Liberals risk joining ‘baddies’ with fossil-fuel push
CanberraTimes, By Tess Ikonomou, November 9 2025
A senior Liberal has warned his party would push Australia towards joining “baddies” in rejecting international climate goals as it prepares to back fossil fuel-fired power.
Political infighting within the coalition has intensified over the Liberals’ commitment to a target of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, a position the party is poised to follow junior partner the Nationals in dumping.
The Liberal Party’s formal position on the climate target will be decided following meetings in Canberra mid-week.
Liberal frontbencher and leading moderate Andrew Bragg on Sunday indicated he could quit shadow cabinet if his party decided it would pull out of the Paris Agreement and not maintain a clear goal for lowering emissions.
“If we left Paris, we’d be with Azerbaijan, Iran, Syria, you know, and a few other baddies,” he told ABC’s Insiders program.
“Australia has never been with those people before.
“Australia needs to be in Paris, in my opinion, and then we need to try to find a way to do net-zero better than Labor. That is better for jobs, better for industry, and better for decarbonisation.”
Senator Bragg added the Liberals were “not fringe dwellers” and most Australians want the nation to play a fair role in reducing emissions, an objective seen as key for the party to reverse its electoral decimation in urban seats.
Under the Paris Agreement, signed in 2015, members must increase their emissions targets every five years and cannot water down their goals……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Opposition energy spokesman Dan Tehan has flagged subsidies could be offered to keep current coal-fired power plants operating for longer under the coalition’s long-awaited climate and energy plan………………………………………………………………………………………………
Mr Tehan also foreshadowed the Liberals would continue their pre-election policy of supporting the development of nuclear power plants.
The Coalition’s favoured energy technology is quite clearly nuclear – perhaps for no other reason than it is not wind or solar.
The Coalition no longer pretends that nuclear is the best option to address climate change, because they are tearing up their agreement on net zero, the softest of climate targets. That may be an admission that nuclear is very slow to build, particularly for a country that has never done so, and is still built on democratic principles.
Nor can they pretend that nuclear is the best technology on economics. Real world examples continue to defy the carefully constructed modelling commissioned by the Coalition.
In the UK, financing has finally been landed for the planned Sizewell C nuclear plant – and it turns out to be £38 billion, or around $A76 billion, for a 3.2 gigawatt facility. That translates to around $24 million a megawatt capacity cost, which is more than twice as much as the Coalition modelling would have you believe.
Sizewell C is expected to be a replica of Hinkley Point C, whose costs are now estimated at up to $A94 billion, and it seems that Sizewell kept its capital costs under control, because the UK government had to step in to take a 44 per cent stake. (The builder, the French government owned EDF, only wanted 12 per cent, because of the cost risks.)
It also changed the nature of the funding game – turning the new nuclear plant into a regulated asset (like Australia’s electricity networks), which will require consumers to start paying for the nuclear plant more than a decade before it is actually built.
Remember, this is the 5th or 6th plant to be built using the French EPR technology – and yet there is no sign of it getting any cheaper. And we haven’t see the inevitable delays and cost blowouts yet. Civil construction costs are blowing up projects all over the world, and nuclear is about as big as they come.
The UN starts another climate party
The Coalition’s anti-climate and no-to-net-zero stance comes as the UN climate conference is poised to start in Belem, Brazil, where UN secretary general Antonio Guterres has lamented “more failure” to do enough to keep the world on track to cap average global warming at 1.5°C.In remarks that might have been addressed specifically at the Coalition, but were directed at the world, Guterres said:
“Too many corporations are making record profits from climate devastation, with billions spent on lobbying, deceiving the public and obstructing progress,” Guterres said.
“Too many (political) leaders remain captive to these entrenched interests,” noting that countries are spending about ($A1.54 trillion) each year subsidising fossil fuels.
“We can choose to lead – or be led to ruin. Every fraction of a degree means more hunger, displacement and loss – especially for those least responsible. This is moral failure – and deadly negligence.”
What is the real target?
Those fractions of a degree are significant. The latest “emissions gap” report published by the UNEP says the world is headed for average of 2.9°C of warming based on current enacted policies, and 2.3°C and 2.5°C based on announced commitments.
What does a world of 3°C look like. Australia’s National Climate Risk report made it clear – catastrophic impacts, rising sea levels, collapsing ice sheets, the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. Much of northern Australia would be uninhabitable.
Gina Rinehart, who appears to hold so much sway over the Nationals, wants to build a “defence dome” over northern Australia to protect its mineral riches. It might need a geodesic dome just to make it habitable.
What could possibly be done? As the UNEP notes: “The required low-carbon technologies to deliver big emission cuts are available. Wind and solar energy development is booming, lowering deployment costs. This means the international community can accelerate climate action, should they choose to do so.”
Astonishingly, the Coalition battle over net zero has been playing out in mainstream media as nothing more than political porn, focusing on personalities, egos and power. Climate science, and the renewable solutions, have barely been mentioned.
I’ve seen and heard maybe half a dozen interviews with Opposition energy and emissions reduction spokesman Dan Tehan and can’t remember him once being asked about climate science, or the economics and the engineering of the energy transition.
Does Australia really want to host COP31
Sometime in the next two weeks we will get an answer on whether Australia wants to host COP31, the next UN climate talks in 2026.
The plan is to do it in Adelaide, which would be a grand opportunity to show off the world’s most advanced renewable grid, with South Australia already at a world-leading share of 75 per cent wind and solar, and aiming for 100 per cent “net” renewables by 2027.
The state hosted the world’s first big battery and was the first to roll out “grid forming inverters,” which will help kill the need for fossil fuel generators and often has rooftop solar meeting the equivalent of all state demand. None of which was considered possible just a few years ago.
But if it is this hard to agree to a venue (Türkiye still has its hand up), does Australia want the hassle and embarrassment of presiding over a UN conference with no particular landmark goal, squabbling nations and the notable absence of the world’s biggest economy, the US?
Some in the ALP machine are thinking not. The delays and the massive oil and gas projects still being approved and rolled out, could make logistics tricky and the politics difficult. Which would be a shame: It is a rare opportunity for the Pacific Island nations to also have their say.
They have done so before when Fiji was the official host of COP23, but that was – for obvious reasons – held in Bonn, Germany. That might happen again, with Australia and Türkiye sharing “hosting” duties and various lead-up events, expos and talk-fests.
Duck! Free solar is coming your way
As the Coalition tries to tear itself apart over its position on climate and energy, federal energy minister Chris Bowen’s advocacy of “free solar” may turn out to be a political masterpiece – if only because it promises to change the conversation about the green energy transition.
Bowen wants to force energy retailers to offer at least three hours of “free electricity,” taking advantage of the abundance of rooftop and other solar in the middle of the day, and to make sure the benefits are shared with the 60 per cent of households that do not yet have, or can’t have, rooftop solar.
It’s sparked a predictable fury about heavy handed regulation: You can’t do that! And it’s true that some retailers already do offer such a tariff, although potential customers may want to assess the rates that are being charged in the evening peaks.
Morgan Stanley says the implications are significant enough – savings of up to $660 a year for non-solar households able to take up the offer (you need a smart meter and a big enough midday load so it can make sense), and estimates it might cost big retailers like AGL and Origin around $60 million each.
That suggests an uptake of less than 100,000 customers, which sounds about right. But it’s the messaging that counts – both to the long-forgotten consumer, and to the legacy retailers who are reminded they need to be on their toes to negotiate this energy transition.
Customers should no longer be the forgotten part of the energy transition. They now own rooftop PV, and are busy installing batteries and buying EVs. That will accelerate, but the benefits should not be theirs and theirs alone. Sadly, the legacy players sometimes need to be told to do the right thing.
Podcasts to listen to
This week on the Energy Insiders podcast, we talk to Vestas’ Jan Daniel Kaemmer about the prospects for wind industry in Australia, and of course the news of the week. See: Energy Insiders Podcast: The future of wind energy
The world of defence policy is truly on another planet. There, budgets are given to astronomical burgeoning and bizarre readings. Threats can be invented or exaggerated. Insecurity can be inflated. Decisions for the next project supposedly more lethal and more effective than ever can be made with cavalier disregard to realities. And the next cockeyed, buffoonish idea can be given a run for other people’s money. Those other people are, as always, the good tax paying citizenry of a country.
Australia has been doing superbly of late in this regard. It has given over territory and money to the United States, its appointed arch defender, so that the security of Washington’s imperium can be assured. It has done so in a manner suggesting advanced dementia, its politicians and strategists drivelling about the need to combat the barbarian yellow-red hordes to the north in a “changing security environment.”
First came the AUKUS trilateral security pact with the US and the United Kingdom, which enshrines the costly fantasy of nuclear-powered submarines Australia may never get and certainly does not need. Nor is there an obligation on the part of the US to part with any, a prospect ever more unlikely given the failure of its own submarine base to keep pace with annual production. Let’s not even start on the prospects of an AUKUS-designed submarine, which will be lucky to make it to the construction stage without sinking.
To itemise any number of foolish ventures and items being pursued by the Australian defence department would be injurious to one’s well being. This is largely because they keep comingin their risible daftness. Of late, the idea that Australia needs an anti-missile defence shield along the lines of Israel’s Iron Dome system is becoming more than a flirtation. And it’s being given a sense of frisson by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, the Israeli company responsible for implementing and maintaining it.
The chance for Rafael to shine came at the Indo Pacific International Maritime Exposition, an event running from November 4 to 6. Its presence, along with the Australian subsidiary of Israel’s primary unmanned vehicle manufacturer Elbit Systems, had piqued activists from the Palestine Action Group (PAG), who gathered just before the opening of the exposition to protest that fact.
A predictably muscular reaction from the New South Wales police followed. According to PAG organiser Josh Lees, they “immediately attacked” the peaceful gathering with pepper spray and horses. The NSW Premier Chris Minns, for his part, was enthralled by the economic prospects of the gathering: defence exports were there to be grown, deals to be made. That these were with merchants of death was no big matter. “They’re not selling nuclear weapons … we want to see the industry grow.”
For its part, Rafael had pulled out the bells and whistles. The company, according to its display, offered “an integrated, combat-proven portfolio that delivers end-to-end protection and impactful projection for Australia’s naval forces, ensuring freedom of action in Australia’s northern approaches and across vital sea lines of communication.”
In an interview at the exposition, the company’s vice president of international business development, Gideon Weiss, hawked Iron Dome’s technology with salesmanship enthusiasm. “The perception that Australia is far and distant and isolated is completely untrue,” he remarked with stern certitude. “There’s absolutely no reason in the world why any Australian would think… that in a conflict, Australia would not be attacked.” The unasked question here is why Australia would make itself an appealing target to begin with. But Weiss did not break his stride: “Your enemies have a great arsenal of ballistic missiles, hypersonic ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and long-range UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles]. Why wouldn’t they use them against you if they wanted to?”
Asked whether the company’s message had bitten in Canberra, Weiss was assured. The “capability and the maturity of the technology” had been noted by Australia’s defence wonks and Rafael was always keen to focus on “sovereignty, about the Australian industrial context.” There was “infrastructure which to Australianise, if you will, these technologies.”
The company has shown ample familiarity with the soil they wish to till. The Australian Defence Strategic Review of 2023 declared the need to “deliver a layered integrated air and missile system (IAMD) operation capability urgently. This must comprise a suite of appropriate command and control systems, sensors, air defence aircraft and surface (land and maritime) based missile systems.” The current program to develop a “common IAMD capability” was “not structured to deliver a minimum viable capability in the shortest period of time but is pursuing a long-term near perfect solution at an unaffordable cost.”
Defence analysts called upon to comment on the matter are slavering. Jennifer Parker, a regular talking head on the subject, rues the fact that Australia can never, given its geographical size, be protected in its entirety. “Unlike Israel, where they can defend the entire country against missiles broadly… that’s not feasible for Australia because of our size.” Focus, she suggests, on the “critical infrastructure elements that we need to protect, like HMAS Stirling, Pine Gap and bases around Darwin, and design integrated air and missile defence around that concept.”
The United States Studies Centre, an Australian outpost soddenly friendly to the military-industrial complex and the needs of the imperium, is also unrelenting about the need for a more expansive missile defence system. Peter Dean, senior advisor on defence strategy, cites “the lack of effective ground-based air defence and an Integrated Air and Missile Defence system” as “the most critical gap in the achievement of Australia’s strategic goals.”
Another outfit most friendly to US interests, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, is alsomuch in love with missile interception. “If we want to get serious about integrated missile defence,” ASPI senior analyst Malcolm Davis posits, “we need to have long-range, ground-based interceptor missiles that can handle threats like intermediate range ballistic missiles launched by China.”
The next wasteful program of military expenditure looms happily on the horizon, leaving the question of need unanswered. Weiss has good reasons to be optimistic that a train has been set in motion. “I wouldn’t want to name names,” he says with confidence, “but everyone knows us very well.”
WHEN NEW YORK Wednesday November 19, 4pm, EST LONDON Wednesday November 19, 9pm, GMT MELBOURNE Thursday, November 20, 8am, AEST FIJI/MARSHALL ISLANDS Thursday 20 Nov – 9am FJT & MHT
Karina Lester (Yankunytjatjara-Anangu community leader, Australia)
Dr Chris Hill (University of South Wales, UK)
Dr Jon Hogg (University of Liverpool, UK)
Building on the Nuclear Truth Project’s Challenging Nuclear Secrecy report (2025), this international collaboration brings together affected community members, nuclear justice advocates and organisations from the UK and Australia.
The webinar will explore barriers to accessing nuclear archives and expose the power of community-held memory.
Focusing on British nuclear weapons testing in Australia and the Pacific (1952–1963), the discussion will focus on archival access as a core part of nuclear justice, victim assistance, and environmental restoration.
How do communities impacted by nuclear weapons testing overcome systemic barriers to accessing official records of harm to Peoples and Country?
Join us to learn how memory is held — and fought for — by those most affected.
Getting access to documents concerning a nuclear submarine base in NSW has become an FOI riddle wrapped in a submarine mystery inside a nuclear enigma. Rex Patrick reports.
You can’t have the documents. Hang on, maybe you can? Nope, they’re too sensitive. OK, they’re not sensitive, you can have them all. Except you can’t.
If you’re struggling to follow this, I’ll try to explain. But keep this in the back of your mind – all Australian taxpayers are paying for the Department of Defence’s part in this, and those NSW taxpayers also get to pay the NSW Crown Solicitor’s part.
It started with a single backflip. When I first asked the NSW Government for access to documents relating to the consideration of a nuclear submarine base in NSW, they said I couldn’t have the documents because they were Cabinet-in-Confidence.
When I took the case to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), the NSW Government backflipped. They stated that their Cabinet exemption claim was wrong and asked NCAT if the Government could remake the decision.
Double backflip
The Tribunal said, “Yes, remake your decision”.
A month later, the NSW Government issued me a new decision. No! Again, “you can’t have them”! Across 12 pages of carefully worded legalese, they tried to explain why the public can’t see the documents.
That was September. Fast forward to late October and, out of the blue, the NSW Crown solicitor wrote to me and advised, “the [NSW Government] position in relation to the information in issue in the proceedings has changed … The [NSW Government] no longer holds the view that information is subject to an overriding public interest against disclosure.”
Woo-hoo! Transparency at last. But wait…
Defence secrecy
The email went on to say, “… Defence has an interest in the Defence Information and it has objected to the release of that information. Defence has a right to appear and be heard in the proceedings …”
What secrets?
I am yet to find out the basis of Defence’s objection to releasing the material, but in a very closely related request for information, Defence objected to the release of information because those documents identified or described Defence infrastructure or capability (e.g. base locations, site suitability studies, strategic assessments).
But seriously, how sensitive can a base’s location be? How sensitive can buildings be? In five minutes, anyone with internet access can use Google Earth to avail themselves of the location and layout of HMAS Stirling in Western Australia, where US and UK nuclear submarines are currently visiting.
Moreover, the buildings that will support the permanent basing of submarines at HMAS Stirling can be seen by visiting the website of the Federal Parliament’s Public Works Committee.
Yellow peril
But what about the Chinese? Won’t they find out?
Defence may be worried that if the location is known, then the Chinese might buy land next door to the planned base. The problem is, the Chinese have already purchased land in the Port Kembla and Newcastle port precinct.
In fact, Newcastle Port is operated by a consortium with 50% Chinese ownership (98-year lease) through China Merchant Port Holdings;
“they probably already know more about Newcastle Port and its environs than Defence does.”
The Chinese purchases in both cities provide considerable ability for them to monitor and evaluate key infrastructure servicing and capacity developments; high voltage power supply arrangements, natural gas supply details, potable water arrangements, fire water supply details, rail and road access arrangements and area telecommunications.
And the Chinese won’t only have access to future strategic plans for the port areas; their purchases are significant enough that they could help shape those plans, having a seat at the table as interested constituents and ratepayers. We know Chinese officials have already used their property interest to have meetings with the Mayor of Newcastle.
And as for the details of what Australia will need to safely support a nuclear sub force,
“the Chinese already know that from their 50 years of operating nuclear attack subs.“
1×1515
0:05 / 5:59
1×1515
0:05 / 5:59
Getting access to documents concerning a nuclear submarine base in NSW has become an FOI riddle wrapped in a submarine mystery inside a nuclear enigma. Rex Patrick reports.
You can’t have the documents. Hang on, maybe you can? Nope, they’re too sensitive. OK, they’re not sensitive, you can have them all. Except you can’t.
If you’re struggling to follow this, I’ll try to explain. But keep this in the back of your mind – all Australian taxpayers are paying for the Department of Defence’s part in this, and those NSW taxpayers also get to pay the NSW Crown Solicitor’s part.
It started with a single backflip. When I first asked the NSW Government for access to documents relating to the consideration of a nuclear submarine base in NSW, they said I couldn’t have the documents because they were Cabinet-in-Confidence.
When I took the case to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), the NSW Government backflipped. They stated that their Cabinet exemption claim was wrong and asked NCAT if the Government could remake the decision.
A month later, the NSW Government issued me a new decision. No! Again, “you can’t have them”! Across 12 pages of carefully worded legalese, they tried to explain why the public can’t see the documents.
That was September. Fast forward to late October and, out of the blue, the NSW Crown solicitor wrote to me and advised, “the [NSW Government] position in relation to the information in issue in the proceedings has changed … The [NSW Government] no longer holds the view that information is subject to an overriding public interest against disclosure.”
Woo-hoo! Transparency at last. But wait…
Defence secrecy
The email went on to say, “… Defence has an interest in the Defence Information and it has objected to the release of that information. Defence has a right to appear and be heard in the proceedings …”
Backflip, with Defence objection (Source: NSW Crown Solicitor)
What secrets?
I am yet to find out the basis of Defence’s objection to releasing the material, but in a very closely related request for information, Defence objected to the release of information because those documents identified or described Defence infrastructure or capability (e.g. base locations, site suitability studies, strategic assessments).
But seriously, how sensitive can a base’s location be? How sensitive can buildings be? In five minutes, anyone with internet access can use Google Earth to avail themselves of the location and layout of HMAS Stirling in Western Australia, where US and UK nuclear submarines are currently visiting.
Moreover, the buildings that will support the permanent basing of submarines at HMAS Stirling can be seen by visiting the website of the Federal Parliament’s Public Works Committee.
Nuclear Submarine Piers (Source: Defence)
Yellow peril
But what about the Chinese? Won’t they find out?
Defence may be worried that if the location is known, then the Chinese might buy land next door to the planned base. The problem is, the Chinese have already purchased land in the Port Kembla and Newcastle port precinct.
In fact, Newcastle Port is operated by a consortium with 50% Chinese ownership (98-year lease) through China Merchant Port Holdings;
they probably already know more about Newcastle Port and its environs than Defence does.
The Chinese purchases in both cities provide considerable ability for them to monitor and evaluate key infrastructure servicing and capacity developments; high voltage power supply arrangements, natural gas supply details, potable water arrangements, fire water supply details, rail and road access arrangements and area telecommunications.
And the Chinese won’t only have access to future strategic plans for the port areas; their purchases are significant enough that they could help shape those plans, having a seat at the table as interested constituents and ratepayers. We know Chinese officials have already used their property interest to have meetings with the Mayor of Newcastle.
And as for the details of what Australia will need to safely support a nuclear sub force,
the Chinese already know that from their 50 years of operating nuclear attack subs.
But that won’t stop Defence objecting to the release of information that would otherwise be reasonable for the grant of social licence. It’s a department addicted to secrecy (how else are they going to keep their multi-billion dollar procurement blunders from public scrutiny).
A political ruse
Greens Senator David Shoebridge offered his perspective on the Federal Government’s secrecy:
“The Albanese government isn’t worried that China will find out where they want to put another US nuclear submarine base, they are worried the Australian public will. “The community of the Illawarra have already made it crystal clear that a nuclear submarine base has zero social licence to operate at Port Kembla. “The other potential target for Defence is Newcastle, and with a growing revulsion there with the use of the Williamtown F35 hub to arm Israel’s genocide in Gaza, Labor knows that option is also deeply unpopular. “Hiding these documents isn’t about preventing a foreign adversary from organising against Labor’s war plans, it’s about preventing the public opposing them.”
So, despite the NSW Government’s double backflip (which, despite them being cavalier in the first place, I do appreciate), it looks like I’ll have to keep fighting for transparency.
At least the backflips mean I’ll stand at the bar of NCAT with the NSW Government on my side of the argument. Meanwhile, we’ll all keep having to pay for both sets of lawyers, all necessary to keep politically sensitive topics from the public.
Western Australia’s South West Interconnected System – the world’s biggest isolated grid – has reached a remarkable new record high of 89 per cent renewables, led by rooftop solar.
The new peak – 88.97 per cent to be precise – was reached at 11am on Monday, beating the previous record of 87.29 per cent set just a day earlier, and the previous peak of 85.36 per cent set on October 23. “Another milestone for WA’s clean energy future,” Sanderson wrote. “It’s another strong sign of the transformation underway in our energy system as we become a renewable energy powerhouse.”
The Australian Energy Market Operator says the record share was led by rooftop solar, which accounted for 64 per cent of generation at the time. Large scale wind accounted for just over 16 per cent, with the rest from large scale solar, solar battery hybrids, biomass and battery storage.
Former Chair of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Judge Navi Pillay has warned that Australia risks complicity in genocide if we fail to act on Israel’s assault on Gaza, Stephanie Tran reports.
Speaking at the National Press Club, the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reiterated calls for the Australian government to fulfil its obligations under international law in light of the findings of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory which concluded that Israel’s actions in Gaza meet the threshold for genocide under international law.
‘We are all witnesses to the carnage’
Pillay stressed that every government, including Australia’s, had witnessed the livestreamed atrocities in Gaza unfold in real time and could not claim they “didn’t know” what was happening.
“We are all witnesses to the carnage in real time on our TV screens…. 65,000 Palestinian civilians [have been] killed, including women and children and it was all shown live on our TV sets, so nobody can say we didn’t know what was happening. No Australian parliamentarian could say we didn’t know what was happening. That was the defence the Nazis put up. …That is what some South African whites said.”
The veteran jurist, who presided over the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, said the Commission’s findings were based on verified evidence collected over the past two years. Pillay said that in determining whether Israel had genocidal intent, the panel implemented the legal test established by the International Court of Justice, that genocidal intent is the “only reasonable inference” from the facts.
“We followed UN rules, and we followed the test for genocidal intent. … It must be the only reasonable inference from the acts themselves.”
In September, the Commission concluded that genocidal intent was “the only reasonable inference” from Israel’s conduct, pointing to the military’s use of heavy munitions in densely populated areas, the systematic destruction of cultural and religious sites, and repeated defiance of International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings ordering provisional measures.
The report also found that Israeli authorities committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the Genocide Convention, namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Palestinians in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births.
Australia’s obligations under the Geneva Convention
Pillay criticised Australia’s muted response to the Commission’s finding that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
“Under the Genocide Convention, every state… has the legal obligation to prevent the commission of genocide, to deal with the commission of genocide, and to protect against genocide.”
She called on the Australian government to define and publicise its policy on genocide prevention, warning that the government’s maintenance of ties to entities complicit in the genocide could leave it open to prosecution.
“Be careful what you’re doing,” Pillay said.
Listen to this story
4 min
Former Chair of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Judge Navi Pillay has warned that Australia risks complicity in genocide if we fail to act on Israel’s assault on Gaza, Stephanie Tran reports.
Speaking at the National Press Club, the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reiterated calls for the Australian government to fulfil its obligations under international law in light of the findings of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory which concluded that Israel’s actions in Gaza meet the threshold for genocide under international law.
‘We are all witnesses to the carnage’
Pillay stressed that every government, including Australia’s, had witnessed the livestreamed atrocities in Gaza unfold in real time and could not claim they “didn’t know” what was happening.
“We are all witnesses to the carnage in real time on our TV screens…. 65,000 Palestinian civilians [have been] killed, including women and children and it was all shown live on our TV sets, so nobody can say we didn’t know what was happening. No Australian parliamentarian could say we didn’t know what was happening. That was the defence the Nazis put up. …That is what some South African whites said.”
The veteran jurist, who presided over the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, said the Commission’s findings were based on verified evidence collected over the past two years. Pillay said that in determining whether Israel had genocidal intent, the panel implemented the legal test established by the International Court of Justice, that genocidal intent is the “only reasonable inference” from the facts.
“We followed UN rules, and we followed the test for genocidal intent. … It must be the only reasonable inference from the acts themselves.”
In September, the Commission concluded that genocidal intent was “the only reasonable inference” from Israel’s conduct, pointing to the military’s use of heavy munitions in densely populated areas, the systematic destruction of cultural and religious sites, and repeated defiance of International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings ordering provisional measures.
The report also found that Israeli authorities committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the Genocide Convention, namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Palestinians in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births.
Australia’s obligations under the Geneva Convention
Pillay criticised Australia’s muted response to the Commission’s finding that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
“Under the Genocide Convention, every state… has the legal obligation to prevent the commission of genocide, to deal with the commission of genocide, and to protect against genocide.”
She called on the Australian government to define and publicise its policy on genocide prevention, warning that the government’s maintenance of ties to entities complicit in the genocide could leave it open to prosecution.
“Be careful what you’re doing,” Pillay said.
“You may one day face charges of complicity in genocide.”
Her comments come amid growing pressure on the Albanese government over Australia’s defence ties with Israel, via the F-35 program and contracts with Israeli weapons manufacturers.
So, the Nationals have decided to stop pretending they care about climate change, and have thrown in their lot with the fossil fuel industries. It should come as no surprise – climate denial, coal and nuclear often go hand in hand.
It is the greed, stupidity and cowardice that stuns the most. This is a party that chooses not to support its regional constituency – those likely to suffer most from the impacts of climate change – but to side with billionaires determined not to let science and the fate of future generations get in the way of making money.
Climate science demands that strong action is needed as quickly as possible to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. This is true for Australia as it is for the rest of the world. Reaching net zero by 2050 is the very least that should be done – we should really be aiming for net zero in the mid 2030s or early 2040s.
The Nationals, though, having rejected near and medium term climate targets, can’t even be bothered kicking the can down the road, which is how many describe the task of net zero by 2050. And like most climate deniers, they voice support for the world’s most expensive, difficult and delayed technology – nuclear energy.
The most obvious technologies, and by far the best in the Australian context, are solar, wind, and battery storage. It is not all we need, but it is the lowest cost and the most readily deployable. The Nationals prefer to look the other way.
It looks, sounds and feels Trumpian. We’ve seen how idiots and ideologues have been promoted to the key roles in the new US administration, and the damage that has been done, the lives that have been lost and will be lost, and the attacks on science, the environment, and the foundations of western democracy.
But we really don’t have to look beyond our own shores to see how this plays out – new right wing governments in Queensland (LNP) and the Northern Territory (CLP) have ripped up renewables targets and ignored climate science to pursue what appears to be a single goal: To further enrich the fossil fuel interests that support them.
Tomago, not pronounced like tomato
This has consequences. The owners of the giant Tomago aluminium smelter last week flagged the possible closure in three years – not because of the transition to renewables, but largely because it has not come quickly enough in NSW.
There is deep irony in this. Rio Tinto believes it has secured the future of its Boyne Island smelter and associated refineries in Gladstone in Queensland by locking in a series of wind, solar and solar battery hybrid contracts – all the biggest of their type in Australia. And there are more to come, we understand.
This was the result of the state Labor government’s pro-active efforts and a common sense approach to the rollout of renewables and renewable zones in the country’s most coal dependent state, although the new LNP government has tried to bugger that up by “calling in” the wind project. It seems a phone call solved that issue.
NSW has arguably more ambitious transition plans – given the size of its grid – and a lot more urgency because of the age of its coal generators.
But behind the ostensibly bipartisan support have been acts of quiet and noisy sabotage – rabble rousing and planning delays – particularly from the Nationals that has made the rollout of wind and solar that much more difficult.
Of course, they are not the only ones to blame. The buyers’ strike by the big energy retailers, the failure of super to invest in their own country’s future, the pathetic coverage of mainstream media have all played their part………
Race to renewables
It is instructive to note the number of industries that are trying to transition to renewables as quickly as they can, to secure their future, like Boyne Island.
Fortescue is charging towards “real zero” – meaning burning no gas or diesel by 2030 to power and operate their iron more mines by 2030, which would be an extraordinary feat if they can pull that off in that time frame.
This is happening at the local level too – the federal battery rebate numbers are now at 108,000 (as of Saturday) and showing no signs of slowing down.
And there is renewed enthusiasm for vehicle-to-grid, essentially using the big batteries in EVs for the same purpose, to act as batteries on wheels. Amber’s Chris Thompson says consumer energy resources – such as batteries and EVs – is the next big wave.
“You really start to see the future forming here, where consumers are actually the backbone of the energy grid,” he says. “They are participating, they are accelerating this renewable transition, and we are desperately trying to work hard to make sure that we can help make it simple and easy for everyone to participate.”
And as ARENA’s Darren Miller noted: “We can expect the level of storage in these vehicles to exceed what we need in the grid by about three times. So all we need is a third of people plugging their cars in and having this technology to essentially provide all of the firming that we need for our grid for our home energy consumption.”
Carter had a simple message on what needs to be done.
“Stop fighting and get aligned for the common good. We need a global carbon platform and market. We can’t keep assuming that dumping manmade greenhouse gases is free or has no consequence,” he said.
Anthony Albanese said the stakes could not be higher.
Banning nuclear weapons, he told delegates at the 2018 ALP National Conference, was the “most important struggle for the human race”.
It was Albanese the activist, showing himself to be a politician of conviction, as he implored the Labor Party to pass a resolution in support of a treaty banning nuclear weapons.
“Labor in government will sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons,” he told the party faithful
“This resolution is Labor at our best.”
The resolution was passed unanimously, but after almost four years in power Labor is yet to honour its promise of signing and ratifying the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
At the National Conference that day in Adelaide, it was Richard Marles who seconded the resolution, albeit with far less passion, saying the treaty was “something we can all agree on”.
But in an interview with Four Corners, the now Deputy Prime Minister has stepped back from this commitment.
Asked why Labor had yet to sign the treaty, he said: “What’s really clear is that the [national] conference understands that this is a decision of government … a decision of Labor in government.”
“The decision that Labor has made in government has been to follow the non-proliferation treaty.”
While complementary to the nuclear weapons ban treaty, the NPT is something entirely different.
It was ratified by the Whitlam government in 1973 and seeks to limit the number of nuclear-armed states rather than put a prohibition on nuclear weapons.
When asked if Labor was still planning to sign the ban treaty, Marles reiterated that the Party “is pursuing the NPT”.
He denied it was a broken election promise, saying the words adopted by the National Conference meant the Labor government would make the final “decision” on signing the treaty.
That was not the impression Albanese gave the National Conference in 2018.
“Progress always requires leadership,” Albanese told the party faithful.
For an extra injection of political theatre that day, Albanese held up a Nobel Peace Prize medal, awarded in 2017 to Australian advocacy group ICAN for its work on the so-called ban treaty.
All this begs the question: why hasn’t the Albanese government signed the ban treaty?
Managing our alliances
The major stumbling block here is Australia’s alliance with the US.
Australia plays a small but crucial role in the US’s nuclear weapons program through defence facilities at Pine Gap and North West Cape, which provide early warning communications and targeting information.
Australia also seeks protection under America’s so-called “nuclear umbrella”, where the US agrees to protect some of its allies. This would be prohibited by the ban treaty.
Another obstacle is some of the language in the latest Defence Strategic Review, which says Australia’s best protection against the risk of nuclear escalation was the “United States’ extended nuclear deterrence”.
Albanese and Marles both clearly understood these issues back in 2018, when they were burnishing their anti-nuclear credentials with the left of the party.
Albanese even addressed such concerns in his speech.
“I am a very strong supporter of our alliance with the United States,” he told the conference.
“The fact is that we can disagree with our friends in the short term, while maintaining those relations.”
He cited the treaty to ban landmines, which Australia signed despite US opposition.
“The United States and many other countries that ended up supporting it today were hostile to the idea,” he said.
The new frontier
The problem for Albanese and Marles is that Australia is at a point in the geopolitical cycle where we are leaning into our alliance with the US, not pulling back.
Anxious that President Donald Trump will abandon the region, Australia is looking for ways to accommodate the US alliance.
That will see the US nuclear-capable B-52 bombers rotating through Tindal air base south of Darwin. In addition, US Virginia-class submarines docking at HMAS Stirling near Perth, could in the future be carrying nuclear weapons……………………….
, the nuclear arms control regime is breaking down.
The New Start treaty, a comprehensive arms control and transparency agreement limiting the US and Russia’s nuclear arsenals, expires in February and there is little prospect of it being renewed.
For Tilman Ruff, a founding member of ICAN whose Nobel Prize Albanese held at the 2018 conference, this only increases the need to sign the ban treaty.
“At a time of weakened international cooperation, it significantly increases the urgency of getting disarmament, preventing nuclear war,” he said.
“The treaty doesn’t prevent military collaboration with a nuclear-armed state. It only prevents collaboration on nuclear weapons.”
ONE sign that the excessively hyped concept of small modular reactors (SMRs) is now living on borrowed time is the lack of enthusiasm in the outlook from energy market analysts, whether they are individuals such as Leonard Hyman, William Tilles and Vaclav Smil, or big firms such as JP Morgan and Jones Lang LaSalle. None of them are optimistic that the sector will be productive before the middle of next decade, and the more critical ones are already predicting that it will never be, and that the “SMR bubble” will burst before the end of this one. My frequent readers will already know that I stand firmly with the latter view; basic market logic, in fact, makes any other view impossible.
In a recent commentary for Oil Price.com, one of the rather large number of online energy market news and analysis outlets, Hyman and Tilles predicted that the SMR bubble will burst in 2029. They based this on the reasonable observation that power supply forecasts are typically done on a three- to five-year timeframe. The fleet of SMRs that are currently expected to be in service between 2030 and 2035 simply will not be there, so energy planners will, at a minimum, omit them from the next planning window, and might decide to forget about them entirely. Deals will dry up, investors will dump their stocks or stop putting venture capital into SMR developers, and those developers will find themselves bankrupt.
That is an entirely plausible and perhaps even likely scenario, but the SMR bubble may burst much sooner than that, perhaps even as soon as next year, because of the existence of the other tech bubble, artificial intelligence, or AI, an acronym that in my mind sounds like “as if.” The topic of the AI bubble is an enormous can of worms, too complex to discuss right now, but the basic problem with it that is relevant to the SMR sector is that AI developers need a great deal of energy immediately. It has reached a point where AI-related data centers are described in terms of their energy requirements — in gigawatt increments — rather than their processing capacity. The availability of power determines whether or not a data center can be built; if the power is not already available, it must be within the relatively short time it will take to complete the data center’s construction.
Even if SMRs were readily available, their costs would discourage customers; AI developers are not too concerned with energy costs now, but they will be as their needs to start actually generating a profit become more acute. On a per-unit basis, SMRs are and are likely to always be more expensive than conventional, gigawatt-scale nuclear plants, and for that matter, most other power supply options. Hyman and Tilles estimate that on a per-unit cost basis (e.g., cost per megawatt-hour or gigawatt-hour), SMRs will be about 30 percent higher than the most efficient available gigawatt-scale large nuclear plants. Being smaller, SMRs would — hypothetically, as they do not actually exist yet — certainly cost less up front than large nuclear or conventionally fueled power plants, but their electricity would cost much more in the long run. That might not be an issue in some applications, but it certainly would if SMRs were intended to supply electricity to a national or regional grid.
Some analyses point out that some early adopters of SMRs, that is, customers who have put down money or otherwise promised to order one or more SMR units if and when they become available, may not be particularly price-sensitive; for example, military customers, governments taking responsibility for supplying electricity to remote areas, or some industrial customers. However, they would still be tripped up by the fragmented nature of the SMR sector, which was caused by the “tech bro” mindset of ignoring almost 70 years of experience in nuclear development and trying to reinvent the wheel.
JP Morgan’s 2025 energy report noted that there are only three SMRs in existence, with one additional one under construction; there is one in China, two in Russia, and the one not yet completed is in Argentina. All of them had construction timelines of three to four years, but took 12 years to complete; or in Argentina’s case, 12 years and counting. Argentina’s project has had cost overruns of 700 percent so far, while China and Russia’s projects were 300 percent and 400 percent over budget, respectively.
These are all essentially one-off, first-of-a-kind units, so some of these problems are to be expected, such as regulatory delays, design and manufacturing inefficiencies, and challenges from building supply chains from scratch. These problems would be resolved over time, except that there are literally hundreds of different SMR designs all competing for the same finite, niche-application market.
If the SMR developers listened to the engineers and policymakers who built up nuclear energy sectors that took advantage of economies of scale by standardizing a few designs and distributing the workload, they might get somewhere. That is not happening; potential customers, whether they have power cost concerns or not, are reluctant to jump in because it is not at all certain which SMRs will survive the competition. They might be willing to experiment to see if one design or another actually works — that is why the Chinese and Russian SMRs exist — but the fragmented SMR sector prevents them from trying more than one and making comparisons, at least not in a timely or financially rational manner.
I think the bubble begins to burst this coming year. The timeframe for construction to startup in most SMR pitches is four years. That’s entirely too optimistic, of course, but even if it is taken at face value, once we get a few months into 2026 without any tangible development happening, everyone will catch on that there won’t be any SMRs by 2030, and interest will turn elsewhere. It already is, among the data center sector, as was explained above.
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), has called on the Australian government to urgently advance the signature of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) to address growing nuclear dangers.
The call follows last night’s ABC Four Corners investigation “Trading Fire” which highlighted elevated dangers in Australia as hosting US nuclear-capable platforms and supplying minerals that can facilitate nuclear weapons is making Australia a high probability target.
Gem Romuld, Director of ICAN Australia, said:
“The ABC has put this issue on the national radar. The government needs to lift the veil of secrecy about what’s going on and require our nuclear-armed AUKUS partners to declare whether their vessels and aircraft are nuclear-capable or carry nuclear weapons. Australians have a right to know and a right to say no. There is no place for nuclear weapons in Australia.
To stop Australia becoming a launchpad for nuclear war we must sign the Australian-born treaty that bans the bomb and could save the world.”
ICAN was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its role in achieving the TPNW. A year later, Anthony Albanese and Richard Marles led a successful resolution committing the Australian Labor Party to sign and ratify the TPNW in government.
However when asked whether Australia would sign and ratify the TPNW on Four Corners last night, Minister Marles said;
“What’s really clear is that the [National] Conference understands that this is a decision of government… a decision of Labor in government. And the decision that Labor has made in government has been to follow the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The NPT is at the core of Labor in government’s policy.”
Dr Tilman Ruff AO, co-founder of ICAN, said:
“Minister Marles gave the impression that the Albanese Government is walking away from Labor’s longstanding ban treaty commitment. There’s no reason Australia can’t join the TPNW as well as the NPT. It can, should and must.
As Australia pursues nuclear-fuelled submarines under AUKUS, it is essential that we send a clear message to our nation, our region and the world that nuclear weapons are a red line. We call for the government to set a timeline for the signature of the TPNW in this term of parliament.”
Energy Transition Minerals is an Australian company (formerly Greenland Minerals Limited)
On 28 October 2025, the Arbitration Court ruled on whether the case brought by Greenland Minerals A/S against Naalakkersuisut can be heard by an arbitration court. The Arbitration Court has decided that the issue of the right to exploit minerals at Kuannersuit cannot be brought before an arbitration court and that the Danish state cannot be a party to the case.
The case was brought before the Arbitration Court by Greenland Minerals A/S on 22 March 2022. According to Greenland Minerals A/S’ claim, Naalakkersuisut should be ordered to grant the company a permit to exploit minerals at Kuannersuit.
The case arose from the adoption of the Uranium Act, which prohibits preliminary investigations, exploration and exploitation of uranium. The Act prevents a permit for exploitation from being granted in the company’s license area, as the uranium values exceed the Uranium Act’s de minimis limit.
The Greenland Government was surprised that the company chose to bring the case before an arbitration court, as the Greenland Government’s discretionary decisions can only be brought before the courts, and the Greenland Government has maintained throughout the case that the arbitration court does not have jurisdiction to decide the case. The arbitration court’s decision was therefore expected.
Cheaper, greener power is on the way. As long as anti-net zero populists don’t throttle it in the cradle. Not that long ago, Mark Purcell, a retired rear admiral in the Australian navy, was paying about A$250 a month for electricity in his roomy family home on the Queensland coast.
Today, he says he makes as much as A$300 a month, or nearly $200, from the electricity he makes, stores and sells with his solar panels and batteries. “This is the future,” he told me. “This is what the energy transition could look like for a lot of folks.” Purcell is one of the 58,000-plus customers of Amber Electric, an eight-year-old Melbourne business that gives householders access to real-time wholesale power prices so they can use power when it’s cheap and sell what is stored in their batteries when it’s expensive.
The company is adding 5,000 customers a month, putting it among a new generation of fast-growing energy tech start-ups aiming to make electricity cheaper and greener, and not just in Australia. Amber’s dynamic pricing technology is due to launch soon in the UK, where the company has done licensing deals with the energy suppliers Ecotricity and E.On.
Norway’s Tibber offers similar services to the 1mn customers it has gained since launching in 2016 and expanding to Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands. In Germany, the market share of companies including Tibber, Octopus Energy and Rabot Charge has grown from 0.1 per cent in 2023 to 2.4 per cent in 2025, says the Kreutzer Consulting group. Between them they have more than 1mn customers, 77 per cent of whom are particularly or very happy with their provider, far more than the industry-wide figure of 57 per cent.
Remember those figures the next time you hear a rightwing populist condemn allegedly unaffordable net zero policies. In fact, this new class of energy tech entrepreneurs is showing how electricity can become more affordable precisely because of the renewables, batteries and electric cars that net zero efforts drive.
It is no accident Amber Electric began in Australia, long a world leader in rooftop solar systems that sit atop more than 4mn of its homes and small businesses. Its population of 28mn is now undergoing a home battery boom, following the July launch of a A$2.3bn government subsidy scheme. Industry estimates show rooftop solar can save households up to A$1,500 a year on energy bills, a figure that nearly doubles if you add a battery, and rises further with dynamic pricing. Is there a catch?
Right now, the upfront costs of green tech can be considerable. Queensland’s Purcell is a superuser who has spent tens of thousands of dollars on solar panels, batteries and a home energy management system that makes everything from his pool heater to his air conditioners price-responsive. His family also has two Teslas with even bigger batteries.
This is clearly unaffordable for many, but maybe not for long. Big home hardware retailers have begun to launch financing plans that let people pay monthly fees of less than A$150 for solar and battery packages rather than a big initial outlay.
In this article, IF volunteer Sol Woodroffe, considers the intergenerational fairness of the government’s financing models for Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C.
Building a nuclear power station: an intergenerational decision
Building a nuclear reactor is very expensive. In fact, the financing costs are the most expensive part. According to the World Nuclear Association, capital costs for new nuclear power stations account for at least 60% of their Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE). The LCOE is the total cost to build and operate a power plant over its lifetime divided by the total electricity output dispatched from the plant over that period. This means that when we talk about the price of nuclear, we are really talking about the price of borrowing to cover the upfront costs.
Specifically, when determining whether a government should invest in nuclear power, the cost depends on how much the government values cheap electricity for future generations. The decision to build a nuclear power station is a truly intergenerational one. This graph from the World Nuclear Association highlights how different discount rates affect the value for money of nuclear energy compared with other energy sources:
This shows that the relative capital intensity of building a nuclear power station means that the more we discount future generations, the less worth it nuclear energy seems from today’s standpoint.
The discount rate the government chooses to use on public infrastructure projects is, to some extent, determined by interest rates. But it is also an ethical choice about how much the government cares about future generations. The lower the value placed on future generations, the higher the discount rate used, and so the more expensive nuclear energy seems.
On the face of it, the UK government’s decision to build two enormous nuclear reactors should be a source of optimism for young people. Nuclear energy is one of the safest and cleanest forms of energy. In many parts of the world, it is also one of the cheapest. Decarbonisation, energy security and industrial strategy are all part of the motivation for building these reactors. Many of the UK’s current reactors were built in the 70s and 80s and will retire by the early 2030s. Without new capacity, the UK will lose a major source of low carbon power. Arguably, it’s a sign of the UK government daring to invest for future generations. And yet, a closer look at the financing of the two reactors tells a different story…
Sizewell C is a close imitation of Hinkley planned for the Suffolk coast. The UK government approved the development in July 2022 and committed public equity financing in November 2022. Because the Hinkley supply chain and licensing work already existed, ministers argued that a second EPR project would reduce design and regulatory costs. Sizewell C will have enough capacity to power around six million homes when operating.
What went wrong and why?
Both projects are running well behind their initial projected timelines, and both have run worryingly over budget. These two things are interrelated. Long construction periods push up financing costs. Again, the cost of finance here is all-important. Over a long construction period, during which there are no revenue streams from the project, the interest on funds borrowed can compound into very significant amounts (World Nuclear Association, 2023).
HPC’s original cost estimate was about £18 billion but now is projected to a whopping £31–£35 billion. Moreover, our research on the “nuclear premium” estimated the additional cost of power from Hinkley Point C for its 35-year initial contract period, compared to onshore wind and solar power, would be £31.2 billion and £39.9 billion respectively. Sizewell C’s projected cost has ballooned from an initial estimate of around £20 billion to £38 billion (in 2025 pricing), nearly doubling the original figure.
The cause of these cost overruns is clear. EDF has complained that the UK lacks the building infrastructure and productive capacity for such a massive project. This kind of capacity is built up over time and requires beginning with smaller projects and then gradually scaling up. To some extent, the government has acknowledged this mistake and so began to invest in the small modular reactor programme in the UK, but from the perspective of the taxpayer, it all seems too little too late.
Who is paying for these power station?
Ultimately, the UK taxpayer is paying for both power stations. But from an intergenerational fairness perspective, the key questions are which taxpayers and when. The government has an option to borrow and shield the current taxpaying generation from footing the bill, but rising UK borrowing costs and increasingly jittery bond markets mean this would come at a serious cost.
Hinkley Point: paid for by Gen Z and Gen Alpha
The financing model for each power station is very different. For Hinkley point, the government has agreed on a Contract for Difference. This means that private companies must cover the upfront costs, with the knowledge that they receive a guaranteed price for their energy when the costs are finished.
EDF, the French national energy company, and CGN, the Chinese national energy company, shouldered much of the initial capital cost. In return, the government guarantees a price of £92.50/MWh (in 2012 £) for 35 years of output.
There were serious advantages to this model from a public financing perspective. The main advantage was that the investors took on the construction-cost risk: the UK taxpayer has arguably not been punished because Hinkley Point’s financial costs have so enormously overrun.
Nonetheless, this model ultimately kicks the financial burden down the road. Ultimately, today’s Gen-Z and Gen Alpha will be made to pay for this deal.
This is because the guaranteed price will likely be a rip-off. The average price of energy today in terms of 2012 pounds is £50–55/MWh. The falling price of clean energy alternatives means that we should expect the real price of energy to fall over the next few decades. Therefore, it seems highly likely that the fixed price will be a seriously uncompetitive rate for future UK consumers.
Sizewell C: a fairer distribution of costs
The financing of Sizewell distributes the financing costs more fairly between generations. To pay for the reactor, the government switched to a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model. This means that consumers begin contributing to the project’s financing through small charges on their energy bills while the plant is still under construction, rather than waiting until it generates electricity. The model provides investors with a regulated return during construction, reducing their exposure to financing risk.
The RAB model allows investors to share construction and operational risks with consumers, which in theory lowers the cost of capital. Since capital costs make up the majority of nuclear project expenses, this could make Sizewell C substantially cheaper overall, if delivered as planned.
From an intergenerational fairness perspective, the financing model is somewhat fairer as it smooths the cost of construction between generations. Nonetheless, the future taxpayers are the ones most exposed to the risk of cost overruns.
The cost of decommissioning
Historically, the cost of decommissioning nuclear power stations has been gravely underestimated in the UK. Decommissioning costs will be faced by generations well into the future, and so whether the state considers them massively depends on the chosen discount rate. Ultimately, the more the government values future consumers, the more seriously they must take these massive costs.
Sizewell and Hinkley both have operating lives of 60 years. However, with Sizewell, future taxpayers are exposed to the risk of ballooning decommissioning costs, whereas with Hinkley the operator must fully cover these costs.
Think of the children
When these large public infrastructure projects are discussed, the focus is often on whether government has negotiated value for money for UK taxpayers. But if the government wants to claim nuclear is a forward-looking investment, it must prove future generations won’t be the ones footing the bill.
The National Press Club of Australia lists 81 corporate sponsors on its website.
Twenty-one of them (listed below) are either part of the global arms industry or actively working on its behalf.
Ten are multinational weapons manufacturers or military services corporations. They include the world’s two biggest weapons makers, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon (RTX); British giant BAE Systems; France’s largest weapons-maker, Thales; and US weapons corporation Leidos – all five are in the global top 20. BAE Systems, which is the largest contractor to the Department of Defence, received $2 billion from Australian taxpayers last year.
In 2023, these five corporations alone were responsible for almost a quarter – 23.8 per cent (US$150.4 billion (A$231.5 billion)) – of total weapons sales (US$632 billion (A$973 billion)) made by the world’s top 100 weapons companies that year.
Last year, UN experts named Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, RTX (Raytheon) and eight other multinationals in a statement, warning them that they risked being found in violation of international law for their continued supply of weapons, parts, components and ammunition to Israeli forces. The experts called on the corporations to immediately end weapons transfers to Israel. None has done so.
Another of the Club’s sponsors – Thales – is being investigated by four countries for widespread criminal activity in three separate corruption probes. In a fourth, long-running corruption case in South Africa, the country’s former president, Jacob Zuma, is now in court, alongside Thales, being tried on 16 charges of racketeering, fraud, corruption and money laundering in connection with arms deals his government did with Thales.
Global expert Andrew Feinstein has documented his extensive research into the arms industry. He told Undue Influence that wherever the arms trade operates, it “increases corruption and undermines democracy, good governance, transparency, and the rule of law, while, ironically, making us less safe”.
Undue Influence asked the Press Club’s CEO, Maurice Reilly, what written policies or guidelines were in place that addressed the suitability and selection of corporations proposing to become Press Club sponsors.
Mr Reilly responded: “The board are informed monthly about…proposals and have the right to refuse any application.”
Wherever the arms trade operates it “increases corruption and undermines democracy, good governance, transparency, and the rule of law, while, ironically, making us less safe”. – Andrew Feinstein, author of Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade
National Press Club board
The National Press Club, established by journalists in 1963, is an iconic Australian institution. It is best known for its weekly luncheon addresses, televised on the ABC, covering issues of national importance, after which the speaker is questioned by journalists.
The Club’s board has 10 directors led by Tom Connell, political host and reporter at Sky News, who was elected president in February following the resignation of the ABC’s Laura Tingle.
The other board members are: vice president Misha Schubert (CEO, Super Members Council of Australia; formerly with The Age and The Australian); treasurer Greg Jennett (ABC); Steve Lewis (senior adviser, SEC Newgate; formerly with NewsCorp and the Financial Review); Jane Norman (ABC); Anna Henderson (SBS); Julie Hare (Financial Review); Andrew Probyn (Nine Network); Gemma Daley (Media & Government Affairs, Ai Group); and Corrie McLeod, the sole representative from an independent media outlet – InnovationAus.
At least two board members have jobs that involve lobbying.
Long-term board member Steve Lewis works as a senior adviser for lobbying firm SEC Newgate, which itself is a Press Club sponsor and also has as clients the Press Club’s two largest sponsors: Westpac and Telstra. SEC Newgate has previously acted for several Press Club sponsors, including Serco (one of the arms industry multinationals listed below), BHP, Macquarie Bank, Tattarang, and Spirits & Cocktails Australia Inc.
Gemma Daley joined the board a year ago, having started with Ai Group as its head of media and government affairs four months earlier. Ms Daley had worked for Nationals’ leader David Littleproud, former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull and former treasurer Joe Hockey and, before that, for media outlets the Financial Review and Bloomberg. Ai Group has a significant defence focus and promotes itself as “the peak national representative body for the Australian defence industry”. The group has established a Defence Council and in 2017 appointed a former assistant secretary of the Defence Department, Kate Louis, to lead it. The co-chairs of its Defence Council are senior arms industry executives. One of them, Paul Chase, is CEO of Leidos Australia, a Press Club sponsor.
Undue Influence asked Ms Daley for comment on several aspects related to her position on the board, including whether she has had to declare any conflicts of interest to date. She responded: “Thanks for the inquiry. I have forwarded this through to Maurice Reilly. Have a good day.”
Given the potential for conflicts of interest to arise, as happens on any board, Undue Influence had already asked the Press Club CEO what written policies or guidelines existed to ensure the appropriate management of conflicts of interest by board members and staff.
Mr Reilly responded:
The Club has a directors’ conflict register which is updated when required. Each meeting, board members and management are asked if they have conflicts of interest with the meeting agenda. We have a standard corporate practice that where a director has a conflict on an agenda item they excuse themselves from the meeting and take no [part] in any discussion or any decision.
Undue Influence is neither alleging nor implying inappropriate or illegal behaviour by anyone named in this article. Our objective, as always, is to shine a light on, and scrutinise, the weapons industry’s opaque engagement in public life in Australia.
While Mr Reilly declined to disclose the Club’s sponsorship arrangements with Westpac and Telstra, citing “commercial in confidence” reasons, The Sydney Morning Herald reported earlier this year that Westpac paid $3 million in 2015 to replace NAB as the Press Club’s principal sponsor.
The SMH article, “Westpac centre stage at post-budget bash”, on Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ National Press Club address in the Great Hall of Parliament House in late March, added:
[Westpac] … gets more than its money’s worth in terms of access. New-ish chief executive Anthony Miller got the most coveted seat in the house, between Chalmers and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese… Finance Minister Katy Gallagher and Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles were also on the front tables.
Westpac occupied prime real estate in the Great Hall, with guests on its tables including Treasury Secretary Steven Kennedy, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet boss Glyn Davis, Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, Housing Minister Clare O’Neil and Labor national secretary and campaign mastermind Paul Erickson…
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland was on the Telstra table.
Mr Reilly told Undue Influence that all the other corporate sponsors pay $25,000 per year, with a few paying extra as partners in the Club’s journalism awards.
The 21 arms industry and related sponsors therefore contribute an annual $525,000 to the Press Club’s coffers. This is 23% of the $2.26 million revenue it earns from “membership, sponsorship and broadcasting”, the Club’s largest revenue line, as shown in its 2024 financial statement.
“The National Press Club of Australia proudly partners with organisations that share our commitment to quality, independent journalism,” says the Club’s website.
“Aligning your brand with the National Press Club is an opportunity for unparalleled engagement in the Australian political debate and announces that your organisation is part of the business culture in Canberra.”
In response to Undue Influence’s questions about the Club’s cancellation of a planned address by the internationally acclaimed journalist Chris Hedges (covered below), Mr Reilly stated that: “For the avoidance of doubt [sponsors] do not receive any rights to speak at the club [nor are they] able to influence decisions on speakers.”
Sponsors may not be granted a right to speak, but they are sometimes invited to speak, with their status as sponsors not always disclosed to audiences.
When the Club’s second largest sponsor, Telstra, spoke on 10 September, both Club president Tom Connell and Telstra CEO Vicki Brady noted the corporation’s longstanding sponsorship.
Sponsors may not be granted a right to speak, but they are sometimes invited to speak, with their status as sponsors not always disclosed to audiences.
When the Club’s second largest sponsor, Telstra, spoke on 10 September, both Club president Tom Connell and Telstra CEO Vicki Brady noted the corporation’s longstanding sponsorship.
Compare this with two addresses given by $25,000 corporate sponsors – Kurt Campbell (former US deputy secretary of state, now co-founder and chair of The Asia Group) who gave an address on 7 September; and Mike Johnson, CEO of Australian Industry and Defence Network (AIDN), who gave an address on 15 October. Neither the Press Club nor the speakers disclosed the companies’ sponsorship of the Press Club.
While both speakers are considered experts in their field, the sponsorships should have been disclosed as a matter of public accountability.
“Priority seating and brand positioning”
On its website, the Club also promotes additional benefits of corporate sponsorship, including, “Brand association with inclusion on our prestigious ‘Corporate Partners’ board and recognition on the National Press Club of Australia website”.
The Club also promises corporate sponsors that they will receive “priority seating and brand positioning” at its weekly luncheon addresses, as the following examples show. (As principal sponsor, the logo of Westpac appears on every table and on the podium.)
The local subsidiary of British giant BAE Systems has benefited handsomely from its modest $25,000 annual sponsorship. It had the best table – behind the microphone from which journalists asked questions – at then defence minister Peter Dutton’s address in November 2021. The BAE logo appeared on the national public broadcaster – which has strict rules against advertising – eight times during the half-hour question period following Mr Dutton’s address, giving BAE Systems extended ‘brand positioning’ with its target market: senior politicians, defence public servants and military officers.
On 28 November 2023, Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy spoke about AUKUS. The logos of Press Club sponsors DXC Technology and Deloitte were also well-situated for the camera during question time. Both companies are significant contractors to the Defence Department. Deloitte also works for the weapons industry, including BAE Systems.
Cancelling Chris Hedges
The Press Club recently drew significant attention to itself after it cancelled a planned address by the Pulitzer-prize-winning American journalist, and former long-term war correspondent, Chris Hedges. Mr Hedges reported for The New York Times for 15 years, from 1990-2005, including long stints as its bureau chief in the Middle East and in the Balkans. He was to have appeared at the Press Club on 20 October.
However, in late September, Press Club CEO Maurice Reilly cancelled Mr Hedges’ appearance. This occurred two weeks after the Club was sent details of what Mr Hedges proposed to cover, including a link to an article he had entitled The Betrayal of Palestinian Journalists. In that article, Mr Hedges wrote:
Israel has murdered 245 journalists in Gaza by one count and more than 273 by another… No war I covered comes close to these numbers of dead. Since Oct 7 [2023], Israel has killed more journalists “than the US Civil War, World Wars I and II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War (including the conflicts in Cambodia and Laos), the wars in Yugoslavia in the 1990s and 2000s, and the post-9/11 war in Afghanistan, combined”.
Mr Hedges also intended to cover what he has described as the “barrage of Israeli lies amplified and given credibility by the Western press”, examples of which he provides in the above article.
Following a scathing post from Mr Hedges about the Press Club’s cancellation of his address, and significant public disquiet, the Press Club issued a statement denying it had come under external pressure to cancel his address. Inexplicably, the Press Club also denied it had confirmed the Hedges address. This claim was easily checked and soon reported to be false. Undue Influence has seen the emails showing that the Press Club had confirmed the address.
National Press Club funded by companies profiting from genocide
In July, Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories, issued a report explaining how the corporate sector had become complicit with the State of Israel in conducting the genocide.
Her report also noted that arms-making multinationals depend on legal, auditing and consulting firms to facilitate export and import transactions to supply Israel with weapons.
Numerous members of the public posted their concerns on the Press Club’s Facebook page. Here are three examples: [on original]
Four of the world’s largest accounting, audit and consulting firms – all of which have arms industry corporations as clients – are sponsors of the Press Club: KPMG, Accenture, Deloitte and EY. Until recently, PwC counted among them.
EY (Ernst & Young) has been Lockheed Martin’s auditor since 1994. EY is also one of two auditors used by Thales, and has been for 22 years. Deloitte has been BAE Systems’ auditor since 2018. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) – a Press Club sponsor until 2024 – has been Raytheon’s auditor since 1947.
Lockheed Martin’s supply to Israel of F-16 and F-35 fighter jets and C-130 Hercules transport planes, and their parts and components, along with Hellfire missiles and other munitions, has directly facilitated Israel’s genocide.
Raytheon’s (RTX) supply of guided missiles, bombs, and other advanced weaponry and defence systems, like the Iron Dome interceptors, also directly supports Israel military capability.
In England, BAE Systems builds the rear fuselage of every F-35, with the horizontal and vertical tails and other crucial components manufactured in its UK and Australian facilities. It also supplies the Israeli military with munitions, missile launching kits and armoured vehicles, while BAE technologies are integrated into Israel’s drones and warships.
Thales supplies Israel’s military with vital components, including drone transponders. Australian Zomi Frankcom and her World Central Kitchen colleagues were murdered by an Israeli Hermes drone, which contain Thales’ transponders. Yet, echoing Australia, France claims its military exports to Israel are non-lethal.
National Press Club sponsors from military-industrial complex
# Rankings compiled by SIPRI at December 2023 (published December 2024)
^ NOTE ON US COMPANIES: The Defence Department procures weapons/military goods directly from Lockheed Martin, RTX (Raytheon) and other US corporations via the US Government’s Foreign Military Sales program. The value of FMS contracts is not included in the table.
Note on the use of the word ‘genocide’
Three independent experts appointed by the UN’s Human Rights Commission – the Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel – issued a report in September that concluded Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. One of the Commissioners – Chris Sidoti – speaking at the Press Club recently, said the Commission’s report will remain the most authoritative statement on this issue until the world’s highest authority, the International Court of Justice, makes its ruling.
Antinuclear 