any military use of celestial bodies.”[4]
Falling in behind the US, Australia signed the Trump Administration’s 2020 Artemis Accords which were designed to nullify the Moon Treaty and give the green light to US-led colonisation of the Moon for the purpose of commercial mining of its surface.
Anywhere that the US dollar treads, the men with guns are there to protect it. As on Earth, so in Space. In 1985, under Ronald Reagan, the US created its Space Command. It lapsed after a while but was recreated under Trump in 2019 with a reemphasized focus on space as a warfighting domain. It established its own fighting force for Space, known as Guardians.
Col. Kyle Pumroy (Ret.) writing in the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies’ paper “Military Human Spaceflight: A Key Component to US Space Superiority,” said “now is the time to begin placing Guardians in space to develop the skills, tools, and concepts to build a future capacity to defend core US interests…”[5]
The US aims to dominate space militarily, and Australia is its willing accomplice.
The latest comments came on August 12 2026 at the US Army Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Alabama.[6]
US Space Command (SPACECOM) head Gen. Stephen Whiting, told attendees that SPACECOM’s top two priorities for fiscal 2029 through to 2033 are “integrated space fires” and capabilities to counter large constellations of satellites in low Earth orbit (LEO) in order to establish space superiority.
“We’re a combatant command and we fight to win wars. To win, we need credible, acknowledged, kinetic and non-kinetic fires. They are a key component of how we establish space superiority and restore credible deterrence,” he said.
Kinetic refers to the movement of a physical body such as a missile for the purpose of the destruction of an adversary’s material assets; non-kinetic refers to such movement as use of radio waves for jamming an adversary’s communications systems.
Whiting’s deputy, Lt. Gen. Rick Zellmann, on Tuesday told the symposium that the US military now has “policy” approval for three basic types of space fires: ground-to-space fires that “we’ve been doing for years” with “communications jamming systems;” space-to-space attacks known as “orbital warfare;” and, given that the Trump administration plans to build space-based interceptors for the US Golden Dome missile shield, space-to-ground.
Responsibility for ground to space fires is shared with the Army, the Air Force and Marines, but orbital warfare and space to ground fires are the preserve of SPACECOM.
Australian company EOS claimed that Australia is one of just two countries with the capabilities to neutralise large numbers of satellites passing over its territory.[7] EOS spokesperson Dr Ben Greene said Australian Space Domain Awareness (SDA) covered around one sixth of the sky, delivered by, among others, EOS with its laser tracking facility in Canberra, the RAAF’s space telescope in WA and the new US-owned LeoLabs Australia space radar, also in WA. “We could intercept and interdict the satellite operations of any country on earth, if we chose to. That’s a really powerful platform for us,” he said. “It’s quite feasible now to talk about taking out hundreds of satellites a day if that was necessary.”
An ASPI (aka Australian Serving Predatory Imperialism) spokesperson supported EOS’s vision for the military use of Space, saying: “We need a much more ambitious approach to how we think about defence and space. It can’t just be for communications provision. It’s got to be about space control. It’s got to be how we respond to a contested space domain when China is rapidly developing counter-space capabilities and fully intends to use them in the next war. Space will quickly become a warfighting environment, not because of our own actions but because of decisions in Beijing.”
No doubt Russia and China are developing military space technologies similar to those of the US. But we are not their appendages in the same way as we are in relation to the US.
We must do what we can to stop the militarisation of Space, including support for or participation in US space war plans.
Australia must call for the strengthening of the OST to include all weapons in Space, and for the banning of Earth to Space, Space to Space, and Space to Earth military activity.
Australia must join those nations that have pledged to a no first use (NFU) policy on placing weapons in Space and call on the US, Russia and China to do the same.
Australia must ensure any developments in Space are done for purposes other than “colonization” by any state or nation on earth. The exploration and use of Space for peaceful cooperation among nations should be our goal.
That is the only way we can contribute to humanity and not be a burden on it.
[1] 2026 National Defence Strategy Factsheet
[2] Space Command (Australia) – Wikipedia
[3] The Space Review: Remembering Starfish Prime
[5] Guardians_in_Space_Policy_Paper_65-Final.pdf
[6] Joint force needs kinetic and non-kinetic weapons for space war: Whiting – Breaking Defense
Robodebt on Steroids. Palantir eyes NDIS

Palantir has been lobbying the Government to control the National Disability Insurance Scheme”s (NDIS) data, potentially exposing Australia’s most vulnerable. Claudia Weisenberger reports.
If the NDIS Amendment Bill passes this week — and it will — a computer program will have the authority to cut a disabled person’s funding. If the program gets it wrong, section 59E(3) of the Bill provides that the decision stands anyway.
by Claudia Weisenberger | Aug 18, 2026 |
“There is no appeal.”
What the documents show
In 2023, Samuel Porter, then Deputy CEO and Chief Operating Officer of the NDIA, took a personal meeting with the Australian President of Palantir. The NDIA’s own security architect flagged that Palantir did not hold the required government security clearance. The engagement continued anyway.
Freedom of Information documents, obtained by disability advocate Sam Connor, show it ran from April 2023 to February 2024 — spanning a Proof of Concept, Palantir’s Foundry Cloud Architecture Diagram and Security Whitepaper, multiple documents titled ‘Palantir Technologies — Failed Payments NDIA,’ follow-up sessions on SAP integration, and a Palantir Terms of Service.
In November 2025, Palantir received its Protected-level security clearance — the level at which NDIS participant files sit.
“The NDIA declined to release all 22 documents,“
citing business information exemptions — protecting Palantir’s commercial interests rather than the public’s right to know.
Whether the engagement proceeded to a contract remains unknown. The NDIA is exempt from Commonwealth Procurement Rules and does not publish its contracts on AusTender — making independent verification impossible.
In response to questions from Michael West Media, a NDIA spokesperson said: “The NDIA has not used Palantir technology and has no plans to do so.”
The statement did not address the Freedom of Information documents showing extended engagement between the NDIA and Palantir from April 2023 to February 2024, including a Proof of Concept, a pitch on failed NDIS payments processing, and a Palantir Terms of Service document. It did not address why 22 documents relating to that engagement were refused in full.
What can be confirmed: AusTender records show AUSTRAC — one of 24 agencies sharing participant data with the NDIA through the Fraud Fusion Taskforce — holds an active Palantir contract for ‘Data Analytics capability’ worth $8.83 million, running to June 2027.
Participant data shared with AUSTRAC is therefore already being processed on Palantir infrastructure.
The government has committed $442 million to rebuild the NDIS’s digital infrastructure. The new PACE payment platform is already live. The $358.5 million digital enrolment and payment system will introduce automated real-time
“checking of every claim for 800,000 participants.“
Nobody asked those 800,000 people whether they consented to their data being processed this way. No privacy impact assessment has been published. No consultation with disabled people has taken place.
When automated systems get it wrong — and at this scale, they will — a participant loses funding they depend on to live. To eat. To get out of bed. To breathe. There is no human on the other end of the phone. There is no appeal. There is a computer program and a decision that stands.
What the Bill does
For the first time in Australian law, the Bill expressly permits a computer program to make decisions involving ‘discretion’ and ‘evaluative judgment’ — decisions previously reserved for humans. Section 59E(3) goes further: an automated decision stands even if the required safeguards were not followed.
Schedule 1 removes review rights. New section 34A makes a ministerial funding cut non-reviewable.
Here is what that means. A participant in a wheelchair receives an automated notice — her funding for home modifications has been cut. The computer got it wrong. Her occupational therapist’s report was filed under the wrong support category. Under section 59E(3), the decision stands anyway.
Under section 34A, she cannot challenge it. She has a wheelchair and a house she can no longer live in safely. And nowhere to go.
The Robodebt Royal Commission described exactly this architecture — automated decisions, delegated authority, reduced oversight — as the precondition for unlawful harm at scale. The NDIS is five times the size of Centrelink’s debt-raising program. The people affected are among the most vulnerable in the country.
Parliament is handing a Commonwealth agency the power to automate decisions, conduct coercive investigations and share data across 24 agencies — without telling the people affected who is building the system, or what will happen when it gets it wrong.
The questions that need answers this week
First: FOI documents show the NDIA engaged with Palantir for nearly a year, including a Proof of Concept and Terms of Service discussions. Did that engagement proceed to a contract — and if not, who did?
Second: 800,000 disabled Australians have not been told what data is being collected about them, who holds it, or what it will be used for. When will they be?
Third: section 59E(3) provides that an automated decision stands even when the required safeguards were not followed. In plain English — the system can break the rules and the decision still counts. Who approved that, and why?
In the shadows of Robodebt
The last time a Commonwealth agency built this kind of automated decision architecture — with delegated authority, reduced oversight and no meaningful right of appeal — a Royal Commission found it unlawful.
People lost their homes. People took their own lives. Nobody was prosecuted. The architects faced no legal consequences whatsoever.
The NDIS is five times the size. The people affected are among the most vulnerable in the country. When this goes wrong — and people are harmed — will the architects of this system face criminal prosecution? Or will history simply repeat itself?
According to disability advocate Sam Connor, the embedding of Palantir into the NDIS is the result of Labor associates lobbying the government.
“The President of Palantir is a former Labor Defence politician, Mike Kelly AM – one of their chief lobbyists is another, former autoelectrician turned Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon. More than 14 of Palantir’s 42 staff appear to have come from Labor political or public service backgrounds.”
The NDIA was contacted for comment at 11am AEST on 17 August 2026. An NDIA spokesperson responded prior to the 5pm AEST deadline; their statement is incorporated in the article above
Claudia WeisenbergerClaudia Weisenberger is a management consultant with deep experience in pharmaceuticals, hospital transformations, and strategic due diligence across four continents. She combines sharp analysis with hands-on execution.




