Labor’s got a new mandate to act. Still condones war crimes. Why?
by Michael Pascoe | May 19, 2025 https://michaelwest.com.au/labors-got-a-new-mandate-still-condones-war-crimes-why/
The Palestine elephant remains in the room. It’s putrid, stinking of death while our government holds its nose and looks away, ignoring the war crimes, writes Michael Pascoe.
Yesterday, The Guardian reported another 140 people killed in Gaza, while Israel continues its blockade of all aid from coming in, now entering its 11th week.
Let’s keep this very simple: Is depriving the civilian population of food, water and medicine a war crime? Yes, it is.
So, what is the penalty for this crime? The Australian Government says there is none. You can blockade a couple of million people, use starvation as a weapon of war, and Australia will look the other way.
The old “the standard you walk past is the standard you accept” line means we effectively condone this crime. That we have willingly imposed sanctions for lesser crimes makes us arch hypocrites by ignoring this crime against humanity.
We are made fools when we have given more than $100 million in humanitarian aid to Gaza, but such aid is now blocked without meaningful protest.
We are made jokes of by having imposed sanctions on seven Israeli individuals over settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, but dare not mention.
even thinking of action over starving and killing tens of thousands of children.
“We call on Israel to hold perpetrators of settler violence to account and to cease its ongoing settlement activity,” Foreign Minister Wong said last year while announcing sanctions on the token individuals.
All words and no action
“The Albanese Government has been firm and consistent that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law and a significant obstacle to peace,” Penny Wong said, but the Albanese Government is game to do nothing more than to mouth those words.
Apply financial and travel sanctions against all Israeli West Bank settlers – a reasonable course of action against those breaching international law – and I might begin to believe the government means it.
But the colonisation of the West Bank pales in comparison with the Gaza blockade.
We know exactly who is responsible, who is committing this catastrophic crime: Benjamin Netanyahu and his Cabinet. And we do nothing.
Australia actively maintains sanctions against a long list of individuals and organisations. You can read all their names, date and place of birth and last known address on what DFAT calls the Consolidated List.
They range from targeted financial sanctions and travel bans on members of the Myanmar military and companies and banks that deal with them to the three individuals held directly responsible for shooting down MH17 over Ukraine, but there’s not even a wrist slap for those ordering malnutrition, disease and death for Palestinians in Gaza.
Double standards
In mitigation for the Russian and Ukrainian MH17 killers, it is possible they did not realise they were destroying a civilian aircraft. On the other hand, there is no lack of knowledge about what Israel is doing to Gaza, no doubt about the murder of aid workers, about the hunger and the denial of medical supplies.
The Jewish Council of Australia has called out genocide, has underlined the International Court of Justice orders, and has repeatedly called on our government to impose sanctions. The government has ignored it.
The grubby politicisation of the Gaza war in the lead up to the federal election, the dog whistling, has run its course. It ended up doing little more than increasing antisemitism and Islamophobia.
Now Albanese has a government so secure it can afford to burn senior Cabinet ministers. Now it has the political capital to stand on principle or continue to effectively condone war crimes.
There are two simple questions to be asked of every government member, and especially the Prime Minister.
The first is the one this started with: Is depriving the civilian population of food, water and medical supplies a war crime?
The second: What are you going to do about it?
Australian Financial Review readers want nuclear plan scrapped, climate ambition raised
Paul Karp AFR, 18 May 25
Most readers of The Australian Financial Review want the Coalition to scrap its nuclear power policy and believe the re-elected Albanese government has a mandate to be more ambitious on its climate policies.
A fortnightly poll of readers found overwhelming support for Opposition Leader Sussan Ley over her vanquished Liberal rival Angus Taylor, but a deep split about whether the Coalition should recommit to net zero emissions by 2050 under her leadership.
As Ley faces calls from the Nationals to include nuclear power in the Coalition agreement, the poll found most readers (57 per cent) want the Coalition to scrap nuclear.
The nuclear policy should be dumped, the business case does not stack up,” said one reader.
“The problem with the Coalition’s nuclear policy is that there are no [small modular reactors] currently working anywhere and the one being built is already over budget,” said another.
A third reader noted that Australia “is not an established player, we have no industry and experience” in nuclear power, meaning that “even if a plant was started today it would be many years off operating. The policy was a furphy.”
Another said: “The nuclear policy [Peter] Dutton took to the election was seen by the electorate as a ploy to kick the emissions abatement can down the road.”……………………………………………………………… https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/afr-readers-want-nuclear-plan-scrapped-climate-ambition-raised-20250516-p5lzv2?utm_content=heres_what_else_happened_today&list_name=4CC7DE0B-EBBE-4073-9A9C-F421CED270D0&promote_channel=edmail&utm_campaign=afr-need-to-know&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=2025-05-18&mbnr=MzA5MjY3OTA&instance=2025-05-18-20-06-AEST&jobid=31478047
The complex truth about gas and renewables
ReNewEConomy, Kane Thornton, May 16, 2025
Energy policy in Australia has long suffered at the hands of a simple lie being easier to accept than a complex truth. The federal election was remarkable in all sorts of ways, but one of those was that the Australian public backed a complex truth and they overwhelmingly rejected a simple lie.
They rejected nuclear power and a massive campaign to hoodwink Australia into backing a solution riddled with risk and uncertainty, likely to have enormous costs and be decades away. Instead, they provided a strong mandate for Australia to proceed with renewables, backed up by batteries, pumped hydro and a small amount of gas.
At the start of this year, amidst waves of misinformation and anticipating another contentious election campaign, the clean energy industry launched a new campaign to ensure the Australian public got the facts. We wanted to make sure the Australian public had access to the facts about clean energy and the alternatives. It’s working.
As the dust settles on the election, we have a lot more to do to ensure the public understand the complexity and nuance of Australia’s energy transition. One of those areas is about the role of gas in the electricity system. So let’s get it straight.
Firstly, the fact is that a small amount of gas-fired electricity generation is playing an important role today, and according to the experts will be necessary for the foreseeable future. That might be an inconvenient truth for some people, but it is the reality for now. It’s a small role, compared to the massive role renewable energy and energy storage is already playing and is expected to in the future.
The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) states that “As coal-fired power stations retire, renewable energy connected with transmission and distribution, firmed with storage, and backed up by gas-powered generation is the lowest-cost way to supply electricity to homes and businesses through Australia’s transition to a net zero economy”
They saw through unprecedented misinformation and a ferocious campaign against renewable energy and for nuclear power. More than anything, Australian’s demonstrated they wanted the truth and could handle that truth. No one said that replacing Australia’s aging coal generation fleet over a decade or so would be easy, or straight forward. But the election showed that it’s time for more honesty with the Australian public.
Importantly, AEMO also projects that gas generation capacity (MW) will produce much less energy (MWh – actual output) than it does today, with a reduced capacity factor for any gas generation of around 7% on average.
AEMO projects gas generation will play a narrower and more focussed role, providing rare but important coverage of seasonal shortfalls, as opposed to its current role in regularly providing peaking support. AEMO is currently forecasting that gas-fired generation capacity will increase from 11.5 GW now to 15 GW in 2050, including replacement of 9.3 GW of the current capacity that is expected to retire over coming decades.
This 15 GW is a relatively small amount of gas capacity when considered alongside the 135 GW of new large-scale renewable generation and the 56 GW of combined utility and distributed energy storage needed by 2050.
The experts tell us that energy storage will play a much bigger role than gas generation in the long term. Energy storage represents a cleaner, lower cost alternative to gas generation and investors are pouring billions into developing more of these assets – last year alone we saw a record 4,000 MW of new energy storage projects, with more than double that due to connect in the next few years. The faster we can deploy clean energy and a range of storage solutions, the faster we can reduce our reliance on gas…………………………………………….. https://reneweconomy.com.au/the-complex-truth-about-gas-and-renewables/
The fallout of Dutton’s nuclear approach
Gladstone Bulletin, Dave Sweeney, Australian Conservation Foundation, 16 May 25,
When he unveiled the Coalition’s nuclear ambitions last June, Peter Dutton said:
“I’m very happy for the election to be a referendum on energy, on nuclear”
It was, and the result was a resounding rejection of high cost, high risk, nuclear power.
The election result is clear, as is the wider lesson: When the Coalition pushes nuclear, Australia pushes back.
In 2007 John Howard too nuclear to an election, where he lost government and his own seat.
In 2025 Dutton said nuclear, and Australia said “No” and “goodbye”.
Thanks to those in the community , who identified and acted on the risk of potential nuclear, – thanks for making a positive difference.
Australians have spoken, and it’s now time to draw a line under this unproductive distraction, and get on with real action to meet our nation’s climate and energy challenges.
Nuclear future off the agenda in Port Augusta, as locals turn to renewables and mining
ABC News, By Kathryn Bermingham, Stateline, 15 May 25
In short:
Port Augusta was thrust into the spotlight when it was announced as one of several sites earmarked, under a Coalition election pledge, to host a nuclear reactor.
While the Coalition has not formally abandoned the plan, its resounding defeat at the recent federal election suggested voters did not embrace the idea.
What’s next?
As Port Augusta looks ahead, locals say its future could lie in several directions, including renewables and mining…………………………………………………………………………………………….
Nuclear off the agenda
Port Augusta was thrust into the national spotlight last year when it was announced as one of the sites earmarked to host a nuclear reactor under a Coalition election pledge.
While the Coalition has not formally abandoned the plan, its resounding defeat at the recent federal election suggested voters did not embrace the idea……………………….
………………………. A future in power generation
Greg Bannon felt the region had scarcely settled one nuclear debate — the now-scrapped proposal to build a low-level nuclear waste dump near Kimba — when the Coalition’s plan was put forward.
“It was really like a punch in the guts,” he said.
Mr Bannon, who lives 40 kilometres from Port Augusta at Quorn and had campaigned against the dump, said Port Augusta has had to reinvent itself in the past and could do so again.
“We also had a very big railway workshop here, it was a huge employer with lots of apprenticeships,” he said.
“Railways built everything. So that was a big loss when that was taken away and of course the most recent large employer has been the coal-fired power station.”
He said the transition to renewables had been more economically beneficial than some gave it credit for — and maintained that Port Augusta’s future was still in energy generation.
“Renewables have provided jobs,” he said.
“We’ve got Sundrop Farm down there, which … grows tomatoes from gulf water that’s been desalinated and solar mirrors.”………………………………………………….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-15/nuclear-off-the-table-for-port-augusta/105285976
Can Australia pay off Turkey to host COP31? The Brits did.
A previously unreported package of investment pledges and U.N. support got Turkey to back down last time.
May 8, 2025 By Karl Mathiesen and Zia Weise
LONDON — Australia’s bid to host next year’s climate conference depends on convincing Turkey to step aside.
If they need tips, there’s a British playbook — the details of which are previously unreported — that worked before, involving investment wheel-greasing and support for Turkey’s international priorities.
Riding high on his May 3 election landslide, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wants to use the 2026 climate talks to drive clean energy investment and win a decades-old political battle with his right-wing rivals over efforts to cut greenhouse gases.
“Renewable energy is an opportunity we must work together to seize for the future of our economy,” Albanese said in his victory speech, capping an election where the prime minister backed Adelaide as the COP31 host city.
But to host the climate summit, Australia needs Turkey to drop its rival bid.
Australian officials flew to Turkey last year, but failed to secure a deal. Instead, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reiterated his intention to bring COP to his country.
Some believe it’s only a matter of time before Turkey crumbles. Australia’s bid has backing from the European Union and other Western countries. More support is expected from the Pacific, given Canberra has offered to cohost the summit with an island nation.
Australia “should hold out until the world forces a deal,” said Richie Merzian, the CEO of the Clean Energy Investor Group and a former Australian diplomat. “The biggest impediment to the COP31 Australia-Pacific bid was the Australian election. With that sorted, it should organize accordingly.”
But Turkey has a track record of extracting more than just diplomatic pain in return for acquiescence. Facing a similar impasse with Erdoğan over the COP26 conference, U.K. officials offered a package of incentives to Turkey in order to host the talks in Glasgow in 2021.
The annual U.N. talks rotate through five groups of countries, loosely based on global regions and countries’ development stages. The “Western European and Other States” group is scheduled to host the 2026 summit. Choosing a host requires consensus.
Turkey is the only developing country in this group, which includes Australia and the U.K. And it has a track record of using the U.N. talks’ location for leverage.
In the lead-up to COP26, British officials courted Ankara intensively. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Erdoğan had a “good relationship on this topic in particular,” said Dominick Chilcott, the former British ambassador to Turkey who negotiated the arrangements.
But ultimately, Turkey was transactional in its demands.
Chilcott said Britain’s incentives package included a promise to host a Turkish investment conference in London, as well as U.K. backing of Turkish candidates for several international and U.N. posts. He declined to say which posts.
The U.K. also promised to speak to other countries about classifying Turkey as a “developing country” under the U.N. climate convention — allowing it to receive climate aid. “Although,” Chilcott said, “we didn’t think there was much chance of it going anywhere.”
‘Campaign led by anti-nuclear groups had its intended effect’
FOE Adelaide, 14 May 25
Support for Nuclear Power Collapsed from Feb-April 2025
Polling released by the pro-nuclear group WePlanet Australia reveals that support for nuclear power dropped from 55% in February 2025 to just 42% in April. This is the lowest level in years, WePlanet says, and “a clear sign that a … campaign led by anti-nuclear groups had its intended effect in the lead up to this election.”
The polling was conducted by Essential Research with data provided by Qualtrics. The survey was conducted online from 24th to 27th April and is based on 2,241 participants.
Support for nuclear power increased from 2019 to 2021 (AUKUS-related?). Support didn’t take an immediate fall after the Coalition’s mid-2022 announcement that they would promote the introduction of nuclear power to Australia. Support didn’t take an immediate fall after the Coalition’s June 2024 release of 7 proposed nuclear power reactor sites across 5 states, or the December 2024 release of (highly questionable) cost estimates. But in less than 3 months from Feb. 2025 to late April, net support fell from +21% to -2% with a sharp drop in support of -13% and a sharp increase in opposition of 10%. Support fell from 55% to 42% and opposition increased from 34% to 44%.
The polling data shows that most males support “Australia developing nuclear power plants for the generation of electricity” (51% strongly or somewhat support; 41% strongly or somewhat opposed) but among females, support is more than doubled by opposition (23:47). Nuclear power is not supported by those aged 18-34 (38:48), or those aged 35-54 (41:45) but enjoys more support from those aged 55+ (47:41). Nuclear power is opposed by Greens voters (29:60) and Labor voters (27:63) but supported by Coalition voters (65:24).
If the Coalition sticks with nuclear, the fallout will be toxic.
Rebecca Huntley May 10, 2025, https://www.smh.com.au/national/if-the-coalition-sticks-with-nuclear-the-fallout-will-be-toxic-20250505-p5lwmu.html
Much of the post-election commentary has rightly focused on how the Coalition’s nuclear energy proposal was bad – very bad. It was one of the reasons Peter Dutton lost his seat and for net swings against the Coalition in areas such as Gippsland and the Hunter. Unpopular among women voters, who the Coalition continue to struggle to appeal to, and unpopular among undecided voters.
More importantly, nuclear undermined Peter Dutton’s credibility. After the Voice, the only real policy most voters associated with the opposition leader was nuclear. Once his ill-fated campaign began with a backflip on public servants working from home, the swath of undecided voters got spooked.
No one wants someone who seems highly disorganised to build a nuclear reactor.
If you scrutinise the research numbers, the lack of public support for nuclear was clear; more importantly, support for renewables didn’t dip in the face of the pro-nuclear push. Pursuing nuclear made the Coalition look like it was out of sync with what people really wanted. If it continues to pursue this as a policy, it will be seen as defying the will of the people.
Over the years of Labor’s first term, despite a cost-of-living crisis and well-funded campaigns against renewables online and in traditional media, research showed steady support for solar, wind and batteries. Even the election of Donald “drill-baby-drill” Trump didn’t undermine support.
The online misinformation and disinformation campaigns against renewables certainly ramped up after Albanese was first elected, supported by attacks from Sky News and the Murdoch-owned press.
The Coalition playbook was simple: cast enough disinformation and misinformation across channels to create doubt and antagonism against renewables. It fully believed it could win seats off the back of voter dislike of offshore wind in particular, especially in areas such as the Illawarra. It was in for a surprise.
The outcome of this election shows us a truth the Coalition must accept: amid a cost-of-living crisis, Australians back renewables. In fact, the overall swing towards Labor in seats where anti-offshore wind campaigns were rife was greater than the overall statewide swing. Except for Monash in Victoria, anti-offshore campaigns backfired on the Coalition.
Dutton and his Coalition colleagues in the Nationals severely underestimated the Australian people, particularly those in the regions. Support in proposed nuclear reactor communities, including Gladstone, Bunbury, Hunter and Gippsland, was weak, ranging from 22 to 32 per cent.
A poll published in this masthead in April showed 31 per cent of voters said their biggest hesitation in voting for the Coalition and Dutton was the plan to use nuclear power, up 5 percentage points from two months earlier.
This campaign was fought and won on the cost of living. In the end, Australians believed the right policies on renewables – including more access to home batteries – would save them money now and into the future.
Can you imagine what would happen if all the confected outrage over renewables disappeared, and all that was left was public opinion? The support for renewables is there once you strip away the headlines that seem to suggest otherwise.
So, what does this mean for our newly elected Labor-landslide majority government? And for a Coalition still wrestling with where to go on energy policy? When the word “mandate” gets used in relation to election victories, I have to resist a reflexive eye-roll. Election results don’t necessarily equate to public endorsement of every promise made in the campaign by the winning party. But this result is definitive, and more remarkable considering so many federal elections in the past two decades have been close. The last time there was such a strong message from the electorate was in 2007. In many respects, the Rudd government underestimated the permission the public gave it to act on climate. When Labor stepped away from that commitment, its credibility sagged.
A triumphant Albanese government, going into a second term with more power and confidence, should feel like it can act on the energy transition with a belief that the community will follow, especially if its policies deliver cost savings to households and significant and lasting benefits to the regional communities hosting renewable infrastructure. It’s a green light for further progress, but understanding community sentiment – and responding to it – will be essential to maintaining the permission.
Early signs from the Labor government indicate it knows it can proceed swiftly. On election night, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen said, “In 2022, the Australian people voted to finally act on climate change. After three years of progress, in 2025, they said keep going.”
“Keep going” should be the official government slogan. Fingers crossed that sanity prevails, but early signs from the Coalition seem to indicate more of the same: support for nuclear, which really means less renewable energy.
If the members of the Coalition don’t want to believe the polling data, perhaps they should think about these figures. In the years they have been pursuing their nuclear policy, global solar power has doubled. According to the Clean Energy Council, more than 300,000 small-scale rooftop solar systems were installed across Australia in 2024, bringing the total number to more than 4 million. Utility battery storage more than tripled. And last year, Australia added more renewable capacity to the energy system than the entirety of the Coalition’s nuclear plan.
The transition to renewables is happening, and nuclear is a policy that is too toxic for the electorate and too late to be helpful for emissions.
Any politician who resists that logic will be warming the benches of opposition for some time to come.
Dr Rebecca Huntley is one of Australia’s foremost researchers on social trends and a Fellow of the Research Society of Australia. She is director of research at 89 Degrees East.
Coalition bombs itself with nuclear energy policy
By Dave Sweeney | 12 May 2025
While the Coalition was determined to switch Australia over to nuclear energy, voters had another opinion and overwhelmingly rejected the LNP’s energy policy, writes Dave Sweeney.
WHEN HE UNVEILED the Coalition’s nuclear energy ambitions last June, outgoing Opposition Leader Peter Dutton said:
“I’m very happy for the Election to be a referendum on energy, on nuclear.”
As the adage says, be careful what you wish for. The election result was a resounding rejection of the high-cost, high-risk nuclear option.
The Coalition’s intention to build nuclear reactors at seven sites in regional Australia was the biggest policy difference between the major parties ahead of the Election.
The nuclear push was heavy on headlines and assurances, but very light on details and evidence.
Despite numerous requests, the Coalition’s nuclear promoters failed to visit the reactor sites or answer fundamental questions, including where the required water would come from and where the resultant radioactive waste would go.
Other unanswered questions overflowed the Coalition’s too-hard basket.
What would the impact on employment and output be from Australia’s rapidly growing renewable energy sector? What sort of reactors were planned and how many? What would fill the electricity shortfall between the certain closure of coal and the uncertain start of nuclear? Would taxpayers bear the increased cost of nuclear in our tax bills, our power bills, or both? Who would operate and regulate the Coalition’s nuclear plants?
As the scrutiny and uncertainty grew, so did the community concerns and the considered critiques.
The Climate Change Authority warned the Coalition’s nuclear policy would add huge amounts of extra climate pollution to the atmosphere and make it “virtually impossible” for Australia to reach net zero by 2050.
The interim report by a parliamentary committee inquiring into nuclear energy found – like so many inquiries before it have found – that nuclear energy was not right for Australia.
While Australia’s energy utilities made it clear they did not support or see a future in nuclear, Australia’s insurance sector confirmed that its policies do not cover nuclear accidents.
Shadow climate and energy spokesperson Ted O’Brien might have been convinced nuclear is as safe as houses, but Australian insurance providers did not share that view.
The concern was widespread, but most obvious in Australian women’s scepticism about nuclear. They didn’t want to hear about it and when the issue was raised with Dutton, he didn’t want to talk about it.
When the Coalition pushes nuclear, Australia pushes back. In 2007, John Howard took nuclear to an election where he lost government and his own seat. In 2025, Peter Dutton said nuclear and Australia said no — and goodbye.
Polling by the Liberals Against Nuclear group demonstrated the nuclear policy’s drag on the Coalition’s vote in marginal seats and across the nation, while 46 per cent of voters in Dutton’s electorate of Dickson said they were less likely to vote for Mr Dutton because of the nuclear power policy.
In front of shellshocked Coalition politicians on election night, senior press gallery journalist Mark Riley summed up the Coalition’s problem:
“The party that chose nuclear energy as its policy has exploded in a nuclear bomb set on them by voters tonight.”
The idea of domestic nuclear power is over.
It’s time to draw a line under this unproductive distraction and get on with real action to meet our nation’s climate and energy challenges.
Liberal Senator Maria Kovacic has called on her party to “immediately scrap the nuclear energy plan and back the private market’s investment in renewable energy”.
Her call echoes that of the South Australian Liberals, which have already dropped plans for another inquiry into nuclear power, with State Leader Vincent Tarzia declaring that nuclear has been “comprehensively rejected” by the electorate.
Defeated Tasmanian MP Bridget Archer says the nuclear push was “not the policy position I would have taken” and she would rather “let the market decide”.
The Federal Coalition must ditch any lingering nuclear ambitions and join every other major political player in backing a renewable energy future for our nation.
Australians have overwhelmingly voted for positive solutions, real action and respect — for each other and our environment.
It’s time to stop playing politics with nuclear distractions and delays. It’s time to get on with the clean energy transition, effective climate action and building an energy future that is renewable, not radioactive.
Australians choose batteries over nuclear after election fought on energy
By climate reporters Jess Davis and Jo Lauder, ABC News, 6 May
When Peter Dutton unveiled his party’s nuclear energy plan last year, it opened up a seismic difference between the two major parties.
It offered a real choice for Australian voters over the future of the country’s energy policy.
“I’m very happy for the election to be a referendum on energy, on nuclear, on power prices, on lights going out, on who has a sustainable pathway for our country going forward,” he said.
Taken on those terms, Saturday’s election outcome was an endorsement of renewable energy over nuclear.
“It’s clearly a referendum on energy policy, given the prominence of energy throughout the entire election campaign,” Clean Energy Council CEO Kane Thornton said.
“I think it’s an emphatic victory for Australia’s transition to clean energy.”
At a household level, Labor offered a significant discount on home batteries to accompany the booming solar on rooftops all across the country, aiming to get 1 million batteries installed under the scheme by 2030.
The last election saw a new generation of independents join the parliament, riding a wave of climate concern. Any expectation that the “teals” were a single-election trend has been dispelled, with most of them set to be returned, and new ones joining their ranks.
While the Greens have an anxious wait ahead to see how many lower seats they’ll win, they recorded their highest-ever primary vote and will hold the balance of power in the Senate with 11 senators.
After losing the Liberal heartland to the teals in the last election, the Coalition decided to pitch instead to the outer suburbs.
But the decision to campaign against renewables, and scrap climate policies such as the EV tax breaks, seems to mismatch the views of middle Australia.
Outer suburbs embrace solar power
Dutton set out to make up gains in the outer suburbs by offering a discount on the fuel excise. But the data for solar uptake and electric cars paints a very different picture to the caricature of solar and batteries as a plaything for the inner city.
While energy may not have been a top concern for voters, it’s the outer suburbs where our love for rooftop solar is at its highest, especially in Queensland and Western Australia.
In Dutton’s former electorate of Dickson, some 60 per cent of households have a solar system, double the national average, according to data from the Clean Energy Regulator……………………………………………… https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-06/federal-election-shows-voters-support-renewables-over-nuclear/105252888
Business as usual: Labor stalls on Defence reform as AUKUS woes grow
Defence spending is lagging, AUKUS is stalling, and systemic mismanagement persists as Labor avoids hard structural reform.
Bernard Keane, May 11, 2025, https://www.themandarin.com.au/291901-business-as-usual-labor-stalls-on-defence-reform-as-aukus-woes-grow/
Having managed to get through an election campaign barely mentioning defence — despite the opposition trying to make it a late-stage vote winner — the newly expanded Labor government still faces a number of big challenges in the defence portfolio, and no easy answers.
The two big ones are well-known: the replacement of the US security guarantee with Trumpian chaos, which means Australia will have to strengthen its defence capability so that it has to rely less on the US, and the profound problems of AUKUS.
Despite some budget sleight of hand purporting to show an acceleration in defence spending, the government remains committed to increasing defence spending to just 2.33% of GDP — not merely well below the Trump administration’s demand for 3%, but below the Coalition’s planned increase to 2.5% and the calls from defence and security experts, as well as Labor luminaries like Kim Beazley, for a significant increase.
But the ability of the Department of Defence to handle any increase in spending — or even competently spend what it currently receives — is openly questioned even by hawks. Average major project slippage time, already alarming when the Coalition was last in power, noticeably deteriorated in Labor’s first term. The response of Defence appeared to try to hide embarrassing data from the Auditor-General under the pretence of national security.
Also characterising Labor’s first term was the admission of failure of departmental process, to the very highest echelons of Defence, in relation to the Hunter-class frigate project and the shocking audit of Defence’s dealings with Thales on munitions manufacturing (the second part of which is yet to arrive from the auditor-general).
With both defence minister Richard Marles’ track record in Labor first term, and his general insouciance toward revelations such as the Thales debacle — which included the revelation that the department had actively misled predecessor ministers — it seems unlikely Defence will face any real pressure to improve the incompetence and, quite possibly, corruption that marks its management of major procurement processes. A defence minister like Andrew Hastie, far more credentialed in military matters than most within the department, could have driven the kind of reform that would have gotten Defence backs up, and led to copious leaking against him, but improved the reliability and integrity of the department’s procurement processes. Instead, we’ll have to hope that a Labor government with a big majority and more confidence will be more willing to take on the fundamental problems in the portfolio.
A similar business-as-usual approach will likely characterise the unfolding disaster that is AUKUS. The grim reality is that US submarine construction rates are slowing, not accelerating as they need to if the US is to provide three Virginia-class nuclear submarines to Australia from 2030. In early April, the US Navy admitted to Congress significant delays in constructing its new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine, which shares some components with the Virginia class. While the builders of the Virginia-class boats are talking bravely of demand signals and additional investment, the build rate for the subs late last year was barely above half that required by AUKUS.
None of this, apparently, is of interest to the bureaucrats charged with overseeing AUKUS. The Mandarin applied under Freedom of Information laws to the Australian Submarine Agency to see what briefing it was providing to ministers on the problems in submarine construction in the US and the UK. No such documents, came back the answer. Blind faith that the US can double the rate of submarine construction in a couple of years is one thing, but remaining ignorant of how badly off track AUKUS is? That’s quite another.
One of the key problems of the Virginia-class boats for Australia is that they require huge crews — 135 sailors, compared to just 58 for Australia’s current submarines. That brings into focus a persistent and worsening problem — our inability to attract and retain ADF members. Last year the Navy was short around 900 people. The Army was short around 5000; only the RAAF is around its mandated strength. A change of recruitment agency for the ADF proved a disaster, with portfolio minister Matt Keogh expressing his “deep disappointment” with the provider’s “wholly deficient” performance. Critics say the problem is with the ADF itself, which is “too slow and too picky”. The government announced in mid-2024 the brilliant idea of opening up the ADF to personnel from Five Eyes. countries. Only problem is, they’re all suffering the same problems with defence recruitment. In fact, armies, navies and air forces around the world are suffering ongoing recruitment problems and have done so for years — even the People’s Liberation Army is struggling to attract Chinese youth to its ranks.
In each of these areas, clearly, business as usual won’t cut it. But that is what Defence is very good at, and its ministers are very bad at preventing. To prevent it, only structural arrangements that disrupt Defence’s normal processes will achieve results. The royal commission into ADF member and veteran suicide had the right idea — and the government rightly took its lead from the commission in its response. The commission recommended a new independent statutory body to oversee reform across the whole Defence/Veterans Affairs portfolio, not a new area of Defence. And it urged, and the government agreed, that central agencies be charged with implementing the commission’s recommendations: the result was a Prime Minister and Cabinet taskforce to start implementing reforms, with the help of external expertise.
An independent agency, and a PM&C-led implementation taskforce, was what was needed to ensure Defence didn’t simply default back to business as usual when it came to the mental health of its members and veterans. Only the oversight and interference of high-powered external bodies will compel Defence to change its culture.
And it’s the only thing that will enable the government to seriously tackle the biggest challenges in the portfolio over the coming years.
Bernard Keane
Bernard Keane is a columnist for The Mandarin. He was a Canberra press gallery correspondent covering politics, national security and economics, and a public servant and speechwriter in transport and communications. He is co-author of A Short History Of Stupid, which covers the decline of reason and issues with public debate.
Who’s afraid of big, bad China?
Neither side wanted to bring China into the debate, and neither side wanted to discuss AUKUS, which is based on a perceived need to take military action against that country.
In the recent Australian election, Neither side wanted to bring China into the debate, and neither side wanted to discuss AUKUS, which is based on a perceived need to take military action against that country.
Jocelyn Chey, May 7, 2025 , https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/05/whos-afraid-of-big-bad-china/
Be afraid, be very afraid. But not of China. To the contrary, the proper management of co-operative relations with China is essential to Australia’s future.
Finally, the election process is over and done with and the results are in. We look forward to news bulletins not dominated by party spokespeople spruiking how they will deal with the cost of living. Rents, health and transport costs are all important, but the big issues that will make or break their social policies are all global, and the real question is how we can front up to them and hopefully turn them to our benefit. If the world goes into recession, which is a very real possibility, we will all be affected. The cost of living will go up. Cuts to social services will be inevitable.
Why did the candidates not admit this? Do they have contingency plans and, if so, what are they? What are they afraid of? Were they scared that if they mentioned China, the US or Russia, they would lose votes, or be backed into election promises that they could not keep? Or were there structural weaknesses in their policies that they did not wish to expose to scrutiny?
In previous election campaigns, the candidates were not so hesitant to pronounce on international affairs. The 2001 election was dominated by immigration issues and the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in New York. It was the first “khaki election” since the Vietnam War. In the 2022 election, the Morrison Government tried to repeat their 2001 success by promoting fear of Chinese invasions, both military or cultural, but their attempt failed. This time around, both sides of politics have been careful about their choice of language and avoided difficult topics.
Insofar as national security featured at all in the elections, Labor and the Liberals competed to portray themselves as the better party to protect Australia’s international relationships, particularly in the Pacific. Penny Wong accused the Liberals of leaving a “vacuum” that China was ready to fill, but she did not directly accuse Beijing. The one attempt to whip up fear of an invasion was pinned onto Moscow, rather than Beijing, when news broke of a possible deal between Russia and Indonesia about developing a military airbase in West Papua.
Neither side wanted to bring China into the debate, and neither side wanted to discuss AUKUS, which is based on a perceived need to take military action against that country. Labor and Liberal both promised to increase defence spending, one side to 2.3% of GDP, and the other side to 3% over 10 years. Neither mentioned the reasons for such an increase, or where the money would be found. AUKUS is already absorbing all the increases announced by the last government and affecting other procurement needs. AUKUS spending over the next five years is estimated to reach $18 billion and ultimately will total $368 billion, not including the cost of new infrastructure such as a dedicated naval base at HMAS Stirling. The rationale for nuclear-powered vessels is not the defence of our coasts, but the perceived need to attack distant targets, and that target is China.
China has been progressively opening to the world since the 1980s. It is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and an active member of many multilateral organisations. With Australian encouragement, it has engaged with the multilateral trade system, joined APEC and the World Trade Organisation. The domestic economy has flourished in this open environment and in a region that has not seen armed conflict since the end of the Vietnam War. Maintaining strong growth and raising living standards have been the main pillars of Chinese domestic policies.
Economic development has not always been smooth, and recently new problems have emerged on the international front. China trusted the established international governance system to support and regulate its growth, but, as the country grew stronger, it became evident that the US did not return that trust. Its rapid rise and increasing global presence changed the regional and global balance and generated a geopolitical response that was perhaps predictable.
In 2025, the Trump administration has not yet clarified its policy for handling the relationship with China. Tariffs have been imposed, increased and decreased, and threats and hints have been made by the White House. All is chaos. The only thing that is certain is that Trump will challenge China in a more transactional and unpredictable way, will intensify trade confrontations and sanction Chinese companies in his goal to achieve greater self-sufficiency in the US.
In Beijing, Xi Jinping’s response has been measured and consistent. Official statements emphasise that China supports international rules and regulations and the multilateral system. During the National People’s Congress in March, Foreign Minister Wang Yi in a briefing to the international press presented China as a responsible and stable global power and, without explicitly saying so, drew comparisons with Trump’s America and its chaotic pronouncements.
He said: “We will provide certainty to this uncertain world. … We will be a staunch force defending our national interests. … We will be a just and righteous force for world peace and stability. … We will be a progressive force for international fairness and justice. We will be a constructive force for common development of the world.”
The contrast with Trump’s Tweets could not be more striking.
China is now truly integrated into the global economy. National policy has determined this, and, in any case, it would have been inevitable, given the development of advanced technologies and information and communication systems, all requiring international engagement. China, above all, wants stability and security in international relations to underpin its economic growth. In the future, the major challenges that the world will face are global. Climate change cannot be tackled without international co-operation. Australia needs more than ever to understand China and its domestic and foreign policies.
Co-operation with China is not easy. To borrow Trump’s words, “They hold the cards”. Australia, however, is not alone, and the best response to China is to consult and co-ordinate with neighbouring countries who also regularly interact with the rising superpower. Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, all have important trade and diplomatic ties with China and have much experience to share about how to manage a relationship with China, a regional power and a global superpower. Australia should be able to manage relations with China. If we respect Beijing’s legitimate rights, Beijing will respect ours
It is possible. China has no history of annexing other countries as Russia annexed Crimea. It respects other countries’ autonomy more than Trump respects the sovereignty of Mexico, Canada or Greenland. It has claims over a large part of the South China Sea that on the surface suggest aggressive intent, but this is not a new claim. The “nine dash line” outlining its territorial claim was first proposed by the then Nationalist government in 1948, and the government of Taiwan still maintains this position. Considering that China is surrounded by a string of US bases along the “first island chain” from Japan to the Philippines, amid that Camp Humphreys, near Seoul in South Korea, the largest US overseas military base, is just 549 kms from the city of Dalian in northeast China, it is not surprising that China should wish to limit further US advances.
As for the other superpower, in the first 100 days of the Trump regime, he has attempted to use the legal system to carry out his personal vendettas. He has shut down many government departments. He has attacked scientific research and the universities and disregarded statistical evidence, particularly in medical science and climate science. He is prejudiced against immigrants. He dismisses the most basic ideas of trade and economics. He prefers to deal with other autocrats like Vladimir Putin and has turned his back on international agreements and treaties.
Be afraid, be very afraid. But not of China.
(This is a summary of a talk given at the Festival of Wild Ideas, St Paul’s Burwood, on 4 May 2025)
US military expected to export ‘high-risk’ explosives to Australian ports amid arms expansion
“Australia and the Indo-Pacific region is a theatre to the American military planners,”
ABC News, by Oliver Chaseling, Fri 9 May 25, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-09/us-defence-department-to-increase-arms-shipments-to-australia/105259122
In short:
The US Department of Defence has sought tenders for the handling of US military cargo in Australian ports.
In its tender solicitation, the shipping manifest of an existing contract has been expanded to include indefinite quantities of explosive cargo.
What’s next?
Further announcements on US-Australian military cooperation in coming months was flagged at a recent Defence industry summit in Darwin.
Subcontractors in at least four Australian ports are expected to soon handle United States military cargo containing gases and radioactive material, as part of an expanded contract with the US government, the ABC can reveal.
The US Department of Defense is currently seeking tenders for port services in the Northern Territory, Queensland and Victoria, where it expects “indefinite quantities” of explosives, aircraft, classified and general cargo to be unloaded from ships and onto trucks.
The tender solicitation issued by a US transportation battalion based in Yokohama, Japan, covers the handling of cargo shipped to and from Australia……………………………………………………………………………….
The new contract will also expand arms shipments to the Point Wilson port, between Geelong and Melbourne, which in 2023 was flagged for “large-scale importation of guided weapons and explosive ordnance” according to the Australian Department of Defence……………………………………………………..
Shipments mark ‘maturing’ US military logistics network
Defence industry consultant Darian Macey said the contract “broadens the [US] strategic footprint” in Australia, by adding more dangerous cargo and expanding arms shipments to Victoria’s Point Wilson port.
“While the contract itself doesn’t specify end use, the inclusion of high-risk cargo types and expanded port access is consistent with broader trends we’re seeing under AUKUS and allied posture initiatives,” he said.
Mr Macey said the contract signalled “a maturing [US] posture in the region” that could support rapid deployments throughout the Indo-Pacific.
“Australia and the Indo-Pacific region is a theatre to the American military planners,” he said.
“Having those assets in theatre means that they can respond more rapidly, than if they had to bring those assets across from their home country.”
The Australian Department of Defence’s Brigadier Mick Say told the recent Northern Australia Defence Summit that the pre-positioning of US military equipment in Australia had been “enabled” by the 2014 US Force Posture Agreement.
He flagged a potential expansion in US Force Posture efforts after high-level ministerial talks between Canberra and Washington later this year.
“That will lead to a number of other announcements, once agreed to by governments, in regards to the next steps of the Force Posture activities within Australia,” he said.
Front groups working with Zionist actors are promoting Islamophobia
Letters were circulated in the electorate of Goldstein shortly before the election last weekend falsely accusing climate independent (“teal”) Zoe Daniel of being antisemitic in conspiracist terms. It is not known which individual or group circulated the anonymous letters.
Daniel’s Liberal Party rival Tim Wilson, was affiliated with the Atlas Network partner the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA)
May 9, 2025 Lucy Hamilton, https://theaimn.net/front-groups-working-with-zionist-actors-are-promoting-islamophobia/
Australian front groups have been working to promote the idea that the Greens make many cultural identities less safe. Zionists are incorporating Hindu and Iranian figures, depicting a fake “threat.”
Wendy Bacon and Yaakov Aharon are tracking the Zionist disinformation strategies that have been at work in the Australian local, state and federal political information space recently.
In this information project, any speech act or protest supporting peace and rights for Palestinians is depicted as an “antisemitic” threat that frightens Jewish people. The Greens are being tarred with the accusation that they pose a threat to many multicultural identities, not just Jewish. This of course distorts the fact that the Greens are the strongest party voice against prejudice in Australian politics – which includes opposing Zionist prejudice against Palestinians as well as antisemitism.
Protest is a speech act and must be protected – particularly when it is directed against matters as urgent as the climate catastrophe and genocide.
The project being carried out by the front groups investigated by Bacon and Aharon functions to foster anti Muslim sentiment. That work is inherent to the current shape of the transnational Right. Demonising Muslims is not new: in 2010, then Liberal Party MP Scott Morrison proposed targeting Muslims for political gain. His colleagues attempted to shame him for the divisive suggestion, but in the years since, that tactic has become mainstream for the political and media Right in Australia as well as abroad.
Morrison’s role flags the importance of Christian Zionists to this mission.(1) It is difficult to tease out the primary motivation. One role is to help Australia’s “conservative” politicians win elections. It is also potentially to keep out the Greens (and independents known as “teals”) to prevent genuine climate action, since the Labor Party appears to be constrained by state capture. The focus on Israel might be for Jewish Zionist interests or as part of the Christian Nationalist project aiming to control Australian politics. The Never Again is Now body speaks to that last motivation.
Advance – which was so active against the First Peoples’ Voice to Parliament and then committed over the last few months to destroying the Greens and “teal” independents – has been shown to have personnel links with Atlas Network partners in Australia. Advance has also received funding from the Liberal Party through the party’s Cormack Foundation.
Maurice Newman, who has a long track record of action around Atlas Network partners in Australia, was a Mont Pelerin Society (MPS) member from 1976. (The MPS is described as the functional steering committee of the Atlas Network and one of its major roles in recent years has been promoting climate denial.) Newman was also listed in 2014 as one of Australia’s 12 “most influential” climate deniers who used his time as ABC chairman to skew the coverage of the science. Newman was an “early driver” of Advance. In March this year, Newman described pro-Palestinian encampments on university campuses as one sign that “ideology” (rather than a moral compass) is taking over and stated, “We might as well be in communist China.”
Some Atlas Network partners have a history of promoting intervention in the Middle East, with the American Enterprise Institute’s neocons probably being the most influential in promoting “regime change” from within the White House. The Heritage Foundation claims to be no longer affiliated with the Atlas Network after decades of acting as one of its major partners. It too is engaging strongly in culture wars over purported antisemitism with Project Esther. As Axios observed, the project was as much about crushing Americans’ ability to protest. Jewish commentators also fear that the mechanism will cause blowback against Jewish Americans. As a part of the Christian Nationalist project, Esther’s strategy has been summarised as “a sweeping program of surveillance, propaganda, deportation, and criminalization.”
David Adler was a “founding board member and advisor” of Advance. He is best known as having founded the extreme Australian Jewish Association, a “private advocacy group” mimicking a peak body. Adler has spoken on rightwing media against doctors being vocal on the substantial threat that the climate crisis poses to health as leftist posturing. He disdainsclimate science as comparable to “gender issues.” Adler has recently stepped down as AJA “president.”
The degree to which Adler is a fringe figure in Jewish Australian opinion is conveyed by rejections such as:
“Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council national chairman Mark Leibler, a prominent Indigenous rights activist who co-chaired the Referendum Council, said that due to the AJA’s “misleading name”, it is very important for people within the Jewish community, but also people outside the Jewish community, to “understand that this organisation and this person, they do not speak for us”.
“They do not communicate what, in any sense of the term, can be regarded as Jewish values,” Leibler said.
“Some of the things that Adler has said are frankly nothing short of horrific.”
Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-CEO Peter Wertheim said Adler’s comments “are wrong, offensive and bigoted, and indicate that he lacks the same sensitivity to other forms of racism that he has for antisemitism”.
“These comments do not in any way represent or reflect the views of the mainstream Jewish community in Australia. They are contrary to Jewish values, and the teaching ‘That which is hateful to you, do not do to others’,” Wertheim said.
“Despite its misleadingly generic name, the Australian Jewish Association is a private group led by a small number of unelected people promoting marginal, ideologically-blinkered views. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry has been the peak, representative body of the Australian Jewish community since 1944.”
Given that none of the older peak bodies have been what might be described as particularly supportive of justice for Palestinians (leading to the formation of the progressive Jewish Council of Australia to fight for both Jewish and Palestinian safety), this condemnation speaks to the fringe nature of the AJA’s politics.
Bacon and Aharon have been tracking down several Zionist front groups. Better Australia began as Better Councils where the “Israel lobby,” as Bacon termed it, appeared to be attempting to disrupt and influence Sydney council elections. The pair have found connections with Liberal Party affiliates such as Alex Polson who owns Better’s ABN. He is a Liberal Party member and previously worked for Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham. Bacon and Aharon have also investigated the Queensland Jewish Collective (QJC) which appeared to be a reasonably significant player in the 2024 Queensland state election.
The Minority Impact Coalition (MIC) is a creation of the QJC. Alex McKinnon has reported some of the extremity of that body’s social media posts. The Australian depicted the group as a grassroots immigrant movement against Labor and the Greens.
Bacon and Aharon have tracked down loose connections of various kinds between Advance with the Zionist-affiliated groups. QJC accepted help from Advance. QJC’s MIC has claimed very limited connection with Advance. Better may have had early plans to work in cooperation with Advance. Bacon and Aharon have noted that Advance or AJA boost the social media posts of these micro bodies, creating the only occasions when their posts achieve traction. This suggests some degree of cooperation.
In her reporting on the Queensland election campaign, Bacon illustrates a graphic from the AJA that was used to advertise a webinar to introduce its members to Advance. That same image was later used on QJC billboards as well as on the MIC’s website.
The image features three individuals targeting the Greens as a “divisive hate group” for the represented ethnicities or cultural identities. One of the three is posed as representing a “Jewish Queenslander” who doesn’t feel safe in her own cities because of Greens repeating “slogans of the terrorists that wish [her] dead.”
The other two represent an identity coalition that the QJC (alone?) was forging in a “multicultural impact network meeting.”
The second individual is a “Hindu Queenslander” who is quoted on the graphic as asserting “The Greens glorify those that terrorise us. They make me scared for the future.”
This is not an outlier. The shared work of linking Muslims with terrorism is central to the Hindutva nationalist project, just as it is to Israel. Prime Minister Modi, for example, declared that both Israel and India face a shared threat from “radical Islam.”
The recent attack in Kashmir has led to calls to use the “Israel model” in Kashmir with suggestions that both Kashmir and Pakistan should be “flattened” like Gaza.
There is no inference made that the woman pictured supports Hindutva ideology.
It appears the Hindu Council of Australia (HCA) had a speaker at the QJC event in June 2024. The HCA may have no interest in the religio-ethnonationalist Hindutva ideology. It is noteworthy, however, that the HCA site hosts a post suggesting that an attempt to tackle Hindutva extremism is actually about “dismantling Hinduism” and an attempt to spread fear mongering against Hindus.
The MIC site claims to have the group Hindus of Australia as an endorsing body. That link is backed up by an Indian-Australian news site, which depicts MIC as protecting Australia from “imported hate.” In the aftermath of the election, the Hindus of Australia X account reposted a QJC post, with additional comment that the Greens had brought “degeneracy” to “Australian political and social lives.” It also made the strange claim that the Greens had “put targets on the backs of Australian Jewish and Hindu communities so that the terror and criminal elements now consider our communities soft targets.”
Modi and his party have a long history of targeting Muslims, including Modi campaigning on the fear of being outbred by Muslims at the last election.
Israel and India are bonded over these parallels.
The third individual on the AJA graphic represents Iranians. A speaker at the event is reported to have represented the Iranian Novin Party (INP). Hesam Orujee, a member of the INP, is featured on the AJA Facebook page as a member of the QJC.
The Iran Novin Party is “Pahlavist.” That is, they support the Pahlavi family to replace the Iranian Islamist regime. The QJC site claims that the Greens “support the Iranian regime’s terror proxies.” This is, of course, nonsense. (The MIC site also targets Labor for not attacking these groups’ issues aggressively enough.)
The Iranian monarchist community is connected to the NatCon religio-ethnonationalist project. The last conference in Washington (where JD Vance was soft launched at the final dinner just before being announced as Trump’s running partner) featured Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi.
Iranian monarchists are reportedly working with Israel in their efforts to overthrow the regime and reinstall their Shah.
It is also reported that the Iranian MEK has funnelled Saudi money into the creation of the Spanish Far Right Vox party that is militantly Islamophobic as well as socially ultra-conservative.
The J-United group from Melbourne is on record as being backed by Advance in its targeting of Greens candidates. Australian Jewish News described J-United’s political campaign as having “received support from diverse community groups including Iranian, Hindu and Christian organisations.”
Letters were circulated in the electorate of Goldstein shortly before the election last weekend falsely accusing climate independent (“teal”) Zoe Daniel of being antisemitic in conspiracist terms. It is not known which individual or group circulated the anonymous letters.
Daniel’s Liberal Party rival was affiliated with the Atlas Network partner the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) and was a member of the Mont Pelerin Society the last time the list was leaked. Tim Wilson’s most significant moment with the international Atlas Network-connected activity was breaking Australia’s carbon price mechanism. In recognition of this, his IPA team was shortlisted for the Atlas Network’s most prestigious global prize.
Advance and the AJA have several reasons for welcoming losses of Greens seats in parliament. For the former, this signals fewer politicians to defend climate action and social justice. The AJA rejects politicians supporting a peaceful resolution for Palestine. The work of the front groups suggests both groups to be loosely part of the NatCon project that aims to unite Christian Nationalists, Israeli Jewish Nationalists and Hindu Nationalists against Muslims, against modernity and against climate action. The Iranian monarchists’ role in that coalition is noteworthy.
The Australian Right is more strongly represented in the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship’s (ARC) version of NatCon messaging.
Tony Abbott was an advisor to Advance. Abbott is a Distinguished Fellow at the IPA and is also on the ARC Advisory Board alongside several other past and serving Australian politicians.(2) ARC co-founder John Anderson AO has posted this disturbing interview about Israel and Islam with Douglas Murray, another board member, on his YouTube channel.(3) ARC is a strongly climate denial project, loosely promoting NatCon ideology. NatCon ideology is backed by the Edmund Burke Foundation which has important Zionist connections.
The fact that Advance is so closely connected with a Zionist group such as the AJA, which real Jewish peak bodies depict as “marginal” and “ideologically blinkered,” not to mention expressing “horrific” views, is an important feature.
It is natural that immigrant and other minority groups will hold opinions on ways nations they are affiliated with could be better. It is also to be expected that some fringe elements will hold views that incorporate prejudice.
Australia’s multicultural project is, however, a precious and vulnerable experiment. It is reckless to allow strategists to undermine it for political goals. The Australian majority was revealed in this election to reject divisive culture war games: we cannot ignore the inherent Islamophobia that is core to the religio-ethnonationalist NatCon ideology. It is even more dangerous when bodies founded to foster dis- and misinformation bring together those fringe elements of our multicultural communities, promoting the demonisation of one category of Australian citizen.
Keating savages Albanese and Labor ‘factional lightweights’ after Husic and Dreyfus pushed from cabinet
Tom McIlroy Chief political correspondent, Guardian, 7 May 25
Former prime minister says dumping of Ed Husic was ‘appalling denial’ of his ‘diligence and application’
Former Australian prime minister Paul Keating has savaged Anthony Albanese and “factional lightweights” within the Labor party over moves to dump ministers Ed Husic and Mark Dreyfus from cabinet, calling the decision unfair and disrespectful.
Jostling between right faction MPs in New South Wales and Victoria led to Husic, the industry and science minister, being pushed out of cabinet on Thursday, in a move Labor insiders said was ruthless.
……………………..”As the cabinet’s sole Muslim member, Husic’s expulsion from the ministry proffers contempt for the measured and centrist support provided by the broader Muslim community to the Labor Party at the general election,” Keating said in a statement.
…………………He also criticised the move by Victorian right faction MPs to remove Dreyfus, who has been attorney general since 2022 and held the same role at the end of the Rudd-Gillard government in 2013.
Keating said “factional lightweights” had pushed out Dreyfus, calling him “the cabinet’s most effective and significant Jewish member”………………………………….
A Labor legend, Keating has been a public critic of the Albanese government in the past. He accused Albanese, Richard Marles [above] and the foreign minister, Penny Wong, of abandoning traditional party values over support for the Aukus nuclear submarines agreement.
Keating even suggested last year on the subjects of defence and foreign policy, “this is not a Labor government”.
Albanese’s second cabinet is expected to be sworn in on Tuesday next week. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/may/08/keating-savages-albanese-and-labor-factional-lightweights-after-husic-and-dreyfus-pushed-from-cabinet?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
1 This month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
– go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
Antinuclear 