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.
Australia Peace and Neutrality: A Path to Regional Stability
The AUKUS cost is now estimated to exceed $368 billion, committing vast amounts of public money to nuclear-powered submarines that may arrive long after regional conditions have changed. Instead of strengthening security, this approach diverts resources that could serve a public purpose and deepens dependence on U.S. technology and strategy.
13 October 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Denis Hay
Australia peace and neutrality can strengthen diplomacy, use dollar sovereignty wisely, and build stability across the Indo-Pacific region.
Introduction
For decades, Australia has followed the United States into every major military venture, from Vietnam and Iraq to AUKUS. Yet as the Indo-Pacific becomes the world’s new power centre, a quiet question is growing louder: what if Australia charted its own path to peace and neutrality?
A truly independent Australia could use its dollar sovereignty, the power of its currency-issuing government, to build peace and prosperity across the region instead of fuelling an arms race. Australia’s peace and neutrality offer a strategy for stability, regional leadership, and national integrity.
This vision of Australia peace and neutrality challenges the assumption that our security must depend on foreign powers. Australia peace and neutrality could reshape our future security choices.
From Ally to Independent Actor
The Albanese government has signed a string of defence agreements across Asia and the Pacific – with Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Indonesia, and others. Publicly, these are framed as strengthening regional security. Privately, they reflect deep anxiety about China’s rise and U.S. expectations under the AUKUS pact.
But what if Australia could keep strong regional relationships without taking sides?
Neutrality would allow Canberra to cooperate economically with China, coordinate diplomatically with ASEAN, and collaborate militarily only for defence.
Neutrality does not mean isolation; it means freedom to choose peace. Embracing Australia peace and neutrality would allow our nation to build genuine independence through cooperation, not coercion.
Endless Alliances, Endless Dependence
Australia spends more than $50 billion annually on defence, with projections showing a surge to over $100 billion by 2034, much of it tied to AUKUS and U.S. systems.
According to the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, global military spending reached a record US$2.44 trillion in 2024, with Australia following this trend.
The AUKUS cost is now estimated to exceed $368 billion, committing vast amounts of public money to nuclear-powered submarines that may arrive long after regional conditions have changed. Instead of strengthening security, this approach diverts resources that could serve a public purpose and deepens dependence on U.S. technology and strategy.
By investing in Australia peace and neutrality, defence spending could serve constructive goals that strengthen stability and mutual respect across the region. This imbalance weakens our sovereignty.
When defence procurement is outsourced and strategic thinking is imported, national independence becomes a slogan rather than a policy.
Redirecting spending toward Australia peace and neutrality would reflect our true interests.
Risking War by Proxy
By aligning too closely with Washington’s containment strategy, Australia risks becoming a proxy in a potential U.S.–China confrontation.
The Taiwan Strait and South China Sea remain volatile, and one miscalculation could drag us into a conflict far from our shores but devastating to our trade and security.
Meanwhile, China’s influence strategy, while assertive, relies more on infrastructure investment and trade than on military projection.
Unlike the U.S., China doesn’t keep hundreds of foreign bases or seek regime change. Its primary interest is economic stability, which is essential for its own growth. Through Australia peace and neutrality, we can maintain productive trade ties with both China and the U.S. without being drawn into military rivalry.
Australia’s uncritical alignment with the U.S. narrative feeds a false dichotomy: democracy versus authoritarianism. The real contest is between militarism and mutual benefit.
Pursuing Australia peace and neutrality keeps us clear of great-power rivalry.
Adopting a Neutral Foreign Policy
Neutrality is not new, it’s just forgotten…………..
A neutral foreign policy would reorient Australia’s military to genuine defence, protecting borders, sea lanes, and cyber networks, while withdrawing from power blocs that demand loyalty over logic.
Neutrality also aligns with public opinion: the 2025 Lowy Institute Poll shows 72% of Australians fear a major war in Asia, but only 35% believe military alliances make us safer.
Neutrality, therefore, is not weakness, it’s strategic independence. Australia’s peace and neutrality would enhance our reputation as a fair-minded, responsible regional actor. Australia peace and neutrality can become a defining national identity, proof that leadership in the Indo-Pacific can come through diplomacy rather than dominance.
Investing in Peace Through Dollar Sovereignty
Here lies Australia’s hidden strength: monetary sovereignty……………………………………………………………
Regional Partnerships for Stability
The Pacific doesn’t need more weapons; it requires trust and development. The Albanese government’s Pacific Engagement Visa and renewed aid to Fiji and PNG are steps forward. Still, Australia must go further, establishing joint renewable-energy zones, shared fisheries management, and infrastructure councils led by Pacific nations themselves.
Transparency, Public Mandate, and Trust
Defence and foreign policy have long run behind closed doors. Yet democracy demands sunlight.
To ensure neutrality reflects the national will, the government should:
- Hold annual Lowy-style peace polls to gauge public sentiment.
- Publish Defence Opportunity Cost Reports showing what alternative spending could deliver.
- Require parliamentary approval for overseas military commitments.
Transparency builds trust. Australians deserve to know whether each use of public money serves peace or perpetuates conflict.
Yet, transparency must also extend to media accountability. Australia’s mainstream outlets, dominated by right-wing interests, often frame militarism as inevitable and portray dissent as unpatriotic. This narrative undermines informed debate and limits the public’s understanding of real alternatives like neutrality or public-purpose spending.
To counter this, the government could:
- Strengthen media diversity laws and limit concentrated ownership.
- Increase funding for independent and public-interest journalism, including not only the ABC and SBS but also Michael West Media, Independent Australia, Pearls and Irritations, and The Australia Institute.
- Establish a Truth in Media Commission to hold broadcasters accountable for disinformation, particularly around war narratives and economic myths.
A healthy democracy depends on an informed public, not a manipulated one………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://theaimn.net/australia-peace-and-neutrality-a-path-to-regional-stability/
Australian Politicians Ignore Israel’s Brutality Against Our Citizens
by Paul Gregoire, 10 Oct 2025, https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/australian-politicians-ignore-israels-brutality-against-our-citizens/?fbclid=IwY2xjawNYYbpleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFvZW56NldIYVltV0JSQ1pBAR7k_Ehv4MPM4mBZcl8Ys4k5ckUYvmGHNzne6Ki56oAJjwRA-5TC1-qnzNMnJw_aem_5XDTJx0Kt9Abixs7ELefHA
The morning of Friday, 10 October 2025 saw the Australian Global Sumud Flotilla participants arrive back in our nation, after attempting to breach the Gaza blockade and then being illegally apprehended by Israel. A sizable crowd gathered on Gadigal land at Sydney Airport to welcome them back. However, another Australian flotilla participant has been in Israeli custody and again Australia’s top ministers are silent.
The Global Sumud Flotilla was part an ongoing campaign to breach the 18-year-long goods blockade on Gaza. Six Australians were taken into custody by Israel in international waters last week, amongst over 400 foreign nations, and they were then brutalised and mistreated in prison, while Australian woman Madeline Habib, a participant in a second flotilla, is likely in the hands of Tel Aviv now.
The participants themselves, as well as publics across the planet, have been shocked by the brutalisation and intimidation Israeli forces have subjected the more than 400 illegally detained foreign nationals to. And what’s resulted in equal dismay is the fact that our PM and foreign minister have failed to raise issue over the kidnapping of their fellow citizens, including the plight of Habib.
After focusing on the six Australians in Israeli custody that federal Labor publicly ignored, while the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade sought to provide them with consular assistance, the mainstream media has failed to raise the alarm over Habib’s detention, even though the testimonies arising from the Sumud Flotilla mean she’s likely being abused by an allied nation as well.
And as Israel has been dealing with a further 145 foreign nationals it intercepted in international waters on Wednesday 8 September 2025, as part of another Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) mission, what has been revealed to Australians is not only will our politicians look the other way on a genocide, but they’ll do the same if Israel gets the chance to brutalise any of our constiuency.
Shameful lack of support
“The Australian government is absolutely shameful in our extraction,” said Australian Global Sumud Flotilla participant Julie Lamont, speaking to the ABC from Jordan on Wednesday, after being released from Israel’s notorious Ktzi’ot prison. “It did not really support us at all. We were the last people out of 50 nationalities. We were left their probably because it was October 7.”
In response to an ABC question as to whether our government arranged the flight out of Israel to the Jordanian capital of Amman, Lamont said, “No. We were facilitated by other governments not the Australian government. And now we are here trying to find a way to come back to Australia, and we really are upset that the Australian government have been so shameful in support of their citizens.”
Lamont said Italy had risen to support flotilla participants, whereas her government hadn’t. The documentary filmmaker added that she’d thought they might be detained for months, while fellow local participant Surya McEwen was reportedly singled out for extra rough treatment by the Israeli military, which included beatings, dislocating his arm and slamming his head into a concrete floor.
Lamont and the other Australians were released by Israel on Wednesday. They were part of the final one-third of participants still detained in Ktzi’ot prison. The fact that the Australian government was less responsive to its own nationals would have compounded the hard time they were receiving at the hands of a rogue nation that’s developed diplomatic tensions with ours over recent months.
A spokesperson for foreign minister Penny Wong released a statement on Wednesday that suggested DFAT officials were working hard to assist detained Australians. The spokesperson for the minister said officials conducted welfare checks at the prison and liaised with Israeli officials to obtain their release. However, the statement failed to explain why Israel was illegally detaining these people.
Israeli immunity
The disturbing fact that Australia’s top ministers don’t appear to consider there is any reason to waste their breath while citizens who’d risked their lives to feed a group of people being purposefully starved to death are being illegally imprisoned and subjected to harsh conditions has been coupled by the reacquaintance with the realisation that Israel can harm foreign nationals with impunity.
The flotilla apprehended this week with Habib was the fourth such attempt to breach the Gaza blockade since June. Participants are aware they are risking their lives, because the six boats making up a 2010 FFC flotilla were boarded by Israeli soldiers in international waters, and then nine foreign nationals were shot dead on sight, with a tenth dying later in a coma.
Irish comedian Tadhg Hickey was also part of last week’s Global Sumud Flotilla. Following his release, Hickey told a reporter that he had considered that if he ended up in an Israeli prison, he wouldn’t be subjected to the levels of brutality and deprivation that he was subjected to at the hands of the Israeli Defence Forces, due to the fact that he is a westerner and a white person.
To face the level of sadism and inhumanity that they displayed was really quite shocking,” Hickey explained. “I mean in the five to six days that we were incarcerated, no access to doctors, no access to medicine, no contact with the outside world” and “no lawyers”. He then explained that one of his fellow participants, a 75-year-old, was deprived of his insulin, which could have killed him.
“In my opinion, they were very happy to let him die,” continued Hickey. “It’s not even a patch of what Palestinians are going through. That was on my mind the whole time. I was thinking, ‘If they’re treating me like this, with the passport I have and the privilege I have, imagine what they are doing to Palestinians in prison, many of whom are children.”
A dereliction of duty
The Gaza Freedom Flotilla Instagram page reported on Friday that the participants in the latest flotilla have begun appearing before an Israeli court. Several participants had already been deported. The detainees were also reporting that they had too been subjected to punishing treatment at the hands of the Israeli military, although there was no specific word on Australian citizen Habib.
A large sector of the Australian public that had been aware that foreign nationals would be subjected to human rights violations at the hands of the Israeli state have been given a quick starter course on how there is one nation on the planet that is provided such impunity that it can violate and breach international laws and standards in a completely unbridled manner.
The other lesson Australia learnt is that while Israel might illegally detain and brutalise Australians, this won’t be an issue officially addressed because it is permissible. And this week was really a confirmation after Israel killed Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom and six others last year and all the foreign minister could do to respond was produce a declaration on the protection of aid workers.
Australian Capital Territory went first and fastest to 100 per cent renewables: It now looks like the smartest policy of all
The ACT government continues to reap the rewards for its early and bold
push to 100 per cent renewables, which is now looking like the smartest
policy of all – shielding its residents from the ravages of largely
fossil-fuelled electricity price hikes.
The latest quarterly data assessing
the cost of the ACT government’s commitment to sourcing the equivalent of
its annual demand from wind and solar – which it met on schedule in 2020
– shows the additional cost of the policy in the latest quarter was just
$3 a megawatt hour. Indeed, three of the wind farms contracted by the ACT
government returned significant sums of money (a total of $4.4 million) to
the ACT because the contract prices they agreed to are significantly lower
than current wholesale electricity prices.
Renew Economy 8th Oct 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/act-went-first-and-fastest-to-100-per-cent-renewables-it-now-looks-like-the-smartest-policy-of-all/
South Australia unveils first auction as world’s most advanced renewables grid seeks long duration storage
The South Australia state government has appointed ASL to run its first
auction for long duration storage, as the world’s most advanced wind and
solar grid seeks around 700 MW of new firm capacity over the next six
years.
South Australia leads the world in the uptake of wind and solar –
which together accounted for 75 per cent of its local electricity demand
over the last 12 months – and has set a world-leading target of reaching
100 per cent “net” renewables by the end of 2027. It already has seven
big battery projects operating in the state, and another dozen under
construction or contracted, but it is now seeking longer duration storage
through the Firm Energy Reliability Mechanism (FERM) that it announced
earlier this year.
Renew Economy 8th Oct 2025,
https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-unveils-first-auction-as-worlds-most-advanced-renewables-grid-seeks-long-duration-storage/
A crack in the AUKUS public relations pressure hull!
by Rex Patrick | Oct 5, 2025 , https://michaelwest.com.au/a-crack-in-the-aukus-pr-pressure-hull/
AUKUS is a hugely expensive Defence project facing considerable and, many argue, insurmountable hurdles. But does Defence have a Plan B? Rex Patrick reveals a crack in Defence PR’s high tensile pressure hull steel.
There has to be an AUKUS Plan B, surely. So MWM FOI’ed the Australian Submarine Agency (ASA) to find out.
Hit ‘em with your Talking Points.
In response, the ASA partially released one document showing ‘talking points’ that had been given to the Project lead, Vice Admiral Jonathon Mead, in case he was asked about the US’s AUKUS review.
At first glance, MWM thought that the ASA’s back-up plan to defend the Nation was to
“roll out some talking points to fire at an approaching enemy.“
roll out some talking points to fire at an approaching enemy.
But a closer look revealed more.
A Crack in the Submarine Pressure Hull
The talking points weren’t the only documents.
Despite the public bravado, the FOI decision shows that there is some discussion going on behind the scenes.
There were three more documents that met the terms of MWM’s request. The decision letter reveals that the Government has been discussing with our AUKUS partners, and internally, on what to do if it all goes to hell in a nuclear handbasket.
Self-confidence Bluster Exposed
The ASA has claimed the documents are sensitive (something we’ll push back on with an appeal), and so we can’t see the exact details of what’s being said.
But we know there are conversations taking place.
“That’s a good thing.“
1×1515
1:36 / 2:23
Listen to this story
2 min
AUKUS is a hugely expensive Defence project facing considerable and, many argue, insurmountable hurdles. But does Defence have a Plan B? Rex Patrick reveals a crack in Defence PR’s high tensile pressure hull steel.
There has to be an AUKUS Plan B, surely. So MWM FOI’ed the Australian Submarine Agency (ASA) to find out.
FOI Asking about a Plan B
Hit ‘em with your Talking Points.
In response, the ASA partially released one document showing ‘talking points’ that had been given to the Project lead, Vice Admiral Jonathon Mead, in case he was asked about the US’s AUKUS review.
US AUKUS Review talking Points (Source: Defence)
At first glance, MWM thought that the ASA’s back-up plan to defend the Nation was to
roll out some talking points to fire at an approaching enemy.
But a closer look revealed more.
A Crack in the Submarine Pressure Hull
The talking points weren’t the only documents.
Despite the public bravado, the FOI decision shows that there is some discussion going on behind the scenes.
More Documents about Plan B (Source: Defence)
There were three more documents that met the terms of MWM’s request. The decision letter reveals that the Government has been discussing with our AUKUS partners, and internally, on what to do if it all goes to hell in a nuclear handbasket.
Plan B Talk Going On (Source: Defence)
Self-confidence Bluster Exposed
The ASA has claimed the documents are sensitive (something we’ll push back on with an appeal), and so we can’t see the exact details of what’s being said.
But we know there are conversations taking place.
That’s a good thing.
Greens Senator David Shoebridge, commenting on the FOI decision, said, “Labor has managed to combine two of their worst behaviours in one go here, using exemptions in FOI to refuse to release documents while secretly doubling down on a plan B for AUKUS. I don’t think treating the Australian public like mushrooms is a viable long-term political strategy for Albanese”.
It’s Senate Estimates this coming week. The Coalition is a unity cheer squad with Labor when it comes to AUKUS, so we won’t see them probing hard on a Plan B. Hopefully, Shoebridge will squeeze some more out of Defence, at least until MWM’s FOI appeal is finalised.
For now, at least, we now know the ASA’s public AUKUS bluster is a deception. They’re not so confident after all.
Rex PatrickRex 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.”
View from The Hill: Two years of a distant war have brought much damage to Australian society
The Conversation, October 7, 2025, Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra
Two years ago, who would have imagined the police and the Palestine Action Group (PAG) would be fighting in court over whether demonstrators should be allowed to rally outside the Sydney Opera House?
Indeed, 24 months ago, who would have thought we’d have (or need) designated “envoys” to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia in Australia?
On Tuesday’s second anniversary of the Hamas atrocities in Israel, it is sobering to reflect how much damage this horrific Middle East conflict, which has cost tens of thousands of lives, most of them Palestinian, has done to Australia’s own society.
In Fitzroy in Melbourne, pro-Palestinian graffiti appeared to mark the anniversary: “Glory to Hamas”, “Oct 7, do it again”, “Glory to the martyrs”.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described this as “terrorist propaganda” that was “abhorrent,” saying those responsible “must face the full force of the law”.
On Wednesday, the issue of Sunday’s proposed protest outside the Opera House will be back in court. The police don’t want the protesters’ march to be allowed to end in the tight space at the Opera House, citing dangers to safety.
The lawyer for the PAG said on Tuesday: “If the police application is conceded to, the ramifications for the right to protest in Australia will not be confined to the Opera House, but for a wide variety of protest activities”. The group argues the issue is a constitutional one.
In the past two years, this faraway conflict has done substantial harm to Australia’s social cohesion, raised questions about the future of multiculturalism, and produced serious divisions about where lines should be drawn on limiting free speech and the right to protest. The response of institutions, universities in particular, has been tested and in some cases found wanting.
NSW Labor Premier Chris Minns gave a flavour of the cross pressures when speaking on Sydney radio on Tuesday.
“We’ve moved significant changes to hate speech laws in New South Wales and we’ve done it because we recognise we live in a multicultural community and yes, you’ve got a right to freedom of speech but someone else has a right not to be vilified or hated on the basis of their race or religion. All of those laws are currently being challenged in the High Court because of the implied freedom of political communication.”…………………………
The conflict has fractured the Australia-Israel relationship, with the Albanese government increasingly critical of Israel’s unrelenting prosecution of the war, and the Netanyahu government turning on Australia.
This culminated with Australia’s recognition of a Palestinian state at the United Nations during the prime minister’s recent trip. The recognition was the end of Labor’s internal journey, which commenced many years before this war began.
The Greens Party has been at the left edge of the political spectrum.
The Australian community was divided about Palestinian recognition: an Essential poll published in late September showed 34% in favour, and 30% against.
The conflict has shattered what used to be a bipartisan Middle East policy, when both main parties strongly supported Israel and also backed a two-state solution for a long-term Middle East settlement.
Over the past two years, the Coalition has been strongly pro-Israel, accusing the Labor government of deserting an ally and failing to deal robustly with antisemitism in this country.
Opposition leader Sussan Ley used her parliamentary speech on Tuesday’s anniversary to home in on the government’s policy towards Israel.
“To our great shame, under the leadership of the Albanese Labor government, Australia has not stood with the people of Israel, nor with the United States, as they have sought to dismantle Hamas and establish the conditions for peace”.
The local rifts that have come to the surface in Australia were there well before October 7 2023. The war caused them to widen dramatically and explode.
Even if, and when, this conflict subsides, it will leave fractures, anger, bitterness and fear within sections of the Australian community.
Whatever healing takes place almost certainly won’t be complete. For governments, federal and state, intractable policy challenges will remain. https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-two-years-of-a-distant-war-have-brought-much-damage-to-australian-society-265858?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20October%208%202025%20-%203541836106&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20for%20October%208%202025%20-%203541836106+CID_fb6124771c1b55570097f86c7e58b5ee&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=View%20from%20The%20Hill%20Two%20years%20of%20a%20distant%20war%20have%20brought%20much%20damage%20to%20Australian%20society
The People versus Murdoch: the rise of independent media
Independent media has profoundly reshaped modern communication, much to the chagrin of traditional print media. The MSM often dismisses us as falling below their standards, but I disagree. Today’s news stories are frequently little more than opinion pieces, unchallenged and unaccountable. Citizen journalists, however, hold the MSM to account – a role that sits uneasily with the media establishment.
The MSM [Main Stream Media] claimed, “The great thing about newspapers is that, love us or hate us, we’re the voice of the people. We represent the community, their views, their aspirations, and their hopes.” Represent the community? Don’t they mean control the community?
8 October 2025 Michael Taylor, https://theaimn.net/the-people-versus-murdoch-the-rise-of-independent-media/
Over a decade ago, I wrote about a subject that remains as relevant today as ever. For nearly twenty years, I’ve been hammering away at the keyboard – a space where I could speak freely, defy control, and fight for democracy and truth. It was a place to be heard. But it wasn’t always this way. Before the rise of bloggers and independent media, we were limited to listening to those who controlled the narrative.
Let’s revisit the days when we found our voice, thanks to the emergence of bloggers, citizen journalists and independent media.
Plato (428–348 BC) opposed the written word, arguing it would erode memory. He believed people would stop memorising facts or stories, and that spreading words indiscriminately was wasteful and untrustworthy. How prophetic. Spoken over two millennia ago, his words feel strikingly contemporary. Consider today’s mainstream media (MSM), which claims its journalists are reliable, truthful, and objective. Who do you believe – them or Plato?
In recent decades, the MSM has leaned toward stories that are trivial, narrow, shallow, and sensationalist – often at the expense of truth. As Plato might have lamented, the MSM spreads words indiscriminately, wastefully, and with questionable trustworthiness. Truth, it seems, doesn’t sell newspapers.
Some bloggers echoed Plato’s concerns, prompting a fierce backlash from the MSM. I recall reading articles from the Murdoch press that unleashed a near-xenophobic hatred toward the blogosphere, attacking it with more zeal than they ever directed at incompetent politicians. One such critique described the blogosphere as:
A small, incestuous clique of self-identified lefties, with readerships composed mostly of themselves… Naivety and self-righteousness define the vast majority of the Australian blogosphere, along with whining conspiracy theories. Those who hide under the veil of anonymity, taking cheap shots to satisfy their trendy social agenda.
The MSM claimed, “The great thing about newspapers is that, love us or hate us, we’re the voice of the people. We represent the community, their views, their aspirations, and their hopes.” Represent the community? Don’t they mean control the community?
Independent media has profoundly reshaped modern communication, much to the chagrin of traditional print media. The MSM often dismisses us as falling below their standards, but I disagree. Today’s news stories are frequently little more than opinion pieces, unchallenged and unaccountable. Citizen journalists, however, hold the MSM to account – a role that sits uneasily with the media establishment.
Many citizen journalists possess a natural gift for taking the day’s main story, transforming it into something worth reading, and fostering a range of opinions that the MSM often ignores. In just a few years, blogging – in particular- became a global phenomenon, reshaping journalism and unlocking publishing opportunities previously unimaginable. To me, blogging is journalism. While individual blogs may have limited readership, sites with aligned agendas often link together to amplify their impact. In contrast, MSM blog platforms typically filter out contributions that don’t fit their narrative, rendering them inaccessible to dissenting voices.
So, what impact have independent sites had? Their influence has been most profound in the political sphere.
In a March 2010 essay titled The Influence of Political Blog Sites on Democratic Participation, ShariVari wrote:
A computer-mediated environment makes it easier for citizens to express their feelings about political candidates and speak more candidly than in face-to-face settings. The internet’s diversity provides access to a wide range of opinions and information, potentially shaping or changing individuals’ political views. By disregarding blog sites with corporate or agenda-driven motives, political bloggers can foster peer-to-peer discussions of personal viewpoints.
This perspective was heartening for a then-blogger like me, who had lost faith in the MSM. It affirmed that independent voices could have an impact, however small at the time. If Australia followed the U.S. trend, a thriving blogging industry might one day emerge.
ShariVari concluded:
All research shows that increased opportunities for participation encourage democracy… Citizens are increasingly turning to and trusting the internet for accurate information, using it as a platform for participatory democracy, and becoming more knowledgeable about politics in the process. A Spiral of Silence – where people self-censor due to perceived minority views – is less likely in an online environment where citizens evaluate each other’s opinions without status cues like gender, race, or socioeconomic status. Blog sites are undeniably expanding the ways citizens participate in democracy.
Fifteen years ago, those in democratic societies seeking to share their ideas faced editorial gatekeepers whose policies often reflected their own ideologies or market-driven priorities. Today, this control is crumbling in the face of participatory media. Audiences no longer want to be passive consumers – they want to comment on and even create the news.
Citizen journalists believe they are better equipped to provide the diversity that modern democracies need, a diversity often ignored by traditional media. Independent platforms allow them to expose doctored or omitted facts, highlight biases, and give voice to alternate perspectives. These sites encourage readers to think critically, ask probing questions, and challenge the MSM’s hidden agendas. Independent media is awash with objective, fact-based analysis that counters the narratives of established outlets.
The explosion of independent sites isn’t merely an echo of dissenting voices – it’s a response to the MSM’s failure to provide objective, impartial reporting. If the MSM were truly committed to quality journalism, there might be no need for the millions of blogs and independent platforms that exist today to fill the gaps they’ve left.
In essence, it’s the People versus Murdoch… then and now.
‘Folly’ of nuclear submarines plan floated
A former navy chief warns outsourcing nuclear subs is risky, raising questions about AUKUS, sovereign capacity and local industry.
Callum Godde, Grace Crivellaro, The Mandarin, 3 Oct 25
The former head of Australia’s submarine squadron has urged Australia against outsourcing boat construction overseas, as bureaucrats express confidence that the US won’t scuttle AUKUS.
A parliamentary inquiry on Thursday ran the ruler over the Geelong treaty, a 50-year AUKUS co-operation agreement between Australia and the UK signed in July.
Under AUKUS, the US has promised to sell at least three Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines to Australia from the early 2030s.
A submarine solution closer to home should be examined instead, retired navy rear admiral Peter Briggs argued.
“Depending on an overseas supply chain for such a critical capability as our submarines is a folly,” he told the inquiry.
Briggs had serious concerns with the plan, including its potential to limit Australia’s commercial interests. He suggested that the nation should build more submarines, as it had previously done with the diesel-electric Collins class.
“There is no minimum protection in the treaty for a guaranteed work share for genuine Australian industry,” he said.
“The Collins project has established a viable submarine supply chain within Australia.
“We should build on this, not sign a treaty mandating it out of existence.”
Briggs cast doubt on Australia receiving submarines from the US on time, pointing to its falling behind in building its fleet.
Bernard Philip from the Department of Defence said advice was being provided to the federal government on extending the life of Australia’s ageing Collins-class fleet.
The Pentagon has been investigating the AUKUS pact to ensure it aligns with President Donald Trump’s “America-first” agenda.
The review by Under Secretary of War for Policy Elbridge Colby sparked speculation that Trump could walk away from the deal, which is estimated to cost up to $368 billion across 30 years.
Nikkei Asia on Tuesday reported the US would not make changes, with an unnamed member country official declaring AUKUS was “safe”.
Mikaela James from the Australian Submarine Agency strongly hinted that the US would not walk away from the deal.
“(We’re) obviously aware of the US review that is underway, and we are confident the US will continue to find that the program is in line with its interests,” she told the committee.
The review is expected to finish before Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s visit to the White House on October 20.
Tim Deere-Jones, who has 40 years of experience researching the UK government’s system for monitoring marine radioactivity, said managing nuclear waste was expensive and caused environmental issues.
“You’ve got to build the facilities to remove it from the boats,” he said.
“Then you’ve got to be looking for a long-term, hopefully perpetual dump site for it, none of which we’ve managed to do in the UK despite having many decades of nuclear submarines.”
It was inevitable some waste would be discharged into the ocean, he said.
Nationals MP Alison Penfold said such concerns had the potential to undermine public confidence in AUKUS………………………………………………………………….https://www.themandarin.com.au/300512-folly-of-nuclear-submarines-plan-floated/
The National Press Club of Australia, Caving to the Israel Lobby, Cancels My Talk on Our Betrayal of Palestinian Journalists.
By Chris Hedges / ScheerPost, October 4, 2025 https://scheerpost.com/2025/10/04/chris-hedges-the-national-press-club-of-australia-caving-to-the-israel-lobby-cancels-my-talk-on-our-betrayal-of-palestinian-journalists/
I was scheduled to give a talk at the National Press Club of Australia on October 20 called “The Betrayal of Palestinian Journalists.” It was to focus on the amplification of Israeli lies in the press, which most reporters know are lies, betraying Palestinian colleagues who are slandered, targeted and killed by Israel. But, perhaps inadvertently proving my point, the chief executive of the press club, Maurice Reilly, cancelled the event. The announcement of my talk disappeared from the web site. Reilly said “that in the interest of balancing out our program we will withdraw our offer.”
The Israeli Ambassador, retired Lt. Colonel Amir Maimon, who spent 14 years in the Israeli military, is reportedly being considered to speak.
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. I saw small boys baited and shot by Israeli soldiers in the Gaza refugee camp of Khan Younis. The soldiers swore at the boys in Arabic over the loudspeakers of their armored jeep. The boys, about 10 years old, then threw stones at an Israeli vehicle and the soldiers opened fire, killing some, wounding others.
I was present more than once as Israeli troops shot Palestinian children. Such incidents, in the Israeli lexicon, become children caught in crossfire. I was in Gaza when F-16 attack jets bombed overcrowded hovels in Gaza City. I saw the corpses of the victims, including children. This became a surgical strike on a bomb-making factory. I have watched Israel demolish homes and entire apartment blocks to create wide buffer zones between the Palestinians and the Israeli troops that ring Gaza. I have interviewed the destitute and homeless families, some camped out in crude shelters erected in the rubble. The destruction becomes the demolition of the homes of terrorists. I have stood in the gutted remains of schools as well as medical clinics and mosques and counted the bodies. I have heard Israel claim that errant rockets or mortar fire from the Palestinians caused these and other deaths, or that the buildings were being used as arms depots or launching sites.
I, along with every other reporter I know who has worked in Gaza, including the over 278 Palestinians journalists and media workers who have been killed by Israel since the start of the genocide, many in targeted assassinations, 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.
Lt. Colonel Maimon can obviously, if he chooses, enlighten us about the artificial intelligence-based program known as “Lavender” and how it selects people, along with their families, in Gaza for assassination.
He can explain how Israel determines the quotas of civilian dead, how soldiers are permitted to kill as many as 20 civilians in order to target a Palestinian fighter and hundreds for a Hamas commander. He can let us know why Israel continues the mass slaughter when an internal Israeli intelligence database indicates that at least 83 percent of Palestinians killed are civilians. He can tell us how Palestinian civilians are abducted, dressed in Israeli army uniforms, have their hands tied, and are then forced to walk as human shields in front of Israeli troops into buildings and underground tunnels that are potentially booby-trapped. He can explain how the special unit called the “Legitimization Cell” carries out propaganda campaigns to portray Palestinian journalists as Hamas operatives to justify their assassinations. He can detail the targeting, bombing and controlled demolitions that have damaged or destroyed 97 percent of Gaza’s educational system, including every university and nearly all its hospitals. He can explain how, after Israel blocked all humanitarian aid on March 2 to starve the Palestinians in Gaza, Israeli officials set up the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation to lure emaciated and malnourished Palestinians to four aid hubs in the south — aid hubs with little food and which Human Rights Watch calls “death traps” and Doctors Without Borders calls “orchestrated killing.” These hubs, open only an hour, usually at 2:00 am, ensure a chaotic scramble for scraps of food. Israeli soldiers, along with U.S. mercenaries, who include members of the Infidels Motorcycle Club, a self-professed anti-“radical jihadist” biker group that counts members with Crusader tattoos among its ranks, fire live rounds into the crowds killing over 1,400 Palestinians and injuring thousands more in and around the hubs since May. He can lay out the plans for the concentration camps in southern Gaza and the efforts to ultimately expel the Palestinians from Gaza and repopulate it with Jewish colonists. He can explain why Israel abandoned its own hostages, why it fired on vehicles headed into the Gaza strip on October 7 carrying Israeli captives and why it used Hellfire missiles to obliterate the Erez Crossing installation when it was seized by Palestinian fighters knowing that dozens of Israeli soldiers were inside.
If Lt. Colonel Maimon spoke with this honesty and candor we could call this balance. It would fill in a side of the equation I glimpse from the outside. It would complete the circle. It would match truth with truth.
But Lt. Colonel Maimon, I see from his past statements, will spew out the mendacious narratives used by Israel to justify genocide — Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields, it operates command centers in hospitals, it sexually assaulted Israeli women on October 7 and beheaded babies. He will make the spurious claim that Israel “has the right to defend itself,” ignoring the fact that Hamas and other Palestinian resistance groups, which lack an air force, mechanized units, artillery, a navy, fleets of militarized drones and missiles, pose no existential threat to Israel. More important, he will not address Israel’s flagrant violation of international law by occupying and settling colonists on Palestinian land and carrying out a livestreamed genocide.
This is not balance, unless we accept a world where truth is balanced by lies. It is an abandonment of the fundamental mission of journalists — to hold power accountable. But most egregiously, it is a terrible betrayal of our colleagues in Gaza who have been killed for chronicling the daily savagery in Gaza, for doing their job.
No doubt, the corporate sponsors and wealthy donors of the press club are pleased. No doubt, the club is able to slither away from its journalistic integrity. No doubt, it is spared the attacks that would come from allowing me to speak.
But please, have the decency to remove the word press from your club.
Nuclear energy sank the Coalition at the election — can it power their comeback?
2 October 2025, By Catriona Stirrat, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/podcast-episode/nuclear-energy-sank-the-coalition-at-the-election-can-it-power-their-comeback/eqd6mzqsd
The coalition are revamping their proposal for nuclear energy, despite suffering an election loss with this policy. The details are yet to be confirmed, but the Opposition Energy Minister says they will adapt their plan to meet developments in the space.
The Coalition’s nuclear policy didn’t secure the party a win in the May federal election.
But that’s not stopping the Opposition Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction:
“I have a very, very strong view that nuclear has to be part of our energy mix here in Australia, if we are going to be serious about reducing emissions.”
That was Dan Tehan speaking on ABC’s 730 program, following a trip to the United States which has inspired this latest revival of a Coalition nuclear energy policy.
Speaking on ABC Radio, Mr Tehan praised US advancements in the space.
“There’s basically a nuclear renaissance taking place in the US. There’s huge investment going into nuclear, there’s huge developments that are taking place. And everyone that I spoke to are incredibly confident given the use of AI, given the use of quantum, that they will continue to make rapid developments with nuclear technology.”
While avoiding detail, he did admit the policy would be adapted from their pre-election pitch to respond to rapid developments in the area.
But Mr Tehan is confident Australia should be influenced by the US model.
“The amount of investment, the amount of technological know-how going into nuclear, and the breakthroughs when it comes to small modular reactors, or micro-reactors, has to be seen to be believed. And the capital which is flowing into these developments, especially by the large tech companies in the US, is leading to developments which are occurring on a daily basis. And I have a very, very strong view that nuclear has to be part of our energy mix in Australia if we are to be serious about reducing emissions.”
While details of the policy remain unclear, the Opposition has already committed to some form of nuclear energy as part of a deal with the Nationals to prevent another coalition splinter.
Coalition frontbencher Bridget McKenzie insists the policy wouldn’t be in the top five reasons the coalition suffered a heavy loss in the May federal election.
She’s told Sky News the nuclear debate has to be viewed in the broader view of climate and energy policy.
She says the government is flagging poor policies to try and get Australia to emissions reduction targets, pointing to their efforts to encourage a switch to electric vehicles within a short time frame.
“Once again, we’re seeing the Labor Party pulling one lever for a policy solution, whilst making opposing decisions that aren’t good for the country. We know they aren’t going to meet their emissions reduction target, so they’ve doubled down on that and produced this transport sector plan for 2035 that’s going to see Australian motorists really do the heavy lifting and pay the costs of emissions reduction.”
Labor has long criticised the coalition’s nuclear energy plan – arguing the nation’s energy needs can be met with a mix of renewables and gas.
Addressing National Press Club following his election win, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the coalition’s nuclear policy a ‘last desperate attempt to delay action on climate change’.
He outlined his reasons for opposing the policy in a social media address in December last year.
“Here’s the lowdown on nuclear power – it will add $1200 to your power bills, it will take decades to build, it will block cheaper renewable energy. Energy experts at the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator have made that clear. Still, Peter Dutton is asking Australians to pay the price for his nuclear power scheme. Never before has so much taxpayer money delivered so little to so few Australians.”
The government is yet to respond to the coalition’s latest comments promoting nuclear energy and slamming Labor’s emissions reduction policy.
Coalition in ‘overwhelming agreement’ on nuclear future, energy spokesman says
The Coalition has given its biggest clue yet on what its post-election policy will be.
Joseph Olbrycht-Palmer, 2 Oct 25. news.com.au
Opposition energy spokesman Dan Tehan has returned from a lengthy fact-finding mission to the US starry-eyed about a “nuclear renaissance taking place”.
Mr Tehan spent much of September touring facilities and meeting with nuclear heavyweights in the US.
His trip overlapped with the release of Australia’s first-ever climate risk assessment and Labor government’s 2035 emissions reduction targets.
His absence drew some criticism but, fronting media for the first time since landing back in the country, Mr Tehan said the knowledge he gained was worth it.
“What I learned was that there is basically a nuclear renaissance taking place in the US,” he told the ABC on Thursday.
There is huge investment going into nuclear.
“There are huge developments that are taking place.
“And everyone that I spoke to was incredibly confident, given the use of AI, given the use of quantum, that they will continue to make rapid developments with nuclear technology which will enable not only the US, but the globe, to provide abundant energy in a form which is emissions neutral.”
He was particularly struck by micro reactors, which are transportable nuclear power sources that typically generate between 1-20MW – or enough energy to power a small community, a military base or an industrial facility………………………………………………………
Mr Tehan’s comments are the strongest indication to date that the opposition may stick to its guns on nuclear despite its heavy defeat at the federal election in May.
The absence of an energy policy has sparked severe tensions within the Coalition and was key to the Nationals’ brief split from the Liberals.
Mr Tehan said he had discussed his findings with his colleagues and that “there is overwhelming agreement on the Coalition side that nuclear needs to be part of our energy mix”. https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/coalition-in-overwhelming-agreement-on-nuclear-future-energy-spokesman-says/news-story/00ba65f8cb559f8fcd0e886a783f4703
Nuclear energy to remain a central focus for Coalition
By Kye Halford • 3 October 2025, https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/post/2025/10/03/nuclear-energy-remain-central-focus-coalition
Nuclear technology will be a key aspect of the Coalition’s energy policy heading into the next election, as opposition energy spokesman Dan Tehan argues it is essential to modernise the electricity grid.
Tehan told ABC radio on Thursday: “There is overwhelming agreement on the Coalition side that nuclear needs to be part of our energy mix” (SMH).
“I have no doubt that my colleagues, like I do, see very much a future for nuclear as part of our energy mix here in Australia,” he said.
Tehan has recently returned from a study tour in the United States, where he reportedly toured facilities and spoke with nuclear experts about how the energy source could be used in Australia (Yahoo News).
Nuclear energy was a key proposal for former opposition leader Peter Dutton during his lost election campaign earlier this year, despite voter scepticism regarding its viability (The Saturday Paper).
Dan Tehan fails to grasp difference between baseload and firming as he spouts nonsense on nuclear
Giles Parkinson, 2 Oct 25, https://reneweconomy.com.au/dan-tehan-fails-to-grasp-difference-between-baseload-and-firming-as-he-sprouts-nonsense-on-nuclear/
The Australian Energy Market Operator, along with the owners of the country’s biggest fleets of coal generators have painted a pretty clear picture of the energy future: Forget baseload, it’s time has come and is going and almost gone – the future is about renewables and firming power.
It shouldn’t be too hard a concept to grasp. Low cost wind and solar will provide the bulk of the electricity supply, including and particularly from the rooftops of homes and businesses, and excess power will be stored in batteries at home and on the grid, and flexible “firming” assets will fill the gaps.
The focus on flexibility is the key. Firming assets might not be needed often, or even for long, but they will need to be switched on and off relatively quickly. Flexible demand side management will also play a key role, as will a focus on efficiency.
Australia’s operational paradigm is no longer ‘baseload-and-peaking’, but increasingly it’s a paradigm of ‘renewables-and-firming’,” AEMO boss Daniel Westerman said last year.
It’s a crucial point to understand. “Baseload” is not so much a technical virtue as a business model – the people who invest in coal generators, and nuclear in particular, count on those machines operating at or near full capacity most of the time.
Without it, they haven’t a hope of repaying the money that it took to build their facilities. They can flex a little, but the last thing they want or can do is dial down and up again on a daily or even hourly basis. Other machines are better equipped at doing that, and at much lower cost.
As the ANU’s Centre for Energy Systems wrote this year, the energy industry is aware that baseload is not just endangered, it is already functionally extinct. And they explain why in more detail.
Enter the Coalition’s new energy spokesman Dan Tehan, who quite clearly has not got the memo, and clearly hasn’t the foggiest idea what he is talking about.
Tehan has been on a “fact finding” tour of energy facilities in the US, which appears to have included no renewables, but a lot of nuclear, and – having briefed Coalition colleagues early in the week – he was keen to share his new-found knowledge with the ABC.
“Do you accept that expertise of the Australian energy market operator when it comes to base load power and the transition that’s underway?” Tehan was asked on the 7.30 Report.
“Well, your quote said it all there, Sarah,” Tehan replied. “Renewables and firming, and what nuclear can do is provide that firming over time, it can replace gas and coal, which are providing that firming at the moment.”
Clearly, he was already confused by the difference between baseload and firming. And then Tehan said this: “So my argument is as a replacement for diesel. When it comes to mine sites all that firming capacity over time, that’s exactly the role that nuclear can play.”
Mine sites, it should be noted, use little in the way of gas and diesel capacity. Maybe 10, maybe 20 megawatts (MW). And they are now rarely switched on. Most new mine sites are running on an average 80 per cent renewables, even those partly owned by arch-renewables critic Gina Rinehart.
BHP is sourcing the bulk of its electricity needs for it massive Olympic Dam mine and refinery and nearby sites through two “renewable baseload” contracts with Neoen comprised only of wind and battery storage.
But Tehan was back at the ABC on Thursday morning, this time on Radio National, where he was extolling the virtues of “easily transportable” micro-reactors sized he said – and wait for it – between five and 10 gigawatts!
“And the particular thing that was really of note to me was how the research into micro reactors, so small, sort of five gigawatt, 10 gigawatt reactors, which are very transportable,” he said.
We suspect he meant megawatts, not gigawatts. (A gigawatt is 1,000 megawatts). And, we should point out, these micro reactors do not exist in any commercial form, and it’s doubtful too that they would be “very transportable”.
Tehan said he is convinced that in the US there is a “nuclear renaissance”, despite the recent World Nuclear Industry Status report pointing out there is no such thing. “The simple fact is … that there isn’t a single power reactor under construction in the 35 countries on the American continent,” ACF’s Jim Green writes.
Tehan insisted that 30 nations at COP29 had signed up to triple the amount of nuclear capacity. True, but they said they would do that over a 25 year timeframe, by 2050 – with the aim of lifting global capacity from around 350 GW to just over 1,000 GW.
In the meantime, a total of 120 countries have signed up to treble renewables – in just over five years – from 3,500 GW to 11,000 GW. That is 11 times more capacity than nuclear in one fifth of the time. It is pretty clear to everyone – except perhaps for Tehan and his friends – where the money is going.
And as AEMO’s Westerman told an energy summit hosted by The Australian last week, Australia is experiencing a “stunning democratisation” of energy generation, thanks to rooftop solar and consumer batteries.
Which means that they too will need the grid for “firming”, rather than baseload. Such a dramatic reshaping of the grid will leave no room for nuclear, or any other “baseload” power source. But Tehan and his mates seem intent to jam it into Australia’s energy debate, even if they can’t get it into the grid.
1 This month
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
15 April – Zoom –Nuclear Power is Not the Solution
Apr 15, 2026 01:00 AM in Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney
Join the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) on Tuesday, April 14th for a timely webinar exploring the risks associated with nuclear power and challenging the myth that it offers a simple, safe, carbon-free solution to the climate crisis
21 April Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-04-21 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-04-21 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
Event Type: Virtual
A virtual link will be communicated before the event.
Host Contact Info: australia@icanw.org
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 