Australia fiddles with fossil gas while the country swelters in record heat. It doesn’t make sense.
Sydney’s record October heat; high winds battering both Melbourne and
New Zealand, causing death and destruction; the algal bloom caused by South
Australia’s marine heatwave wreaking havoc on our marine environment;
coral in both the Great Barrier and Ningaloo reefs suffering horrific
bleaching.
There’s barely an Australian who hasn’t been affected by one
extreme weather event or another, some badly. Some have lost their lives,
their homes or both. The seas around our country are suffering a marine
heatwave. Just a few degrees above normal is causing these climate
change-fuelled warmer oceans to put our weather on steroids, intensifying
heat, rainfall and wind.
And that intense rainfall will lead to increased
plant growth, so another record bushfire season is inevitable at some
point. But this is really only the beginning: global warming has reached an
average of nearly 1.5C, and we’re set to see warming of at least 2.7C by
the end of the century if we don’t take more action.
Australians have an
obvious interest in action against global warming. Focusing on gas instead
of renewables for the energy transition risks sabotaging our future.
Guardian 25th Oct 2025 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/oct/25/australia-fossil-gas-record-heat
ACF responds to Labor’s Environment Protection Agency announcement
26 October 2025 AIMN Editorial, https://theaimn.net/acf-responds-to-labors-environment-protection-agency-announcement/
The Australian Conservation Foundation acknowledges Environment Minister Murray Watt’s announcement today that the Albanese government intends to establish a national Environment Protection Authority (EPA).
The details announced fall short of creating a fully independent EPA. A better model than the one announced by Minister Watt would be one in which the Environment Minister makes nature protection rules, and the EPA assesses and approves projects and enforces the rules based on strong National Environmental Standards.
“For decades, ministers have been able to be influenced and pressured by developers. Tragically, this has resulted in millions of hectares of valuable bushland and habitat being razed by bulldozers, and Australia’s natural wealth significantly degraded,” said ACF Acting CEO Paul Sinclair.
“We remain strongly of the view that independent, expert decision making by the EPA on assessments and approvals is the best way to the deliver the consistency and certainty that is needed under our national nature protection laws. Arm’s length decision making is better for nature and better for business. We will carefully consider the details of the model proposed in the context of the entire reform package by the government once we see the legislation.
“A strong EPA is an important step in addressing the woeful lack of enforcement under the EPBC Act, especially in relation to agricultural deforestation. But an EPA alone will not be enough. We need stronger nature protection laws, we need all decisions to account for climate harm, and deforestation loopholes that allow rampant clearing of precious habitat must be closed. An independent referee is only as good as the rules they have to follow”
Unconstitutional “evil”. Albo’s plan for more government secrecy
by Rex Patrick | Oct 16, 2025 , https://michaelwest.com.au/albos-evil-plan-for-government-secrecy/
Prime Minister Albanese’s plan to amend FOI laws and increase government secrecy may be unconstitutional, and the LNP, Greens, and Independents are all opposing it. Rex Patrick reports.
Sussan Ley’s opinion piece in the Canberra Times this week, coupled with strong statements of rejection from Greens justice spokesperson Senator David Shoebridge, looks to be the final nail in the coffin for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s hypocritical and evil attempt to clamp down on the ability of citizens to participate in democracy and review the performance of their government.
Every document the government produces is generated for public purposes and on the taxpayer’s coin. The Freedom of Information Act itself states that:
“information held by the Government is to be managed for public purposes, and is a national resource.“
Of course, there is information we should not see; defence secrets, law enforcement tactics, commercially sensitive information shared with government, and citizens’ personal information held by government.
Justice Mason articulated it well in the High Court decision in The Commonwealth of Australia v John Fairfax & Sons:
“It is unacceptable in our democratic society that there should be a restraint on the publication of information relating to government when the only vice of that information is that it enables the public to discuss, review and criticise government action.
“Accordingly, the court will determine the government’s claim to confidentiality by reference to the public interest. Unless disclosure is likely to injure the public interest, it will not be protected.”
This judicial declaration was made in 1980, two years before the Freedom of Information Bill was enacted. The principles laid down by Justice Mason were subsequently incorporated into the Act, whereby the default position is that requested information is to be made available to applicants “unless access to the document at that time would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest” – although this default position is:
“effectively being defeated due to a flourishing culture of government secrecy.”
Horse trading risk
Could the Coalition opposition falter in their resolve – maybe in exchange for less stringent environmental regulations for industry? Could the Greens seek to do a deal – maybe in exchange for tighter emission controls?
The problem is that when you horse trade, you sometimes end up with a donkey.
But anything is possible in politics. The Bill is not scheduled to be debated this year. A week in politics is a long time; a few months an eternity.
Unconstitutional?
The fallback, if the Bill passes, would be to mount a constitutional challenge to the prospective crackdown on public access to government information. There is force in the proposition that the:
“Bill intrudes on the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution.“
In the 1992 High Court case of Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd & New South Wales v Commonwealth, the court ruled that the implied freedom is a necessary incident of the representative democracy which the Australian Constitution provides. Communication is protected because it is the means by which electors inform themselves about government and political matters, which allows them to exercise an informed choice at elections.
Anthony Mason, by then High Court Chief Justice, said in that case:
“… The point is that the representatives who are members of Parliament and Ministers of State are not only chosen by the people but exercise their legislative and executive powers as representatives of the people. And in the exercise of those powers the representatives of necessity are accountable to the people for what they do and have a responsibility to take account of the views of the people on whose behalf they act. Freedom of communication is an indispensable element in representative government.
“Indispensable to that accountability and that responsibility is freedom of communication, at least in relation to public affairs and political discussion. Only by exercising that freedom can the citizen communicate his or her views on the wide range of matters that may call for, or are relevant to, political action or decision. Only by exercising that freedom can the citizen criticise government decisions and actions, seek to bring about change, call for action where none has been taken and in this way influence the elected representatives. By these means the elected representatives are equipped to discharge their role so that they may take account of and respond to the will of the people.
“Communication in the exercise of the freedom is by no means a one-way traffic, for the elected representatives have a responsibility not only to ascertain the views of the electorate but also to explain and account for their decisions and actions in government and to inform the people so that they may make informed judgments on relevant matters. (Author’s emphasis.)
“Absent such a freedom of communication, representative government would fail to achieve its purpose, namely, government by the people through their elected representatives; government would cease to be responsive to the needs and wishes of the people and, in that sense, would cease to be truly representative.”
The FOI Act recognises this Constitutional foundation, with the Parliament declaring one of the objectives of the legislation is to… “promote Australia’s representative democracy.” In 1988, in the High Court case of Egan v Willis, Justices Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne stated:
In Australia, s 75(v) of the Constitution and judicial review of administrative action under federal and State law, together with freedom of information legislation (author’s emphasis), supplement the operation of responsible government in this respect.
Beyond reasonable secrecy
Although the High Court only declared freedom of political communication in the 1990s, it has existed in Australia since 1901.
Whilst the FOI Act only came into effect in 1982, it effectively codified a mechanism and a reasonable limit on what government information could be available to fulfil the Constitutional freedom of political observation.
The Cabinet provisions in Prime Minister Albanese’s FOI Amendment Bill depart from necessary confidentiality in Cabinet solidarity and collective responsibility, and, in a radical departure from established understanding and practice,
“wrap a secrecy blanket over all things being carried out at the top echelons of government.
Secrecy for the sake of secrecy is wrong. Exaggerated secrecy, that is, secrecy beyond the public interest, will warp the foundations of our democracy and will most likely be unconstitutional.
Sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution, which state respectively that the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be composed of senators and members directly chosen by the people of the Commonwealth, imply that citizens have a right to be informed so that they can properly consider their vote.
As such, the passage of the Bill will likely give rise to a challenge as to the validity of
“laws that seek to hide what the public own and should reasonably be able to see.”
Complacency
So, although passage of the Bill through the Parliament looks set to fail, the Government will be working up a negotiating scenario – maybe offering something that the Coalition hates but the Greens really like or something the Greens hate but the Coalition really likes.
But no good could come from negotiation on this Bill. It’s a poison pill for democracy.
Information is to democratic participation as water is to life. We take the water for granted until it stops flowing. Complacency must not set in, and there should be no deals. Albanese’s toxic FOI suppression Bill should be voted down.
The Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Legislation is holding its first hearing into the Bill this Friday.
All the way with Donald J. Albo supporting mass murder
And all complying with Paul Keating’s criticism that our governments keep seeking security from Asia when we should be seeking security within it
by Michael Pascoe | Oct 19, 2025, https://michaelwest.com.au/anthony-albaneses-donald-trump-visit/
Australia is murdering people and threatening democracy. That’s the reality of Anthony Albanese kissing Donald Trump’s ring this week, writes Michael Pascoe.
Michael Pascoe.
Let’s be clear about this. If you support a criminal gang, provide it with weapons, keep schtum about its crimes, either pay bribes or accept being extorted, you are an accessory to everything the thugs and hitmen do.
That’s us, as represented by our government bowing before Donald Trump.
When Trump exercises massive economic coercion on Brazil because that democracy’s judiciary is dealing, as it should, with an attempted coup (unlike the United States), we’re supporting him.
When Trump threatens Brazilians with further unspecified pain if they don’t vote for his preferred right-wing candidate, we’re supporting him.
“We’re all the way with Donald J, all the way with the mob that is the US administration.“
When Trump, on zero legal basis, orders suspected smugglers to be summarily executed in international waters, we’re on his side. When he leans on corporations for a piece of their action, we’re okaying it. Heck, we’re joining the conga line offering a slice.
As a Trump vassal state, we’ve moved beyond merely being America’s Deputy Dawg in the South Pacific to active backers of Trump’s global shakedown.
The “rules-based international order” was always a façade for self-interest. Now it’s a pathetic joke, high farce, darkly ironic. Just as Trump’s Supreme Court has declared him above the law, Trump has declared the United States beyond any law, a piracy state free to exploit, extort, betray, reneg and kill at will.
Ready to kiss the ring
The local media demanding for months that the Australian Prime Minister have the opportunity to play a humble fool in the White House have their wishes fulfilled this week.
Embarrassingly, our major newspapers are reporting as a good thing that Albanese will either, depending on your perspective, bribe or be willingly extorted by Trump to curry favour with the lawless mob.
Rather than support free trade and that rules-based international order thing, we are expected to act like the sycophantic American companies and “give” Trump a large gift. Another billion dollars towards America’s military capacity is just an appetiser.
More galling, the reported main aim in compromising whatever moral stance Australia might once have had is to keep alive the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine deal. We’re compromising ourselves to further compromise our military sovereignty by locking into the American military’s strategic aims. “Integration”, as the American cheerleaders in the local security and military game call it.
And all complying with Paul Keating’s criticism that our governments keep seeking security from Asia when we should be seeking security within it.
As stated here before, contrary to the perspective of nearly all Australian media, most of the world is not in the Trump or China camps. Most countries recognise the failures of both those powers and seek to tread an independent path.
Not Albanese’s ALP or whoever’s LNP. Having already surrendered sovereignty by inviting and hosting American military and espionage bases, we’re doubling down by funding the American military machine on a bipartisan basis and mutely approving Trump’s international transgressions.
There is no pride in this, only a stain. Acting without integrity, supporting a bullying criminal, we are
“accessories to everything that untrustworthy self-aggrandising joke of a US president does.”
That’s Australia, us, you and me.
Michael Pascoe
Michael Pascoe is an independent journalist and commentator with five decades of experience here and abroad in print, broadcast and online journalism. His book, The Summertime of Our Dreams, is published by Ultimo Press.
AUKUS. Deal of the century! … For the Americans
by Rex Patrick | Oct 23, 2025, https://michaelwest.com.au/aukus-deal-of-the-century-at-least-for-the-americans/
“Submarines in our time!” He didn’t say it, but Anthony Albanese might as well have, as he returned triumphantly from his meeting with Donald Trump this week.
AUKUS is indeed a fantastic deal. For the Americans, at least.
“Trump is not going to cancel AUKUS”, a well-connected industry source told MWM two weeks ago.
“AUKUS is so good for US industry – Australia is spending billions on their shipyards, and then there’s the purchase of the submarines themselves. General Dynamics Electric Boat and Huntington Ingalls Industries will see tens of billions of Australian dollars flow their way, as will Lockheed Martin and Raytheon”, said the source.
“And assuming things go well, the shipyard mess in the UK will see us going from three US Virginia-class subs to five, and then likely eight. Australia will abandon the UK AUKUS-designed subs, and even more Australian money will flow into the bank accounts of US companies.”
‘They’ll be lobbying the White House to ensure this cash keeps on flowing.’
And clearly, the lobbying has worked so far. Trump has endorsed AUKUS. It’s the sort of deal he likes.
As former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull stated in the lead-up to the meeting, it wasn’t going to be in Trump’s interest to withdraw, “The AUKUS deal is a fantastic deal for the Americans, a terrible deal for Australia, so there is no way Donald Trump will walk away from it because what does he get?” he said.
Turnbull was right. He was also right in his analysis after the meeting, “warm words don’t build submarines”.
Submarine woes
The United States is not building enough Virginia-class subs. They’re not building enough for their own Navy, let alone ours. That is the determining fact sitting in the middle of the AUKUS slipway.
For more than a decade, the US Government has been trying to build two Virginia subs per year. But they haven’t been able to move the shipbuilding dial. They’re currently struggling along at 1.1 submarines per annum, not enough to meet their own demand, let alone the 2.3 boats per annum they need to hit to be able to spare a submarine or three for Australia.
The spin from US and Australian politicians is turning in the opposite direction to the analysis of the United States Congressional Research Service, the US Government Audit Office and the US Chief of Naval Operations. No matter the spin from politicians, they can’t cause a change in the engineering and construction taking place at Groton, Connecticut and Newport News, Virginia.
Trump needn’t be worried though; he won’t be the President in the early 2030s when the first Virginia Class sub can’t be delivered because doing so,
will have a detrimental effect on the US Navy’s undersea warfare capability.
The US Congress has enshrined that “America First” requirement in their AUKUS legislation, and the crunch point is already less than a decade away – too little time for the US submarine industrial base to make the enormous strides that are so easily spruiked but so difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
Eroding our sovereignty
Meanwhile, MWM’s industry source has foreshadowed the closing down of some Australian Defence companies struggling to make ends meet after Defence has cancelled a range of local programs, and is not initiating replacement work, so that they can meet the almost $10B in payments to both the US and UK governments to invest in their industry.
‘AUKUS is sending Australia into a sovereignty-eroding spiral.’
We are already tightly integrated into the US military with common hardware, common ordinance and common tactics. As the US turns its eye towards its superpower competitor, China (incidentally, our biggest trading partner), we are also seeing an expanding US military footprint on Australian soil, including:
and logistics storage in both Victoria and Queensland.
the long-standing Pine Gap joint communications and intelligence facility at Alice Springs,
the critical submarine very low frequency communications station at WA’s North West Cape,
a new mission briefing/intelligence centre and aircraft parking aprons at RAAF Darwin,
fuel storage at Darwin Port, infrastructure at RAAF Tindal near Katherine,
And there’ll be a forward staging base for US Navy Virginia-class subs out of HMAS Stirling near Perth from 2027.
US nuclear-powered, and by the early 2030s likely nuclear-armed, submarines will be using Western Australia as a strategic base for operations extending from the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea, the Bay of Bengal, to the South China Sea and the East China Sea and beyond.
‘All th’is is about strategic competition with China.‘
The Australian Defence Force, as it diverts money to AUKUS, will suffer in terms of independent capability. Industry will suffer. The taxpayer will suffer.
Best deal in history
Trump must be rubbing his hands together. This will play out well for the US.
Billions of Australian dollars will flow into the continental US to contribute to its submarine industry – this is a certainty. In contrast, the US will almost certainly not deliver. There is no clawback of expended money for non-delivery.
Australia’s Collins Class submarine capability will atrophy further, as will the general capabilities of the Australian Defence Force, starved of funds. More reliance on the US will see the US Navy station more subs in WA, the US Air Force stationing and staging additional air capabilities in our north, and an increase in the number of US Marines rotating through Darwin.
More than ever, Australia will be reduced to being “a suitable piece of real estate” in US war planning (to adopt the words of one of Australia’s most insightful strategic critics, the late Professor Des Ball).
Australia will have little choice but to let the US do this … and we might be pressured into much more.
‘There will be no choice but to follow the US into conflict with China.‘
We will have limited capabilities and will be left totally reliant on red, white and blue military capabilities. When Richard Marles talks of sovereign capabilities and decision-making, it’s just a political con job.
Trump will, in retirement, post on Truth Social his genius and how he suckered retired Prime Minister Albanese into what Paul Keating would call, in the view from the White House and Pentagon, the best deal in all of history.
Rex Patrick is a former Senator for South Australia and, earlier, a submariner in the armed forces. Best known as an anti-corruption and transparency crusader, Rex is also known as the “Transparency Warrior.”
Why Australia’s Rare Earth Deal Serves U.S. Interests
24 October 2025 AIMN Editorial , By Denis Hay
Australia’s rare earth deal with the US fuels its military industry, not our sovereignty. Here’s why that matters.
Introduction: Australia’s Strategic Crossroads
In October 2025, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese signed an $8.5 billion rare earth deal with the United States, promising closer economic and security ties. The agreement appears to be an opportunity to boost Australia’s resource sector. Yet beneath the surface, it reveals a deepening alignment with the US military-industrial complex through the AUKUS alliance.
As China restricts exports of key rare earth metals used in advanced weaponry, the US is turning to Australia for supply. The question is simple but profound: is the rare earth deal Australia signed a path to sovereignty, or servitude?
The Problem: How the Deal Strengthens Dependence
1. The Geopolitical Trigger – China’s Ban and US Pressure
China’s export controls on critical minerals such as gallium and germanium were a strategic response to the US using them for missile guidance systems, fighter jets, and submarines. Washington needed a reliable alternative, and Canberra complied.
Through the AUKUS alliance, Australia is being drawn into the US defence supply chain, undermining our ability to chart an independent foreign policy. Rather than investing in peaceful manufacturing and clean-energy industries, our resources are now fuelling a global arms race. (ABC News)
2. Resource Exploitation Without Return
Australia holds about 20% of the world’s rare earth reserves, yet most of our minerals are exported raw and processed overseas. This deal continues that pattern, foreign corporations’ profit while Australians bear the environmental costs. Public money is used to subsidise foreign ventures instead of funding domestic processing plants that create local jobs. (AP News)
The Impact: What Australians Are Experiencing
3. From Mining Boom to Dependency Economy
Despite decades of booms, Australia is still a “dig-and-ship” nation. The rare earth deal Australia signed solidifies our position as a key supplier of raw materials to the US military supply chain. Communities see little benefit while regional inequality and labour insecurity grow.
4. Who Really Benefits
The true winners are US defence contractors like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, who depend on steady rare earth supplies for weapons production. Under AUKUS, Australia is obliged to supply these resources for military use while receiving limited technology transfer. Once again, public money serves private foreign interests. (Politico)
Who Owns the Processors: and Who Gets the Profits
The Albanese government’s rare earth deal, which Australia signed with the United States, has been presented as a boost to local industry. Yet a closer look at who owns the companies processing these critical minerals shows the profits often flow overseas or to private shareholders, not the Australian public.
1. Iluka Resources – Eneabba, Western Australia
Iluka runs Australia’s first integrated rare-earth refinery, funded by a $1.65 billion public loan from the federal government’s Critical Minerals Facility. The project includes a “no-China” clause to satisfy US and UK defence interests. Although Iluka is ASX-listed, profits go to private and institutional investors, not the public, while its supply contracts serve foreign markets.
2. Lynas Rare Earths – Kalgoorlie and Malaysia
Lynas, another ASX-listed firm, runs processing plants in Kalgoorlie and Malaysia. It received early investment from Japan’s Sojitz and JOGMEC, who keep offtake rights. A substantial part of Lynas’s refined output is exported to Japan and US defence manufacturers, making Australia a supplier in the AUKUS alliance rather than an independent producer.
3. Arafura Rare Earths – Nolans Project, Northern Territory
Arafura promotes itself as an Australian company, but binding offtake agreements with Hyundai, Kia, Siemens Gamesa, and Traxys cover most of its planned production. This means much of its revenue will come from foreign contracts, while Australian taxpayers help fund infrastructure and environmental oversight.
4. Alpha HPA – Gladstone, Queensland
Alpha HPA’s high-purity alumina project has been hailed as a clean-tech success, supported by hundreds of millions in government loans. However, its customers are primarily offshore electronics and battery manufacturers, meaning the profits leave Australia even though public funds help build the facilities.
5. Australian Strategic Materials (ASM) – Dubbo, New South Wales
ASM’s Dubbo project has strong ties with a South Korean consortium, with potential equity and offtake arrangements already in place. While the plant is in Australia, most of the downstream manufacturing and profit realisation will occur in Asia.
The Sovereignty Gap
While several companies are headquartered in Australia and listed on the ASX, the real issue is who controls the value chain. With foreign investors and defence-aligned buyers dominating the market, Australia captures little of the long-term benefit.
Despite processing more at home, the profits and strategic control remain offshore, perpetuating the dependency model that the AUKUS alliance reinforces…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. https://theaimn.net/why-australias-rare-earth-deal-serves-u-s-interests/#comment-14832
Australia to make next billion-dollar AUKUS payment ‘shortly’, says minister
By Reuters, October 14, 20252 –
Australia will make a second billion-dollar payment to boost U.S. nuclear submarine shipyards soon, Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy said in Washington on Tuesday, ahead of an official visit by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese next week.
The AUKUS agreement to transfer nuclear-powered submarines to Australia is being reviewed by the Pentagon, although Australia has expressed confidence the deal, which also includes Britain, will proceed.
In its first phase, Australia has pledged 3 billion U.S. dollars to boost U.S. submarine production rates, to later allow the sale of three Virginia submarines to Canberra, with a 2025 deadline for the first $2 billion.
Defence Minister Richard Marles told reporters in Canberra on Tuesday that Australia was contributing to a Pentagon review of AUKUS and had “a sense of when this will conclude”, without disclosing the timing. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/australia-make-next-billion-dollar-aukus-payment-shortly-says-minister-2025-10-14/
AUKUS proves why Australia is no longer a middle power with sovereignty and autonomy
If AUKUS is such a good deal for the Americans, why did Albanese fall over himself to talk it up in DC? It points towards a crisis of control.
Wanning Sun, Oct 24, 2025, https://www.crikey.com.au/2025/10/24/aukus-deal-united-states-america-australia-anthony-albanese-defence/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
Australian media coverage of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s meeting with US President Donald Trump was teetering on the brink of euphoria.
Emerging from the cabinet room where the meeting took place, the ABC’s reporter Jane Norman appeared breathless in her account of the big moment. Even Sally Sara, host of Radio National’s Breakfast, who is usually calm and is known to ask probing questions, seemed to have abandoned her cool. She pronounced: “Well, the bonds between the United States and Australia appear tighter than ever today.’
But our prime minister didn’t rest on his laurels, even after securing various assurances from Trump. Albanese seemed to feel he needed to further convince the Americans of our nation’s commitment to their nation. As he told a roomful of US Congress members: “We’ve already contributed a billion dollars to your industrial base; there’ll be a billion dollars on its way before Christmas.”
He went on to say there would be “a further billion dollars next year because … we want to uplift your industrial capacity. … We’ll be providing a capacity for maintenance of your subs from 2027 on top of the facilities that we have already in the West.” And just to ensure his audience understood his message, he added, “It will increase your capacity to forward project.”
In other words, he wanted to drive home that AU
When asked by Sara what securing a commitment from Trump meant, the ABC’s John Lyons said: “From America’s point of view, why wouldn’t you? When a country comes along and says we will pay you $380 billion to boost your manufacturing industry in America for submarines you may one day see, of course! America loves the deal.”
But Lyons didn’t mention that while the AUKUS contract commits the US to deliver eight nuclear-powered submarines to Australia by 2032, there’s a condition: under the US legislation, the president of the day can stop the transfer if the American government believes the sale could affect its undersea capabilities, thereby undermining the national interest. To put it plainly: Australia has no way of recovering its money, even if we end up with no submarines.
If AUKUS is such a good deal for the Americans, why does our prime minister feel the need to keep talking up AUKUS to them? KUS is really in America’s national interest.
Could the Albanese government be so desperate to secure a continuous commitment because it needs to convince Australian voters it is doing its utmost to persuade America to stay the course, so that their taxpayer money won’t go down the drain? Perhaps the government believes it can’t afford to let up on the PR surrounding AUKUS in both the US and Australia, even though it isn’t certain the submarines will eventually turn up, nor that they will deter Australia’s enemies?
Australia’s news media are prone to switch from pursuing a “public interest” mandate to a “national interest” mandate when covering foreign policy. For this reason, despite Trump’s assurances this week, they will doubtlessly continue to focus on the trope of “Is AUKUS on track or is it in trouble?” They are likely to keep ignoring or downplaying critical questions such as “What does Australia get out of the AUKUS deal?” and “Will the US submarines keep us safe?”
Both past and present Labor prime ministers, as well as foreign policymakers, like to describe Australia as a middle power. This self-description is consistent with our leaders’ rhetoric of what Australia does: that it is a good global citizen, that it seeks to maintain “the existing global rules-based order”, and that it believes in multilateralism.
Although middle powers have less global influence, they nevertheless exercise agency strategically in the emerging multipolar world as great powers contest the rules of order. They gain influence by mediating between great powers through what international relations theorists call “hedging”.
Such scholars believe that hedging enables middle powers to engage with competing great powers, while avoiding alignment that limits their autonomy. Through hedging, less powerful states preserve sovereignty in a context of uncertainty by balancing engagement and resistance. Our Asian neighbours, such as India, Indonesia and Singapore, do precisely that.
Despite our leaders’ rhetoric, signing up to AUKUS seems to signal that Australia has somewhat voluntarily relinquished its capacity as a middle power to practise effective hedging.
For instance, Sydney University’s James Curran believes AUKUS could mean the US would expect Australia to join them in a potential war with China over Taiwan:
Similarly, the Lowy Institute’s Sam Roggeveen argues that Australia’s deeper alignment with the US and the hosting of US bomber capabilities at Tindal and future nuclear-submarine infrastructure raises the likelihood of Australia becoming “an important target” in a conflict with China.
Neither of the major parties has ruled in or out the possibility that Australia would join the US in a potential war. But despite Defence Minister Richard Marles’ rebuttal of criticism from AUKUS critics over the issue of sovereignty, one thing is clear: unlike many Western European and Scandinavian middle powers, Australia’s constitution implies that decisions to engage in armed conflict are made by the executive government under prerogative powers, not by parliament as a whole.
In other words, the Parliament of Australia apparently has no power to stop Australia from going to war, even though it could be consulted.
It is for these reasons that Clinton Fernandes, in the Future Operations Research Group at UNSW Canberra, believes that “rules-based international order” is a “euphemism” for the US-led imperial order, and that Australia is really a “subimperial power upholding a US-led imperial order”.
Without giving a full account of the myriad concerns raised by critics of AUKUS, let’s just say here that with AUKUS, Australia’s capacity to function as a true middle power — one that is confident of its sovereignty, autonomy and capacity to exercise agency to influence superpowers — seems gravely in doubt. And signing up to AUKUS may be another case study that supports Fendandes’s argument.
Wanning Sun, Contributor
Wanning Sun is a professor of media and cultural studies at the University of Technology, Sydney. She also serves as the deputy director of the UTS Australia-China Relations Institute. She is a fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities and a member of the Australian Research Council’s College of Experts (2020-23). She is best known in the field of China studies for her ethnography of rural-to-urban migration and social inequality in contemporary China. She writes about Chinese diaspora, diasporic Chinese media, and Australia-China relations.
Desperately seeking submariners: why keeping nuclear-powered boats afloat will be Australia’s biggest Aukus challenge.
Ben Doherty, Guardian, 21 Oct 25
A vast and highly trained workforce is needed to command, crew, supply and maintain nuclear submarines. Some say that’s impossible for Australia.
“Vice-Admiral Mead, you’re free to go home … good to see you cracking a smile.”
The head of the Australian Submarine Agency had spent a withering three hours before Senate estimates, parrying a barrage of questions about Australia’s ambitious Aukus nuclear submarine plan: interrogatives on consultants, on hundreds of millions of dollars sent to US and UK shipyards, on sclerotic boat-building on both sides of the Atlantic.
But while so much focus has been on Australia’s nuclear submarines’ arrival, their price tag and their “sovereign” status, the greatest challenge to the Aukus project, Mead told the Senate, would be finding the people to keep them afloat and at sea.
“Ensuring Australia has the workforce to deliver this program remains our biggest challenge,” he said.
If Australia’s nuclear submarines arrive on these shores – and that remains a contested question, with expert opinion ranging from an absolute yes to a certain no – will Australia be able to crew, supply and maintain them?
“It is a challenge we are continuing to meet,” Mead told senators. “Australian industry and navy personnel continue to build critical experience through targeted international placements.”
Others are less sanguine.
“The Aukus optimal pathway is a road to a quagmire,” says a former admiral and submarine commander, Peter Briggs, arguing that Australia’s small submarine arm can’t be upscaled quickly enough. “It’s not going anywhere. It will not work.”
Onshore trades, too, are perilously short. Without an additional 70,000 welders by 2030, that trade’s peak body says: “The Aukus submarine program is at serious risk of collapse.”
Mead was asked directly by senators: “Are you still confident of meeting the government’s agenda and timings?”
“Yes,” he replied, “I am.”
‘An eye-wateringly long process’
Briggs, a past president of the Submarine Institute of Australia, says the Aukus plan reads like one “designed by a political aide in a coffee shop”.
The navy’s submarine arm is approximately 850 sailors and officers (the defence department declined to give exact figures). The former chief of navy previously told parliament it needed to grow to 2,300 by the 2040s.
But Briggs estimates that to crew and support Australia’s Virginia-class, and later, Aukus-class submarines, the navy will need to more than treble its existing complement to about 2,700.
Virginias are massive submarines – nearly 8,000 tons – and carry a crew of 134, more than twice the existing Collins-class crew of 56. The Aukus submarines to be built in Adelaide will be bigger again. More tonnage, more people.
“That’s a huge increase in what is already in very scarce supply,” Briggs argues…………………………………………………………
The new generation of submariners is needed for between three and five Virginia-class submarines, then up to eight Australian-built Aukus boats.
“To get to be chief engineer of a nuclear submarine takes 16 to 18 years,” Briggs says. “It’s an eye-wateringly long process and of course you lose people along the way.
“That’s why you need a broad base, a critical mass, and Australia simply doesn’t have that right now. There is no way a navy the size of ours can manage this mix.”
Briggs does not believe the US will withdraw from Aukus: the presence of nuclear submarine bases on Australian soil is too great a prize for a superpower wanting to project power into the Pacific. But Australia’s unreadiness could lead to nuclear submarines under domestic command being delayed.
“We’ve got no warranty clause, no guarantee of anything. The cop-out could come in 2031, the US might say, ‘Look, you’re not quite ready yet, let’s push everything back three years, check in again in 2034.’ And it’s Australia that’s left exposed.”
‘Beyond frustrating, it’s dangerous’
Beyond the complexity of commanding and crewing a nuclear submarine, the vessels need a vast and highly trained workforce to keep them supplied, afloat and at sea………………………………………………………………………
“This is not just a workforce challenge,” its chief executive, Geoff Crittenden, said in a statement. “It’s a full-blown capability crisis … If we don’t address this issue now, Aukus will fail.”
Aukus represented a “perfect storm”, he said, and failure to address worker shortages was “beyond frustrating, it’s dangerous”.
“A once-in-a-generation opportunity like Aukus demands a long-term, strategic response, not just investment in ships and steel, but in people. We estimate that Australia will be at least 70,000 welders short by 2030. Without immediate action, the project is doomed to delays, cost blowouts, or worse.”…………………………………………………………………………
The first cohort won’t be Australian. “In the short term there will have to be an influx of international talent, as we train and upskill our own people.”
Tier two is a nuclearised workforce of skilled professionals – scientists, electrical and mechanical engineers, technical managers, reactor operators and health physicists – with advanced training and between seven and 10 years’ experience. The majority of a submarine crew would sit in this tier. Obbard estimates that about 5,000 tier-two workers will be needed.
Tier three is a further cohort of “nuclear-aware” workers – between 5,000 and 6,000 again – tradespeople including machinists, fitters and welders, who will require some nuclear training.
“The Aukus plan cannot work without building this workforce and the wider engineering community this workforce is drawn from.”
Does it make sense?’
Jack Dillich is uniquely placed to observe Australia’s transformation to a nuclear submarine power. A former submarine officer, he holds an advanced degree in nuclear engineering and served on the executive of the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, where he was responsible for the country’s sole nuclear reactor, and as head of the regulatory branch at the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. He now teaches a nuclear course at the Australian Defence Force Academy………………………………….
[Dillich says] Australia needs to be asking, ‘Does it make sense to try to build a tiny fleet here?’ Maybe 25 years from now, Australia could have eight nuclear-propelled submarines: they would be very, very expensive.”……………………………..https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/oct/20/aukus-submarine-workforce-nuclear-powered-boats-australia
Could Australia’s trash become Donald Trump’s treasure? Turning our waste into critical minerals
21 October 2025 AIMN Editorial, UNSW Sydney
UNSW Sydney Media Release
Key facts:
- Australians generate around 20kg of e-waste per person every year
- Some of the components inside this everyday waste include critical minerals, which can be reused and recycled
- At the National Press Club in Canberra today, Professor Veena Sahajwalla called on policymakers, industry and communities to embrace our waste.
As Donald Trump and Anthony Albanese announce a new, multi-billion-dollar critical minerals pact, UNSW Professor Veena Sahajwalla will tell the National Press Club in Canberra how onshore recycling technologies can recover these critical minerals from our waste stream – making the adoption of this cutting-edge technology a strategic, economic and environmental imperative.
At the National Press Club in Canberra today, UNSW Sydney’s Scientia Professor Veena Sahajwalla called on policymakers, industry and communities to embrace a new vision for Australia’s waste. Instead of relegating waste to landfills, incinerators or stockpiles, she argued it can drive innovation, support local industries, create jobs and deliver environmental and social benefits.
“True sustainability demands we harness this potential and transform waste into a resource stream for advanced manufacturing,” Prof. Sahajwalla said.
Australians generate around 20kg of e-waste per person every year, but many of the valuable minerals inside are never recovered. Some of the components inside this everyday waste include critical minerals, which can be reused and recycled, meaning there is both a strategic as well as an economic and environmental need to adopt this technology.
Using techniques Prof. Sahajwalla has designed, those waste resources can be reused and turned into new and valuable products.
E-waste is one aspect of a waste management crisis Prof. Sahajwalla’s work seeks to remedy.
In communities across Australia, her team’s pioneering MICROfactorieTM technologies are already showing what this future looks like. In Sydney’s south-west, discarded mattresses are being turned into green ceramic tiles, supporting local manufacturing jobs and helping councils reduce waste management costs. In Taree in regional NSW, reclaimed aluminium is being reformed into new aerosol cans. While in Sydney’s north, e-waste is being remanufactured into 3D printing filament.
“Using our waste resources as feedstock develops a circular economy where supply chains are linked up and local jobs are created, with significant environmental and social benefits,” she said.
Prof. Sahajwalla is Director of UNSW’s Sustainable Materials Research and Technology (SMaRT) Centre, which is internationally recognised for pioneering the concept of ‘MICROfactories’. The SMaRT Centre is home to MICROfactories technology, turning small, modular recycling systems that transform discarded products such as mattresses, glass, textiles, and electronic waste into valuable materials and products.
Her team’s work with councils and industry partners shows how this transformation is already taking shape:
Creating tiles from waste
In her address, Prof. Sahajwalla shared details of how the Liverpool City Council in Sydney’s south-west has turned a major waste problem into a circular economy success story. When the Council realised it was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to dispose discarded mattresses it partnered with Prof. Sahajwalla’s SMaRT Centre to pilot a MICROfactorieTM to shred and re-manufacture the materials………………………………………………………………………………………………
She also outlined a vision in which MICROfactories could be established in cities, towns and regional communities across the country, each tailored to local waste streams and employment needs. In regional NSW, her team is working with the Aboriginal community in Wellington near Dubbo to use green ceramic tiles in sustainable housing projects, supported by the federal government’s Sustainable Communities and Waste Hub (SCaW).
Turning university research into real-world impact
Prof. Sahajwalla said Australia must do more to ensure university research translates into real-world impact. She called for governments to lead by example in adopting Australian-made sustainable technologies, and to reward companies that invest in local R&D.
“By and large, our professional incentives are not geared towards the long-hours it takes to actually build the machine that can make a world-saving idea a reality,” Prof. Sahajwalla said…………………………………………………………… https://theaimn.net/could-australias-trash-become-donald-trumps-treasure-turning-our-waste-into-critical-minerals/
AUKUS: Revolving door, spiralling down
Ahead of the launch of a new database on the Australian military-industrial complex, we document the farce that AUKUS has become
Michelle Fahy, Undue Influence, Oct 20, 2025
It is clear to many that AUKUS, in particular its early fulfilment stages, is becoming a debacle. In February, Defence Minister Richard Marles lauded as a ‘very unique’ arrangement Australia’s gift to the United States of $4.7 billion to bolster America’s struggling submarine output, highlighting that such an arrangement hasn’t been seen in other defence pacts globally.
Of course such an arrangement hasn’t been seen elsewhere! Most other countries wouldn’t agree to hand over this massive sum without ensuring there were provisions for a refund should the promised submarines fail to arrive.
In an inept performance in Senate Estimates in June 2024, Vice Admiral Jonathan Mead, head of the Australian Submarine Agency, woodenly refused to answer a straightforward question from Greens’ Senator David Shoebridge about whether the agreement Australia has struck with the US contains a clawback provision should the promised submarines fail to be supplied.
Mead’s performance, as recorded in Hansard, is mordantly comical:
It is thus obvious that Australia has no contractual way of recovering its money should the current or a future US President block the transfer of the submarines, as the US President is entitled to do under US legislation.
Australia is certainly ‘very unique’ in its willingness to part with almost $10 billion (the UK is getting a similar amount) in public funds with no strings attached.
Australia made the first payment of $800 million to the US in February and quietly transferred the second payment, a further $800 million, in July. It has committed to paying a total of US$2 billion ($3 billion) by the end of 2025, with the remainder to be paid over the decade to 2035‒36.
Under the AUKUS deal, both major political parties have committed to spending vast public resources with no consultation and minimal transparency and accountability.
Even though the Australian National Audit Office has exposed, in report after report, serious probity breaches in defence procurement, including unethical conduct between global weapons companies and the Australian government, these transgressions are routinely ignored. The weapons deals continue regardless.
The big winners from AUKUS so far have been nuclear submarine manufacturers in the United States and the United Kingdom. Australia has committed to providing almost $10 billion to boost the output of these companies, helping secure jobs for workers in America and the United Kingdom.
As there are no clawback provisions in either of these agreements, should President Trump ditch AUKUS, or if the submarine manufacturing capacity in the US and UK doesn’t sufficiently increase, Australian taxpayers will be picking up another multibillion-dollar defence tab with nothing to show for it. We’ve already shelled out $3.4 billion for no submarines, following former PM Scott Morrison’s shredding of the pre-AUKUS French submarine contract.
This is far from the only example of waste, misdirection and incompetence in Australia’s dealings with the global arms industry. Take the Albanese government’s engagement with global arms giant Thales. In October last year, the government signed up Thales to a further munitions manufacturing contract and a ‘strategic partnership’ in the new domestic missile-making endeavour, the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance (GWEO) enterprise.
The new deal with Thales was struck despite the fact that Thales is currently being investigated by four countries for widespread criminal activity in three separate corruption probes. …………………….https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/nothing-to-see-here-says-australia………………………………………… The Thales example illustrates how a key democratic accountability mechanism, the National Audit Office and its reports, is routinely ignored.
…………………………………………………How is it that such imbroglios occur again and again? Australian governments are highly susceptible to the ‘revolving door’ process in which politicians, the military and public servants move effortlessly between government, lobbying and the industry itself.
In what follows, no suggestion is being made of unlawful activity by any person named, nor that any of the appointments noted was unlawful.
The problem for Australia is not one of legality but of the perfectly legal influence of industry insiders within government, the lack of transparency, and the absence of management of the ‘revolving door’.
The revolving door
The ‘revolving door’ describes the movement of public officials into related private roles, and industry executives into related public roles. It is a widespread problem that undermines democracy, yet in Australia it remains unmonitored and unpoliced.
A large number of Australia’s senior government ministers and their staffers, military officers, and defence department officials move through the revolving door into paid roles with the weapons industry. Such moves are not illegal but they require a robust management framework—with rules that are enforced—to mitigate the inherent conflicts of interest. Australia’s feeble attempts at managing the revolving door have been completely ineffective
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..In the lobby
Numerous former senior politicians are now working as lobbyists for the weapons industry. Examples include: Liberals Christopher Pyne (Pyne and Partners), Joe Hockey (Bondi Partners), Arthur Sinodinos (The Asia Group) and David Johnston (TG Public Affairs); and Labor’s Kim Beazley (TG Public Affairs), Joel Fitzgibbon (CMAX Advisory), Stephen Conroy (TG Public Affairs) and Mark McGowan (Bondi Partners).
There are also plenty of former senior military officers pulling strings on behalf of weapons companies too. Examples are listed below.
The federal register of lobbyists provides some transparency, but does not cover the majority of people who lobby politicians. The register applies only to third-party lobbyists. These people operate as paid professionals, either individually or as an employee of a lobbying firm, on behalf of clients. Third party lobbyists make up just 20% of all lobbyists. The remaining 80% include, amongst others, company CEOs and people employed by corporations as ‘government relations’ advisers. This enables employees of major weapons companies to lobby politicians easily and legally, with zero transparency.
Reverse cycle: private to public
The government’s engagement with UK weapons giant BAE Systems’ local subsidiary best illustrates how this works.
The government gave former senior BAE Systems executives influential behind-the-scenes roles both before and during the tender process for Australia’s largest ever surface warship procurement, the $46 billion Hunter class frigates, a contract BAE went on to win. Few of these roles were publicly acknowledged. https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/sinking-billions-revolving-doors
BAE Systems was awarded the frigates contract by the Turnbull government in mid-2018. The names of the people appointed to an expert advisory panel to oversee the tender evaluation process were not made public. Here’s why: serious conflicts of interest…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Lockheed Martin locks on target
Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza has put the issue of the extensive influence on the Australian government of Lockheed Martin—the world’s largest arms manufacturer—under the spotlight…………https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/buck-passing-inside-the-murky-arms
Lockheed Martin utilises the revolving door heavily in the US. Until recently, it had openly adopted the same strategy in Australia. From October 2013 until the end of 2021, the board of Lockheed Martin Australia boasted multiple former senior Australian public officials: at least two at any one time, more often three, and even four during one 20-month period.
They included a roll call of defence heavies from past decades,………………………………………………………………………………………
The UN Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory, Francesca Albanese, released a report in July addressing the ‘economy of genocide’ in which she makes special note of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program…………………………….
Australia’s refusal to cease the supply of parts and components into Lockheed Martin’s F-35 global supply chain places the nation at risk of being found complicit in Israel’s genocide.
Complicity in the world’s worst international crime is just one of the democracy-undermining consequences of Australia’s deep enmeshment in the US and broader Western military industrial complex.
This feature article started life as a talk to Australia’s Online Quaker Meeting mid-year. I later expanded it for ARENA Quarterly’s Spring 2025 issue, which was delivered to bookshops last week ($20). It is also online at Arena. https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/aukus-revolving-door-spiralling-down?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=176534719&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Trump’s Gaza peace move raises questions over AUKUS priorities
More to the point for an Australian audience, the nearly AU$80 billion price tag is less than a quarter of what our Government, with the enthusiastic support of the Opposition, is planning to spend on submarines that will likely never arrive, won’t work as advertised if they do and will cost much more than we were led to believe.
So, what we could do is to scrap AUKUS because it is increasingly seen as a pointless, unrealisable, ineffective waste of money
Independent Australia, By Mark Beeson | 16 October 2025
Trump’s unexpected diplomatic win has reignited debate over Australia’s defence spending and foreign policy priorities, writes Mark Beeson.
GOOD FOR U.S. President Donald Trump!
These are words I never thought I’d utter, but when good news is in short supply, take what you can get. Stopping the genocidal slaughter in Gaza is unambiguously a good outcome, no matter who managed to engineer it.
True, it does suggest that this outcome might have been achieved months ago – even by former President Joe Biden – and thousands of lives might have been saved, but who’s counting? The big question now, of course, is whether the peace will prove durable and, even more challengingly, who will pay for the reconstruction of Gaza?
There is some comparatively good news on this front, too. Remarkably enough, it may “only” take an estimated US$50billion (about AU$77billion) to lift Gaza from the rubble. Yes, that is a lot of money, but not compared to what the $US997 billion (AU$1.5 trillion) America spent on the military in 2024.
More to the point for an Australian audience, the nearly AU$80 billion price tag is less than a quarter of what our Government, with the enthusiastic support of the Opposition, is planning to spend on submarines that will likely never arrive, won’t work as advertised if they do and will cost much more than we were led to believe.
You may be able to guess where I’m going with this and your eyes are already rolling. But before I voluntarily shred what little credibility I may have as a “serious” analyst of security policy, let me remind you that President Trump isn’t exactly famous for his grasp of strategic (or economic) reality and look what he managed to do.
At least I don’t have an ulterior motive, unless trying to avoid watching Palestinians being blown to pieces on the news every night counts.
So, what we could do is to scrap AUKUS because it is increasingly seen as a pointless, unrealisable, ineffective waste of money – not just by ageing peaceniks, either – and put the money to an unambiguously more productive purpose: rebuilding Gaza. Not only would the Palestinians be delighted (and disbelieving, no doubt), but it would do wonders for Australia’s somewhat tarnished international reputation…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/trumps-gaza-peace-move-raises-questions-over-aukus-priorities,20272
AUKUS Anxiety
“after wasting billions of dollars, Canberra could end up with shattered hopes of a defense industrial boom from production of a new class of submarines and no domestic submarine capability at all. Australia’s existing fleet of submarines is aging and requires costly, time-consuming refits to extend its service; only one of six vessels is currently operational. Replacing them will be no easier.”…………………… [Subscribers only] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/australia/aukus-anxiety
Unmet Expectations Could Fracture the U.S.-Australian Alliance
James Curran, Foreign Affairs, October 8, 2025
Australia, like many U.S. allies, is struggling to deal with President Donald Trump. At issue is the country’s national security. Although China is by far Australia’s most important trade partner, it is also the country that Australia’s national security establishment perceives as its greatest threat. Australia’s fear of China is more than a century old and runs deep through every defense strategy that Australia has developed since the signing of the Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS) in 1951 and the resolution of its postwar relationship with Japan later that decade. The same fear ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. [Subscribers only] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/australia/aukus-anxiety
Zionists v Keane, Riemer, Kostakidis. Australia’s massive test cases for free speech.
by Michael West | Oct 12, 2025, https://michaelwest.com.au/zionists-v-keane-riemer-kostakidis-australias-massive-test-cases-for-free-speech/?fbclid=IwY2xjawNZg3NleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFHazM4NnFGVW9VUEZ0S0xyAR7ySwD_jNr3_vorgPkT2cUqNmreGCAefd2xOE-r0WDxjuF9f0r3ZKf9jMf50A_aem_zu59pfZ3k4MYHUAsDOlS-Q
The Zionist lawsuit against Sydney Uni academics John Keane and Nick Riemer is – as is the suit against Mary Kostakidis – a mighty test case for free speech in Australia. Michael West reports.
Criticising Zionism and the state of Israel is *not* antisemitic. That is the guts of the defence in the case brought against two Sydney University academics in the Federal Court, which kicks off on Monday, 13 October.
This is a significant case for free speech in Australia. Critical even. The lawsuits, brought under Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act against academics Professor John Keane and Nick Riemer, are, in the opinion of this observer, lawfare; an attempt, as is the messy action against journalist Mary Kostakidis, to muzzle criticism of Israel and its atrocities against the Palestinians.
A mountain of costs
The interlocutory judgment in the Kostakidis trial foreshadows a long and difficult trial whose sheer costs may make it more of a contest of money than justice. More on this later.
The claim against Keane and Riemer is a similar story. It seeks to litigate the events and the myths of the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023. And if the Judge rules that the examination of the events of October 7 is admissible, the case would have a global impact.
Clause 26 is unlikely to be true for a start.
Israel has never held an inquiry into October 7, and apparently for good reason. Wild Israeli claims of “40 babies beheaded” and “mass rapes” have been discredited – there is no forensic evidence of Israeli rape victims – and it is not known how many of the alleged “1,200 Israelis” mentioned in the claim were killed by the IDF.
Will this be tested in Court? If so, we are in for a long and expensive case.
It has been established in Israeli media and elsewhere that the Hannibal Directive was invoked that day. Under the Hannibal Directive, the IDF was ordered to prevent “at all costs” the abduction of Israeli civilians or soldiers, possibly leading to the death of a large number of Israeli civilians and IDF personnel in the area at the time.
Pictures of the carnage from that day prove the point that small arms fire from Hamas operatives could not have possibly caused so much destruction. Instead, by Apache helicopter gunships.
This is merely one disputed clause in the statement of claim and would prove costly for an Australian court to hear.
The “affected or aggrieved persons” making the Keane claim (it is not known who is funding it) – Zionist academics from Sydney University – assert they have been hurt by pro-Palestinian posts on social media; “offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the posting”.
MWM does not doubt that their feelings have been hurt. Feelings have been hurt daily on both sides since the events of October 7 and during the ensuing American/Israeli genocide in Gaza. Yet, the question should be asked … is an expensive court case testing the infamous clause 18c clause in the Racial Discrimination Act in the public interest?
Should the aggrieved persons win the case, it will have a chilling effect on free speech in Australia. And in the Kostakidis case the stakes are arguably higher.
Mary Kostakidis
This week, Justice McDonald struck out parts of the statement of claim against Kostakidis while providing another opportunity for the applicants’ amended SOC to be amended again.
Taking to X, Mary Kostakidis tweeted that 18c was a “bad law, a lengthy and costly legal case can be brought against you by anyone who claims you are motivated by racism and are responsible for their feelings. And fair comment on a matter of public interest, and journalism, may be exceptions that can be pleaded, but that has to be proven at trial. Anyone involved in public discourse, including any journalist, must prove they are not motivated by racism.”
Proving that you are not a racist, proving intent, is a tough one. “It is not logically impossible that a particular news reporter, even when acting as a news reporter, might engage in particular acts because of people’s race or ethnic or national origin,” the Judge found. “Whether there is a basis to draw that conclusion in a particular case will depend on an assessment of the evidence in that particular case”.
Attempt to shut down genocide critics
Said Kostakidis, “The attempt to shut down criticism of a genocide is morally reprehensible and dangerous. Those trying to control the narrative will not prevail”. Her case is even more tricky than those engulfing Keane and Riemer, as the Zionist Federation of Australia has cherry-picked a lot of her social media activity for its claim, including tweets about Mossad and dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
It’s a test case for social media too, as the claim against her includes retweets, posts by other people, which may or may not be deemed to be endorsing a particular view. As she told MWM, “If I retweet Smotrich (Israel’s extremist finance minister Bezalel Smotrich) does that amount to an endorsement?”
The opening round of hearings in the Keane and Riemer cases will take place before Justice Kennett in the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney on Monday and Tuesday.
A large number of Jewish colleagues have defended Keane and Riemer’s statements. They have said the complainants ‘do not speak for us as Jewish people’, and demanded that the complaint, which they describe as vexatious, be dropped.
The University of Sydney, too, is in the crosshairs, also being sued because the plaintiffs claim the Uni has ‘vicarious liability’ for the statements of the defendants Keane and Riemer, who claim that if Palestine supporters can’t say what they have said, then criticism of Israel will be outlawed under the law.
Free speech questioned as National Press Club cancels Gaza address
By Rosemary Sorensen | 13 October 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/free-speech-questioned-as-national-press-club-cancels-gaza-address,20262
The decision to cancel Chris Hedges’ address on Gaza has raised fresh questions about the Press Club’s commitment to free speech, writes Dr Rosemary Sorensen.
FROM AN OFFICE in the heart of Canberra – where the only danger to journalists is that they have to watch their feet lest they fall over a politician passed out on the footpath – the chief executive of the National Press Club cancelled an event called ‘The Betrayal of Palestinian Journalists’, as Dr Lee Duffield wrote in IA last week.
American journalist Chris Hedges, who was expecting to deliver this speech as part of a speaking tour this month, wrote in response to the shock cancellation that NPC’s Maurice Reilly had ‘perhaps inadvertently’ underlined his point. On his Substack, ‘The Chris Hedges Report’, he quoted Reilly’s explanation, “that in the interest of balancing out our program, we will withdraw our offer”.
Hedges’ response to the claim that the cancellation was ‘in the interest of’ balance is devastating:
‘It is true that I know only one side of the picture from the seven years I spent covering Gaza. I was on the receiving end of Israeli attacks, including being bombed by its air force and fired upon by its snipers, one of whom killed a young man a few feet away from me at the Netzarim Junction. We lifted him up, each person taking hold of an arm or a leg and lumbered up the road as his body swayed like a heavy sack.’
Speaking about the more than 278 journalists killed in Gaza by Israel as well as on behalf of all those who have ‘reported a reality in Gaza that bears no resemblance to how it is portrayed by Israeli politicians, its military and many media outlets that serve as Israel’s echo chamber’, Hedges calls out Reilly’s use of the term “balance” as ‘an abandonment of the fundamental mission of journalists — to hold power accountable’.
His suggestion that ‘the corporate sponsors and wealthy donors of the Press Club’ will be pleased that the cancellation averts ‘the attacks that would come from allowing me to speak’, stirred the National Press Club’s CEO not only to refute the idea that there had been pressure ‘outside of the board, either directly or indirectly’ but also to call out Chris Hedges’ claim as ‘false’ that the ‘proposed address’ was published on the NPC website.
That refutation notwithstanding and even if, as Reilly claims, the date for Hedges’ ‘The Betrayal of Palestinian Journalists’ address was only ‘tentatively agreed’, such a backflip at such a time from an organisation that puts out its media statements under the rubric “Freedom of the Press” is ugly.
Antoinette Lattouf, talking with Jan Fran on their We Used To Be Journos podcast through Ette Media, said that while outside pressure to cancel what is considered pro-Palestinian commentary has been called out over and over during the past two years, if this was an internal decision, it was “somehow worse”:
“I would argue pre-empting criticism and attacks from said lobby groups [is] self-censoring.”
Mary Kostakidis, who saw the page announcing the Hedges event on the NPC website before it was removed, wrote to Reilly to ask if, as Hedges had written, the event was reportedly to be replaced by an address by Israeli Ambassador retired Lt. Colonel Amir Maimon. The statement in response said that ‘inference… is also false and without basis’.
Like many an organisation before them, from libraries to orchestras, writers’ festivals to hospitals, what appears to be a hasty decision by the National Press Club is, at the very least, disrespectful to the proposed speaker.
The devil is, once again, in the detail: Reilly stated the club ‘is constantly reviewing its address schedule, and when more details of the address were made available we decided to pursue other speakers on the matter’.
Does Reilly mean the matter of the betrayal of Palestinian journalists? And while the statement on their website mentions Global Spokesperson UNICEF James Elder, who will speak at the NPC on ‘Children under siege’, and Judge Navi Pillay, who will speak about ‘Women, Peace and Justice’, which other speakers are they pursuing to talk about the murdered journalists?
To say the ‘proposed address was never published on our website’, to say that Hedges’ claim it was removed is false, is casuistry. According to Kostakidis, it appeared on the website, briefly, without a booking link, which suggests publication was prepared and imminent.
Late last month the National Media Section of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance put out a statement about the ‘rise in threats, harassment and intimidation of journalists who report and comment on Gaza’, citing Antoinette Lattouf, Peter Lalor and Mary Kostakidis as examples of those who have been the target of ‘powerful lobby groups’.
The statement read:
‘We stand with our colleagues in their workplaces, in the courtrooms and in their deaths to raise our voices against the silence.’
To fob off Chris Hedges, who has seen Israeli troops shoot Palestinian children, who was in Gaza when attack jets bombed Gaza City, who has ‘stood in the gutted remains of schools as well as medical clinics and mosques and counted the bodies’, with such a statement as the one published by Maurice Reilly on the National Press Club of Australia website is unfathomable.
‘We wish Chris Hedges well on his tour of Australia’ is the final sentence of that statement.
The final sentence of Hedges’ piece is:
‘Please, have the decency to remove the word press from your club.’
Today, at the Chatham House Restaurant in the National Press Club of Australia, members may choose to dine on barramundi, duck breast or lamb shank.
In Gaza, the hungry ghosts are served dust.
For those journalists and others who find the removal of an address by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Chris Hedges from the National Press Club program distressingly disappointing, you can hear him speak in person or livestreamed at the Allan Scott Auditorium, UniSA, Adelaide, 5:30 PM – 7 PM, Saturday 18 October, delivering the Edward Said Memorial Lecture. Tickets are available via the Australian Friends of Palestine Association website.
On Tuesday 21 October, 6:30 PM – 8:30 PM, at Pitt St Uniting Church in Sydney, Chris Hedges will be joined by Randa Abdel-Fattah and Antoinette Lattouf for a public meeting titled ‘All eyes on Gaza’, tickets via Humanitix.
1 This month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
– go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
Antinuclear 