US submarines carrying nuclear weapons could dock in Australia despite ban, Senate told.
Defence secretary appears to contradict previous assurances from Penny Wong that only conventionally armed submarines will visit Australian ports under Aukus deal.
Ben Doherty, 5 Dec 25, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/dec/05/us-submarines-nuclear-weapons-australia-aukus
US submarines carrying nuclear weapons could dock at Australian bases, defence officials have told the Senate, and the Australian government and people would not know.
Senate estimates heard fierce debate over whether US Virginia-class submarines – set to “rotate” through Australian ports from 2027 as part of the contentious Aukus agreement – could carry nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are prohibited in Australia.
Defence department officials told senators there was “no impediment” to submarines armed with nuclear weapons visiting Australia, insisting that any such visit would not breach Australian or international law.
The US maintains a policy of “strategic ambiguity” around its nuclear deployment and it refuses to confirm or deny whether aircraft or seagoing vessels capable of carrying nuclear weapons are, in fact, carrying a nuclear warhead.
That ambiguity would apply to US submarines that might dock at Australian ports, as it now does to nuclear-capable B-52 bomber aircraft landing at RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory, which is being upgraded to be able to accommodate more US bombers.
“We respect the United States position of neither confirming nor denying,” the Australian defence department secretary, Greg Moriarty, told the Senate.
But anti-nuclear campaigners and some senators argue that the evidence to the Senate undermines Australia’s non-proliferation commitments and risks making the country “a launchpad for nuclear war”.
They also say the acquiescence to US ambiguity over its nuclear weapons contradicts the foreign affairs minister’s assurance in a 2023 speech that only conventionally armed submarines would visit Australia.
“The US has confirmed that the nuclear-powered submarines visiting Australia on rotation will be conventionally armed,” Penny Wong told the National Press Club.
Sign up: AU Breaking News email
US Virginia-class submarines are to begin rotating through Australian ports – part of pillar one of the Aukus agreement – from 2027, before Australia buys then builds its own nuclear-powered, conventionally armed submarines.
The US Congress approved funding in 2024 for a new submarine- and ship-launched nuclear missile – the first new US nuclear weapon since the end of the cold war. The SLCM-N weapon is slated to be operational within a decade and Vice-Admiral Johnny Wolfe has told Congress that the weapons program is “focused on the integration of SLCM-N into the Virginia-class submarine”.
The South Pacific nuclear free zone treaty – known as the Treaty of Rarotonga and to which Australia is a party – prohibits the “stationing” of nuclear weapons in Australia (and the broader South Pacific zone). But Australia maintains that a US submarine, potentially armed with nuclear weapons, is not prohibited from visiting an Australian port.
Bernard Philip, assistant secretary of international policy at the Department of Defence told the Senate Australia would comply with its treaty obligations, which were also understood by the US.
“The United States does not station nuclear weapons in Australia,” he said. “Stationing nuclear weapons in Australia is prohibited by the South Pacific nuclear free zone treaty, to which Australia remains committed.
“There is no impediment under the Treaty of Rarotonga and the Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons to the visit of dual-capable foreign platforms to Australia’s territory or transiting Australia’s airspace or waters.”
Dual-capable platforms are those able to carry both conventional and nuclear weapons. Defence officials said nuclear missiles deployable on Virginia-class submarines were still in development, labelling the scenario “hypothetical”.
The Australian director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, Gem Romuld, said the foreign minister’s commitment that nuclear weapons would not be rotating through Australia was now “dead in the water”.
“It’s taken just two years for expectations of an Aukus partner to shift, so what will come next?” she said.
“If Aukus is ‘not about nuclear weapons’, then Australia’s numerous assurances must be backed up with legal commitments. The best way to draw the line on nuclear weapons is to sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.”
Labor has formally committed in its party platform to signing and ratifying the weapons ban treaty “in government” but it has not yet signed done so. Seventy-four countries are now party to the treaty: none of the nine nuclear-armed states have signed it.
The Greens senator David Shoebridge asked in Senate estimates: “So we’re going to permit them to be sitting, floating off Fremantle in US-Virginia class submarines, and is it still the position that the Australian government won’t ask the US whether or not they’re nuclear-armed submarines, just like we don’t ask about the nuclear-armed B-52s?
“Is that still the position? Don’t ask, don’t tell?”
The secretary of the defence department said: “We respect the United States’ position of neither confirming nor denying.”
Government backflips on nuclear-capable submarines under AUKUS
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) has warned of escalating nuclear risks after Senate Estimates confirmed the government would not stand in the way of US Virginia-class submarines entering Australian waters while armed with nuclear weapons.
The Australian Government has acknowledged it would permit visits by US Virginia-class submarines that may carry nuclear weapons in future—a direct contradiction of Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s assurance at the National Press Club in April 2023 that AUKUS submarines visiting Australia would be conventionally armed.
During Senate Estimates on Wednesday night, senior Defence officials acknowledged that there is “no impediment” under Australian policy or treaty obligations to the visit of dual-capable platforms—an aircraft, submarine or missile designed to carry either conventional weapons or nuclear weapons—and that Australia would continue to respect the US policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons.
This means Australians could unknowingly host US or UK nuclear weapons offshore—with no right to be told.
Gem Romuld, Director of ICAN Australia, said:
“The Foreign Minister’s assurance that nuclear weapons won’t be rotating through Australia is now dead in the water. It’s taken just two years for expectations of an AUKUS partner to shift, so what will come next?
If AUKUS is ‘not about nuclear weapons’, then Australia’s numerous assurances must be backed up with legal commitments. The best way to draw the line on nuclear weapons is to sign and ratify the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.”
The Estimates exchange centred on the United States’ nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile program (SLCM-N), which the US Congress has directed the Navy to develop. Experts, including CNA analyst Decker Eveleth, have publicly confirmed these weapons can be deployed on Virginia-class submarines, the same class Australia is preparing to host at HMAS Stirling as early as 2027.
National Labor policy commits the government to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Successive Labor conferences have reaffirmed this commitment, and more than 300 federal, state and local parliamentarians have signed the ICAN parliamentary pledge.
Romuld said:
“Australia is a strong proponent of the 1970 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), an essential multilateral agreement but one that is no longer fit for purpose. The TPNW extends the work of the NPT to meet the challenges posed by today’s nuclear risks, and in finally comprehensively outlawing these weapons of mass destruction,”
“National Labor policy commits to signing and ratifying the TPNW in government, a promise yet to be delivered. It’s time for Australia to move on from just engaging with this treaty to putting pen to paper. The Prime Minister championed it and now has a responsibility to enact his policy before Australia becomes a launchpad for nuclear war.
“Both of our AUKUS partners are heavily armed with nuclear weapons. As a nation opposed to nuclear weapons, signing the TPNW puts essential protections and future-proofing in place for our country and our region.”
Australia’s New Censorship Is Voluntary – and That’s Why It’s Dangerous
Is a journalist free if they must first seek permission to tell the truth?
4 December 2025, David Tyler, https://theaimn.net/australias-new-censorship-is-voluntary-and-thats-why-its-dangerous/
When journalists internalise the state, the state no longer needs to silence them.
Australia has discovered the most polite form of censorship ever devised. No jackboots, no warrants, no midnight raids; just a quiet conversation, a “national security” reminder, and journalists voluntarily silencing themselves. Why pass laws when you can persuade the press to behave as though they already exist?
This is not satire. It is policy. And its blueprint comes straight from Whitehall.
The Quiet Request
Three weeks after Labor took office in June 2022, officials in Attorney‑General Mark Dreyfus‘s department reached across hemispheres to Britain’s Ministry of Defence. Their purpose was not military cooperation, intelligence sharing, or treaty work. It was media control; specifically, how to make censorship unnecessary by convincing journalists to do it to themselves.
The model: Britain’s Defence and Security Media Advisory Committee (DSMA).
The tool: a pre‑publication vetting mechanism disguised as collaboration.
The tone: “voluntary.”
The effect: silent.
DIY censorship? Brilliant.
Not a Draft. An Import.
Freedom of Information documents show this was not curiosity. It was a virtual IKEA flat‑pack – imported, piece by bureaucratic piece, from the mother country to its former colony. The assembly instructions came straight from London. A spare Allen key always comes in handy.
- 2019: Days after Federal Police raided ABC and News Corp offices over war‑crimes reporting, red‑faced Australian officials began attending DSMA sessions in London.
- 2021–2022: Bureaucrats refined plans for a “similar role” in Australia.
- May 2022: Secret roundtables with major editors were held. No minutes. No attendee lists. No sunlight.
- June 2022: Dreyfus’s department formally requested London’s assistance.
The continuity is chilling. Liberal ministers started the project. Labor ministers continued it. Bureaucratic inertia was the constant.
This isn’t a partisan conspiracy. It’s worse: a bipartisan agreement that journalists must learn to censor themselves politely.
How Britain Silences Without Silencing
DSMA is a masterpiece of bureaucratic subtlety. It issues “advisories,” not bans. Journalists “consult” before publishing, rather than submit for approval. A discreet military officer suggests what to omit “for national security,” while the state never dirties its hands with formal censorship laws.
The committee’s proceedings are confidential.
Its members are hidden.
Its advice is non‑binding.
Yet it boasts a 90% success rate persuading journalists not to publish.
Dissent hasn’t been criminalised; it has been professionalised. To ignore DSMA advice invites prosecution under the Official Secrets Act – or, more immediately, career suicide. The threat is legal, but the engine is cultural.
This is what Canberra admires: not censorship, but managed consent. The state doesn’t punish critics. The critics simply internalise the state. Intuit the boss’ wishes, a bit like a Murdoch editor.
The Dreyfus Paradox
Mark Dreyfus once helped chisel the High Court’s implied freedom of political communication into Australia’s constitutional framework. He argued that democracy depends on journalists criticising power freely.
Journalist training programs
And now? His department has chased a censorship model whose brilliance lies in never admitting it exists.
This isn’t hypocrisy. It’s absorption. Dreyfus didn’t renounce principle; he was subsumed by machinery. You don’t have to betray your beliefs if the institution performs the betrayal for you.
He thought he was protecting national security. What he safeguarded was secrecy itself.
The Machinery
This project did not dissolve when ministers changed. It doesn’t depend on elections. The relationships with UK Defence persist. Editors who attended closed‑door sessions still hold their seats. Bureaucrats continue to discuss frameworks for “voluntary advisory mechanisms.”
And the scaffolding grows stronger through parallel controls:
- Harsher secrecy offences that criminalise public‑interest reporting.
- Online misinformation laws with ministerial discretion over speech.
- Digital identity requirements for internet access.
- Discussion papers on journalist registration systems.
Individually, each seems modest. Together, they form something like a velvet‑lined cage.
The Respectable Mask
Systems like DSMA need legitimacy. Enter Peter Greste: a journalist jailed in Egypt, a symbol of press freedom, a moral compass. Conference transcripts show him engaging with advocates of reviving the Australian D‑Notice system, DSMA’s predecessor.
The argument attributed to him is seductive: pre‑publication consultation protects journalists from prosecution. Ask permission; avoid jail.
And in the process, a core civic principle collapses quietly under manners and moral suasion.
The Question
Australia must stop asking whether a DSMA system will be adopted. It already has been – culturally.
The question is whether Australians still believe freedom of political communication is a public right or whether it has become a regulated professional privilege.
Is a journalist free if they must first seek permission to tell the truth?
That’s the moment democracy becomes polite enough to disappear; and the risk now confronting every newsroom in the country.
* * * * *
CLARKE & DAWE: HOW TO SILENCE A COUNTRY WITHOUT LAWS
SETTING: Parliament House lawn.
BRYAN DAWE holding freshly printed FOI documents.
JOHN CLARKE appears as a senior official from the “Department of National Information Harmony,” calm, courteous, and utterly terrifying.
BRYAN DAWE: John, your department has been in discussions with the UK about its Defence and Security Media Advisory system.
JOHN CLARKE: Yes, Bryan. Very sensible. A voluntary censorship system.
BRYAN DAWE: Voluntary censorship?
JOHN CLARKE: Correct, Bryan. It’s censorship that journalists choose.
BRYAN DAWE: Why would journalists choose to censor themselves?
JOHN CLARKE: National security, Bryan. Also career security. Also avoiding prosecution. And staying in the good books.
BRYAN DAWE: So the government isn’t forcing them?
JOHN CLARKE: No, Bryan. That would look terrible. We simply provide advice about what not to publish.
BRYAN DAWE: And the journalists follow it?
JOHN CLARKE: Over 90% of the time, Bryan. Very cooperative species.
BRYAN DAWE: Doesn’t this undermine press freedom?
JOHN CLARKE: Not at all, Bryan. The press is free to comply.
BRYAN DAWE: FOI documents show your department approached the UK three weeks after Labor was elected.
JOHN CLARKE: Correct. But the previous government started it. It’s bipartisan secrecy, Bryan. The safest kind.
BRYAN DAWE: So both sides agree on this system?
JOHN CLARKE: Absolutely. It avoids embarrassment across the aisle. Truly unifying.
BRYAN DAWE: What is the advantage of a voluntary censorship system?
JOHN CLARKE: You never need to admit you’re censoring anything. The media does it for you. It’s very efficient.
BRYAN DAWE: And what if journalists refuse?
JOHN CLARKE: They are still free to refuse, Bryan. Then they can be prosecuted. Freely.
BRYAN DAWE: John, isn’t democracy supposed to rely on an independent press?
JOHN CLARKE: Yes, Bryan. Which is why the press must work closely with the government.
BRYAN DAWE: That sounds like dependency, not independence.
JOHN CLARKE: Independence is most reliable when it is professionally supervised, Bryan.
BRYAN DAWE: So transparency is preserved?
JOHN CLARKE: Entirely, Bryan. We always encourage transparency; provided it has been cleared with us first.
BRYAN DAWE: John, is this censorship?
JOHN CLARKE: No, Bryan. It’s voluntary. Only the consequences are compulsory.
This article was originally published on URBAN WRONSKI WRITES
Solar and wind reach 100 pct of demand in biggest isolated grid, as batteries allow it to keep its thermals on.
Solar and wind reached a remarkable new milestone in Western Australia’s
isolated grid over the weekend, reaching 100 per cent of demand at various
occasions on Sunday morning, as the state’s growing fleet of batteries
allowed coal and gas generators to keep running in the background. The W.A.
grid, with no links to other states, is becoming a fascinating focal point
for the green energy transition, largely because of the huge impact of
rooftop solar and the high levels of variable renewables seen on almost a
daily basis.
Renew Economy 2nd Dec 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/solar-and-wind-reach-100-pct-of-demand-in-biggest-isolated-grid-as-batteries-allow-it-to-keep-its-thermals-on/
South Australia averages 100 pct wind and solar over week, 90 pct over last 28 days
South Australia – the country’s most advanced renewables grid – has
average more than 100 per cent net renewables (compared to state demand)
over the past week, and more than 90 per cent renewables over the last 28
days. It is not the first time that South Australia has reached 100 per
cent renewables – it has done so previously over the Christmas/New Year
period – but it marks a significant milestone, given that its mix of
renewables is made up entirely of variable wind and solar, and with no
hydro or even biomass to speak of.
Renew Economy 2nd Dec 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-averages-100-pct-wind-and-solar-over-week-90-pct-over-last-28-days/
The architecture of a vassal: how US bases in Australia project power, not protection.
2 December 2025 Andrew Klein, https://theaimn.net/the-architecture-of-a-vassal-how-us-bases-in-australia-project-power-not-protection/
The strategic placement of key US and joint military facilities across Australia reveals a pattern not of national defence, but of integration into a global, offensively-oriented network for force projection and intelligence gathering. An analysis of their locations and functions demonstrates that these bases are designed to serve the strategic interests of a superpower, often at the expense of Australian sovereignty and security.
The Official Rationale: A Volatile Region and the Strategy of Denial
According to official Australian government assessments, the strategic environment is increasingly volatile, characterised by falling international cooperation, rising competition, and uncertainty about US reliability. In response, Australia’s National Defence Strategy: 2024 has adopted a “strategy of denial,” emphasising deterrence as its primary objective. This policy shift is used to justify initiatives such as:
- Acquiring nuclear-powered submarines through AUKUS.
- Upgrading and expanding northern military bases.
- Acquiring new long-range strike capabilities.
The public-facing logic is that longer-range weapons have overturned Australia’s geographic advantage, making the “sea-air gap” to the north a vulnerability. However, a closer examination of the specific facilities tells a different story.
Pine Gap: The Beating Heart of Global Surveillance
The Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap, near Alice Springs, is the most prominent example. Ostensibly a joint facility, it is a critical node in US global intelligence. Its functions extend far beyond any defensive mandate for Australia.
- Global Signals Intelligence: Pine Gap acts as a ground control and processing station for US geosynchronous signals intelligence (SIGINT) satellites. These satellites monitor a vast swath of the Eastern Hemisphere, collecting data including missile telemetry, anti-aircraft radar signals, and communications from mobile phones and microwave transmissions.
- Warfighting and Targeted Killing: Information from Pine Gap is not merely for analysis. It is used to geolocate targets for military action. The base has played a direct role in US drone strikes and has provided intelligence in conflicts from Vietnam and the Gulf War to the ongoing wars in Gaza. Experts testify that data downlinked at Pine Gap is passed to the US National Security Agency and then to allies like the Israel Defense Forces, potentially implicating Australia in international conflicts without public knowledge or parliamentary oversight.
- A History of Secrecy and Sovereignty Betrayed: The base’s history is marked by breaches of Australian sovereignty. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the US government placed Pine Gap on nuclear alert (DEFCON 3) without informing Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. Whitlam’s subsequent consideration of closing the base was followed by his dramatic dismissal in 1975, an event that former CIA officers have linked to US fears over losing access to the facility.
Northern Bases: Launchpads for Power Projection
The network of bases across Australia’s north forms an arc designed for forward operations, not homeland defence.
- RAAF Base Tindal: This base in the Northern Territory is undergoing upgrades to host US B-52 strategic bombers. This transformation turns Australian territory into a forward operating location for long-range strike missions deep into Asia, fundamentally changing the nation’s role from a sovereign state to a launching pad for another power’s offensive operations.
- Marine Rotational Force – Darwin: The stationing of up to 2,500 US Marines in Darwin functions as a persistent force projection and logistics hub, enhancing the US ability to rapidly deploy forces into the Southeast Asian region.
- NW Cape (Harold E. Holt): The facility in Exmouth, Western Australia, hosts advanced space radar and telescopes for “space situational awareness.” This contributes to US space warfare and communications capabilities, a global mission with little direct relation to the defence of Australia’s population centres.
The True Cost: Compromised Sovereignty and Incurred Risk
This integration into a superpower’s military apparatus comes with severe, often unacknowledged, costs.
- The Loss of Sovereign Control: The operational control of these critical facilities is often ceded to the United States. At Pine Gap, the chief of the facility is a senior CIA officer, and certain sections, such as the NSA’s cryptology room, are off-limits to Australian personnel. This creates a situation where activities conducted on Australian soil are not fully known or controlled by the Australian government.
- Becoming a Nuclear Target: The critical importance of bases like Pine Gap to US global military dominance makes them high-priority targets in the event of a major conflict. By hosting these facilities, Australia voluntarily assumes the risk of being drawn into a nuclear exchange, a strategic decision made without public debate.
- Complicity in International Conflicts: As the protests and legal actions surrounding Pine Gap’s role in Gaza highlight, Australia faces legal and moral accusations of complicity in actions that may constitute war crimes or genocide. This places the nation in direct opposition to international law and global public opinion, all for the sake of an alliance that often prioritises US interests.
Conclusion: From Independent Ally to Integrated Base
The evidence is clear: the strategic network of US-linked bases in Australia is not primarily for the nation’s defence. It is the architecture of a vassal state, designed to service the global force projection and intelligence-gathering needs of a superpower. From the satellite surveillance of Pine Gap to the bomber forward deployment at Tindal, these facilities entangle Australia in conflicts far beyond its shores, compromise its sovereignty, and incur immense strategic risks. Until this fundamental reality is confronted, Australian defence policy will continue to serve an empire’s interests, not its own.
References…………………
Australia’s most advanced renewable grid is its most secure, but NSW must scramble as it nears “no coal” scenario.
South Australia, the most advanced renewable grid in the country and even
the world – thanks to its unrivalled near 75 per cent share of wind and
solar – is also the most secure, according to a major new report on the
state of the energy transition.
The Transition Plan for System Security,
published on Monday by the Australian Energy Market Operator, identifies
South Australia as the only state grid which is not facing a system
strength deficit in coming years.
That’s largely because South Australia
went first, and it went hard and fast. Its last coal fired power station
closed in 2016, and because it has such a high percentage of wind and
solar, as well as rooftop PV, it has had to deal with the issues around
frequency control, inertia and system strength before other states. South
Australia, the most advanced renewable grid in the country and even the
world – thanks to its unrivalled near 75 per cent share of wind and solar
– is also the most secure, according to a major new report on the state
of the energy transition.
When the new transmission link to NSW is complete in 2027, South Australia will
be the first in the world to be able to run its gigawatt scale grid at
times with “engines off” – i.e. no gas plant required for bulk power
or system security – as it nears or even achieves its target of reaching
100 per cent net renewables.
Renew Economy 1st Dec 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/australias-most-advanced-renewable-grid-is-its-most-secure-but-nsw-must-scramble-as-it-nears-no-coal-scenario/
We must embrace reality with cheap green energy.
Critics will say we can’t afford to transition away from fossil fuels.
When you come face to face with the impacts, it’s reasonable to argue
that we can’t afford not to. But something interesting is starting to
happen. Around four or five years ago, it became cheaper to generate
electricity from the sun and wind than it is by setting things on fire.
Renewable energy has been getting so plentiful, to the point that some
governments are literally giving it away. In Australia, where almost 40% of
homes have solar panels on their roof, the government announced that they
have so much solar energy that from January next year, Australians will get
three free hours of electricity every single day. Whether you have a solar
panel or not, for those three hours, you can charge your car, run the
washing machine or even store up your home battery and run the house for
free all night.
At a time when it was announced that the energy price cap
is set to rise slightly here in the UK, and when the average cost of
heating and running a home is close to £1800, it’s hard not to feel
jealous of those Australians who can look forward to free power for three
hours a day.
Even more astonishingly it’s China which is driving this
change towards cleaner energy. When I lived in China back in the early
2000s, we had toxic smog so thick you couldn’t see the apartment block
across the road. Chinese cities used to dominate the top 10 most-polluted
cities in the world, today they barely feature in that most grubby of
lists.
In May of this year, China installed new solar and wind energy
systems that generated as much electricity as Poland generates all-year
round, from all available sources, and while they continue to construct
more coal-fired power stations, those stations run at most at 50% capacity,
and the country’s carbon emissions are thought to have peaked.
These power stations are used almost as back-up power, because they’re more
expensive to run than solar or wind farms, and once the next breakthrough
comes in the form of battery storage, experts argue that dirty power
stations will grow obsolete. China has figured out that clean energy and
renewables are the way forward, because they will ultimately prove to be
cheaper and more profitable.
They’ve made more money exporting green tech
in the past 18 months than the US has made in exporting oil and gas in that
same period. While America is betting the house on AI being the future,
China has gambled on renewable energy and clean tech being the way forward.
In Europe, people are nipping down to their equivalent of B&Q to pick up
plug-in solar panels they can hang off their balconies. These cheap and
cheerful solutions can provide up to 25% of an apartment’s energy usage,
and are as easy to use as plugging in a toaster. It’s such an innovative
– and useful – development that the UK Government has launched a study
to see if it could be rolled out here.
Regulations would need to be
reformed, but if this could be achieved, we could soon access the kind of
cheap and convenient solution that close to 1.5 million Germans enjoy.
It’s easy to feel overwhelmed when faced with the challenge of a warming
planet, and dither and delay from those in power. But ultimately we’ve
got more power than we think. Environmentalist Bill McKibben argues that
economics dictate that in 30 years’ time we’ll be running this planet
on solar and wind energy anyway. It’s up to us to determine how long we
want to wait to embrace reality, and cheaper energy bills.
The National 26th Nov 2025,
https://www.thenational.scot/politics/25650532.must-embrace-reality-lower-bills-cheap-green-energy/
Michael West Media scoops the prize pool in the 2025 Walkey Awards
Editor’s Note: this is satire. The Walkleys is on tomorrow night.
MWM publisher and journalist Kim Wingerei took out the Walkey Award for Public Interest Journalism for his expose Peter Dutton’s Nuclear Plant to cost $4.3 trillion (not $600 billion). We thank the sponsors NotNewsCorp.
by Michael West | Nov 26, 2025 |
Journalists from Michael West Media have scooped the pool in this year’s Walkey Awards for Excellence in Journalism taking home no less than 28 Walkeys*.
This year’s Gold Walkey (not sponsored by Woodside) was a hard-fought affair with Rex Patrick taking out the gong for his body of work on government transparency and Australia’s 60-year campaign to steal Timor’s oil and gas.
Rex Patrick with his Gold Walkey
Veteran journalist, Wendy Bacon, joins the giants of Australia’s media landscape as an inductee of the prestigious Walkey Hall of Fame. Bacon also won the award for Outstanding Contribution to Journalism with Yaakov Aharon for their body of work as MWM Special Envoys for Combatting Antisemitism Scams (not sponsored by the Tel Aviv litigation budget of the Zionist Federation of Australia).
Bacon and Patrick led the charge in a humongous year for independent outfit Michael West Media at Australia’s most venerable and glamorous awards night. Other winners included Josh Barnett, Stephanie Tran, Michael Pascoe, Kim Wingerei, Sarah Russell, Yaakov Aharon, Harry Chemay, Stuart McCarthy, Zach Szumer.
Wendy Bacon also took home the Walkey Award for Investigative Journalism (not sponsored by the Victor Chang Institute) for her intrepid coverage of the St Vincent’s Hospital debacle and was runner-up for coverage of foreign lobbyists and fossil fuel lobbyists interfering in Australian governments.
Truly a watershed
Commenting on the watershed moment in world journalistic history, MWM founder Michael West thanked the community, politicians and business leaders, and particularly the Walkey judges for their debonaire taste.
“We couldn’t have done it without the judges,” said West in a teary acceptance speech. “Me and the judges, we’re mates,” he told the large audience which was clearly moved by the occasion. “But we also owe a debt of gratitude to Australia’s politicians and business leaders for providing such good material to work with – and of course to our platinum sponsors NotSantos and NotPwC”.
“We couldn’t have done it without the judges,” said West in a teary acceptance speech. “Me and the judges, we’re mates,” he told the large audience which was clearly moved by the occasion. “But we also owe a debt of gratitude to Australia’s politicians and business leaders for providing such good material to work with – and of course to our platinum sponsors NotSantos and NotPwC”.
Stephanie Tran has won Young Journalist of the Year (sponsor Not Accenture) and was runner-up in the Walkey Scoop segment for uncovering the billion-dollar coal scam on workers with her entry Private Tax Collectors (sponsor Not BHP).…………………………………………………………..https://michaelwest.com.au/michael-west-media-scoops-the-prize-pool-in-the-2025-walkey-awards/
Nuke Submarine ‘community consultation’
By Philip White on Nov 23, 2025
Australian Naval Infrastructure (ANI) is conducting a ‘community consultation’ about its plan to lodge a site licence application for the ‘Nuclear-Powered Submarine Construction Yard Project’. An application has to be lodged with the new Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator before it can prepare a site for a Naval Nuclear Propulsion facility.
We wonder why they are in such a hurry to apply for a site licence when the Strategic Impact Assessment (SIA – Commonwealth process) and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS – State government process) haven’t even been finalised. FoE Adelaide made submissions to both these processes (click to read our SIA submission & our EIS submission) in March 2025, but no public submissions and no follow-up report have been published. We also made a submission on the new nuclear powered submarine Regulations, which came into effect on 1 November 2025 without any response to the public comments received.
Click here (251123FoEAdelaideSubmission) to read our submission to ANI’s site licence ‘community consultation’.
And let us never forget that acquiring nuclear powered submarines is a bad idea in the first place.
Water is under pressure in the Great Artesian Basin.
The Great Artesian Basin covers a fifth of Australia and contains water that has been there for millions of years. Now, decades of extraction are taking their toll and traditional owners are fighting a mining giant for compensation.
ABC News, Words by Leah MacLennan & images by Lincoln Rothall, 23 Nov 25
“Each spring carries a story that connects it to the traditional owners — the Arabana people. But they say the environment — and their cultural connection to it — is under threat. Some of the springs have dried up, and the health of others has deteriorated.
“The Arabana people are now fighting mining giant BHP for compensation over what they say is damage to their cultural heritage and the loss of kuta, the Arabana word for water.”
“The federal government estimates business activity in the basin — including agriculture and mining — contributed $33.2 billion to the economy last year.
“Just a few kilometres away from the springs on Arabana Country is a BHP-owned wellfield — known as Wellfield A — that, according to the company, pumps more than four million litres of water per day to its Olympic Dam mine
“The company takes another 29 million litres per day from another area — Wellfield B — further to the west.
“There’s plenty of monitoring data that shows that the extraction that BHP have engaged in supporting the Olympic Dam project has caused draw down and significant reductions in the pressure of the GAB aquifer or aquifers near their site,”
“The company says over the past 15 years it’s reduced its reliance on Wellfield A, and will stop taking from it in the mid 2030s — when there are plans for a government-built desalination plant to service the region.” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-23/water-is-under-pressure-in-the-great-artesian-basin/106002448
Australia Flags Indians Over $368 Billion Nuclear Submarine Espionage Fears: Did “Qatar Fiasco” Play A Part?
Eurasian Times, By Nitin J Ticku -November 18, 2025
AUKUS was hailed as Australia’s biggest defense agreement, one that could redefine the security architecture in the crucial Indo-Pacific region and challenge China’s rising belligerence.
The pact involved providing Australia with eight nuclear-powered submarines.
The Pillar-I involved Canberra buying 3–5 used Virginia-class SSNs from the U.S., and the Pillar-II involved developing and constructing a new SSN-AUKUS submarine class jointly by Australia and the United Kingdom, incorporating US technology, with deliveries to the Royal Australian Navy beginning in the early 2040s.
However, even four years after signing the over USD 368 billion pact, there is little progress on the crucial project.
Earlier in June, the Trump administration launched a formal review of the contract.
After months of uncertainty, US President Donald Trump finally endorsed the deal last month, assuring Canberra that “they’re getting them (SSNs).”
However, now a new worry is troubling Australia. The fear of spying by “adversary countries” on sensitive nuclear-propulsion technology can further delay the already-delayed project.
China-India Spying On AUKUS?
Australian media outlet The Australian has reported that Australia’s Defense Force has rejected one in ten applicants for AUKUS submarine work due to dubious foreign ties or security risks.
The highly classified nuclear submarine project employs strict vetting processes, turning away individuals with dual citizenship and suspicious links to China and India.
This affects the recruitment drive for the US$368 billion project, which aims to build a highly-skilled workforce of over 20,000 personnel, including engineers and technicians for nuclear submarine construction and maintenance.
Individuals with family, professional, or financial ties to these nations, particularly those who’re in some way connected to the armed forces or state intelligence agencies, are routinely flagged.
The article further notes that U.S.-imposed ITAR regulations further restrict access for non-citizens or those with overseas parentage from high-risk countries, such as China, exacerbating hiring challenges.
These reports followed Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) Director-General Mike Burgess’s warning that foreign spy agencies are intensifying efforts to infiltrate AUKUS through job applications and online networks.
The tactics involve posting fake recruitment ads on social platforms like LinkedIn, and then trying to lure the applicants with a defense background to provide insider information on project timelines and technology specifications.
These fake recruitment ads target people associated with the AUKUS project and sometimes prompt them to unwittingly share sensitive details about the project’s timelines during the interview process.
The tactics involve posting fake recruitment ads on social platforms like LinkedIn, and then trying to lure the applicants with a defense background to provide insider information on project timelines and technology specifications.
These fake recruitment ads target people associated with the AUKUS project and sometimes prompt them to unwittingly share sensitive details about the project’s timelines during the interview process…………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.eurasiantimes.com/australia-flags-indians-over-368-billion-nuclear-submarine/
ABC News advances its alliance with Murdoch’s Sky News
By Alan Austin | 17 November 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/abc-news-advances-its-alliance-with-murdochs-sky-news,20385
Recent programs have confirmed ABC News is increasingly under the control of pro-Coalition activists, as Alan Austin reports.
IN A SHAMEFUL display of partisan politicking for Australia’s discredited Coalition parties, ABC News devoted almost the entire Insiders program on 9 November to the Liberals and the Nationals.
This had no relevance whatsoever for viewers. Over the next ten years, the Federal Coalition will have less impact on citizens’ lives than the Australian Jugger League, the Yowie Research group and Ferret Owners Australia Inc.
Irrelevance of the Federal Liberal Party
After the May Election, the Coalition held 43 seats in the 150-member Lower House. Should the next election see a 3.9% swing back to the Coalition – same as the recent swing against them – they would gain only 14 seats and end up with 57 MPs, still a dismal minority.
So Labor will get a third term in 2028, or earlier, with a majority strong enough to propel it into a fourth in 2031 and probably a fifth in 2034
This is not fanciful. With polls showing Labor leading the Coalition 56% to 44% in its fourth year in office, it is virtually certain Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will serve as Prime Minister longer than Bob Hawke’s nine years, and likely exceed John Howard’s 11 years and nine months.
While it is improbable Albo will beat Bob Menzies’ 16 years in the top job, it is conceivable Labor could break the Coalition’s record 23-year reign. Records are made to be broken.
Insiders copies the Sky News obsession with the Coalition
A bizarre Insiders program on Sunday 9 November devoted all but nine of its 59 minutes to the Coalition parties and their brawling over climate, abortion and leadership.
Contributing Coalition MPs included Opposition Leader Sussan Ley (eight times), Senator Sarah Henderson (five times), Shadow Defence Minister Angus Taylor (three times), MP Tony Pasin (twice), MP Andrew Hastie (twice) and nine others.
Coalition figures discussed included Robert Menzies, Tony Abbott, Peter Dutton, Nick Minchin, Pru Goward, Matt Canavan, Michael Sukkar, Roshena Campbell and James Paterson. The last-named of these will be as helpful over the next three terms as the first.
The featured interview was with Liberal Shadow Housing Minister, Senator Andrew Bragg, who was gifted 15 minutes of mostly softball questions.
Several comments openly spruiked the Liberal Party.
In the segment critiquing Andrew Hastie’s foolish comments on abortion, Patricia Karvelas noted:
“Andrew Hastie sees himself as a future leader. He has many good attributes, to be honest. He has lots of strengths.”
Karvelas also boosted Roshena Campbell:
“…who was on my show on Friday and contributed really interestingly, I think, to this debate and still has an appetite to go into politics at the federal level.”
The program allotted three minutes to Labor’s housing policy, with a 13-second clip from Housing Minister Clare O’Neil and three minutes on the economy. Mentions were made of a transferring ABC colleague and Graeme Richardson’s death.
Contributions from Labor MPs were seven seconds from Albo in Parliament, four seconds from Energy Minister Chris Bowen, ten seconds from Treasurer Jim Chalmers and two short comments from Clare O’Neil.
No time was allocated to anyone who, besides Labor, will actually influence parliamentary decisions in the foreseeable future — the Greens, who hold 11 Senate seats, One Nation with four senators and the six individual minor party or Independent senators.
This Insiders episode is not an isolated aberration. Other programs obsessing over the loser Liberals include 7.30, Radio National Breakfast, ABC AM and others.
Embracing the malice of Murdoch’s malevolent network
Kim Williams’ appointment as ABC Chair in March 2024 – after many years serving Rupert Murdoch – has disappointed those who hoped he would arrest the shift towards the Murdoch model of falsifying information and boosting right-wing political causes.
Other senior ABC News staff recently recruited from News Corp include Olivia Caisley, Clare Armstrong, Fiona Willan and Ben Butler.
Insiders programs this year have prominently featured former News Corp employees Patricia Karvelas, David Speers, Clare Armstrong and Niki Savva, as well as current staff Samantha Maiden and Greg Sheridan.
The 9 November Insiders actually played a clip direct from Sky News – with a free plug – of Shadow Energy Minister Dan Tehan extolling the gas extraction industry, one of the Liberal Party’s big donors.
There is no excuse for this. There is abundant evidence from court cases, Press Council adjudications, parliamentary inquiries, academic research, admissions from former employees and defamation settlements that distorting the news and fabricating “stories” is News Corp’s core business model.
Other ABC departments complicit
An email sent to the ABC’s mailing list last Tuesday from a unit called ‘ABC Yours’ asked for donations based on false claims.
It read:
‘Across Australia, the demand for food relief is surging, with 77% of charities reporting more people are seeking support than ever before.’
Yes, some citizens still need free food, particularly those with chronic drug dependency, severe mental health issues or who have decided to disassociate from government services. The numbers, however, are now at the lowest as a percentage of the population than ever, as shown by the Productivity Commission, the Bureau of Statistics and other agencies.
Do the food banks report strong demand? Of course. Everyone loves free meals, regardless of wealth or income.
IA asked the ABC’s media department which charities were surveyed and on what analysis the poverty claims were made, but received no substantial response.
Unfortunately, falsifying hardship in Australia to discredit Labor is a persistent ABC failing, as exposed here, here and here.
Let’s hope the national broadcaster shifts its focus henceforward to more relevant issues than the Coalition — like ferrets, yowies and the nation’s magnificent pompfen champions.
‘Inadequate’: Audit call on $368bn AUKUS cost estimate.
COMMENT. Even the Australian is being critical of AUKUS.
They don’t mention that the $368 billion doesn’t cover a high level nuclear waste dump and associated transport, or upgrades needed for the LeFevre peninsula to host a sub building facility at Osborne.
Some of Australia’s top naval experts have cast doubt on the government’s $368bn AUKUS price tag, warning that the cost will be ‘significantly more’.
Ben Packham The Australian 17.11.25
Some of Australia’s top naval experts have cast doubt on the government’s $368bn AUKUS price tag, saying the program to acquire two classes of nuclear-powered submarines will cost “significantly more” than originally thought, with higher upfront outlays.
UNSW Canberra’s naval studies group has called for an urgent and comprehensive audit of AUKUS costs “to provide a realistic financial baseline” for the program, which is already cannibalising the wider defence budget.
Labor argues it can fund the program without a major increase in defence funding beyond its currently planned outlays, which are set to rise from about 2 per cent of GDP to 2.33 per cent by 2033-34.
UNSW Canberra’s new Maritime Strategy for Australia warns the proposed expenditure “will likely be inadequate” to deliver on the government’s naval ambitions. “This is already evidenced by cuts to lower priority projects and sustainment,” the strategy says.
It argues the AUKUS ‘Pillar I’ submarine program “was not comprehensively costed at the outset and its full demand on the Defence budget is still to be fully quantified”.
The paper says a substantial increase to defence funding will be needed, urging the government to “conduct a comprehensive, independently verified costing of AUKUS Pillar I as a matter of urgency to allow for re-baselining of Defence financial requirements and recalculation of required overall Defence funding”.
The strategy also sounds the alarm over the navy’s “long-neglected” mine countermeasures and undersea mapping capabilities, saying they pose “a critical gap that must be regenerated to guarantee maritime access to ports and littoral (coastal) waters”.
It comes amid a Defence-wide cost-cutting drive, revealed by The Australian, that has forced service chiefs to slash sustainment budgets, reduce “rates of effort”, and look at axing some capabilities.
Former RSL president Greg Melick took aim at the funding issue last week, using his Remembrance Day speech to warn hat the nation’s military preparedness was being undermined. The speech earned him a rebuke from Paul Keating, who branded him a “dope” and accused him of seeking a war with China.
But retired Vice-Admiral Peter Jones endorsed Major General Melick’s warning, saying the stretched defence budget was “the elephant in the room at the moment”.
Admiral Jones, the lead author of the maritime strategy and head of the Australian Naval Institute, told The Australian: “It appears the cost (of AUKUS) is significantly more than what was originally thought, including greater upfront costs before submarine construction.”
The paper comes as the government finalises its updated defence strategy and capability investment program, both of which will be released ahead of next year’s federal budget.
Labor announced a $12bn upgrade to Western Australia’s shipbuilding precinct in recent weeks as a downpayment on AUKUS infrastructure in the state, which is likely to cost more than twice that figure.
Workforce costs are also soaring as hundreds of Australian sailors take up training places on US and British submarines, and Australian tradespeople are deployed to shipyards in both countries to gain experience building nuclear boats.
Defence Minister Richard Marles revealed the government’s $368bn AUKUS cost estimate two years ago when he announced the program’s “optimal pathway” to obtain three to five Virginia-class submarines from the US and a new class of AUKUS submarines to be built in Adelaide. He said this was equivalent to about “0.15 per cent of GDP for the life of the program”.
The Australian asked the minister’s office how the figure was arrived at, whether it had any statistical measure of its likely accuracy, and whether it would seek an independent assessment of the program’s cost. It declined to respond to all three questions.
A spokeswoman for Mr Marles instead issued a boilerplate statement repeating the government’s case for acquiring nuclear submarines.
“The acquisition of conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines for the Australian Defence Force is a multi-decade opportunity, representing the single biggest capability acquisition in our nation’s history and creating around 20,000 direct jobs over the next 30 years,” she said.
“Working with our AUKUS partners, Australia is not just acquiring world-leading submarine technology but building a new sovereign production line, supply chain and sustainment capability here in Australia. This includes growing the capabilities, capacity and resilience of business – particularly small and medium-sized enterprises.
What Australia can learn from China to become the world’s ‘cleaner’ rare earth refiner.
“People don’t quite grasp how much waste we’re talking about.”……………………… cases of cancers, arsenic poisoning and birth and joint deformities linked to years of unregulated dumping.
By Libby Hogan and Xiaoning Mo, Sat 15 Nov, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-15/australia-refining-rare-earths-environmental-challenges/105969994?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other
Australia holds a plethora of rare earths — minerals essential for all sorts of cutting-edge technologies from wind turbines to hypersonic missiles.
Until now, most of them have been sent to be refined in China.
That is largely because the process is dirty, expensive, and politically unpopular.
But after last month signing a $13 billion critical minerals deal with the United States to boost production and refining, Australia must deal with some significant environmental challenges — mostly around water.
Marjorie Valix, a professor of chemical engineering at the University of Sydney, who researches sustainable mineral processing, said Australia has plenty of opportunity — and responsibility — in this space.
“Rare earths aren’t rare in Australia — especially light rare earths,” said Professor Valix.
“But water is one of the vulnerabilities.”
The bottleneck
When researcher Jane Klinger first visited China’s Bayan Obo mine at Baotou in Inner Mongolia — the world’s largest rare-earth operation — more than a decade ago, she expected to see the future of green technology.
What she found instead was a cautionary tale: acidic wastewater and radioactive residue in unlined ponds along with contaminated rivers and farmland.
“The stuff we want is typically a very small percentage of what’s dug up,” Professor Klinger, author of Rare Earth Frontiers, told the ABC.
“And then there’s the waste that’s generated to separate the valuable bits from the rest of the rock.
“People don’t quite grasp how much waste we’re talking about.”
For every tonne of rare-earth oxide produced, roughly 2,000 tonnes of acidic wastewater are left behind.
It was a local taxi driver, pointing to a new hospital built to treat bone disorders, who tipped her off to what was unfolding around Baotou.
She discovered cases of cancers, arsenic poisoning and birth and joint deformities linked to years of unregulated dumping.
Australian National University professor of economic geology John Mavrogenes said the Chinese companies were mining by drilling and pouring chemicals into the holes.
“They found it was so bad environmentally that even China decided maybe they should quit,” he said.
The health and environmental impacts were so severe Beijing has since tightened regulations and cleaned up some sites.
It has also shifted much of its most-polluting refining methods to neighbouring Myanmar.
In Jiangxi province, China’s other main rare earth mining hub in the south, more than 100 mine sites have been shut down in the past decade and converted into parks, according to local media.
Learning from China’s mistakes
Experts insist Australia can do better.
The Donald Rare Earth and Mineral Sands mine in western Victoria — which was given major projects status last month — will use a method that uses fewer chemicals than hard-rock mining to extract rare earths.
Once operational, the site is expected to become the fourth-largest rare earth mine in the world outside China.
The company behind the project, Astron, plans to rehabilitate the land and send its rare-earth concentrate to Utah for further processing, where uranium will also be recovered.
Victoria bans uranium mining outright, but the US intends to use the by-product as fuel for nuclear power plants.
Professor Klinger said one of the most impactful lessons from what she found in China was simple.
“Don’t dump this stuff in tailings ponds without liners,” she said.
“Don’t contaminate groundwater, but also pay attention to ‘who’ is doing the modelling and monitoring.”
When the Donald mine starts production next year, processing is to take place in enclosed sheds, with waste sealed into containers and shipped off-site.
But Australia has not always had a spotless record: past projects such as fracking in the Northern Territory and old coal mines show how environmental oversight can fail.
The water dilemma
China dominates the separation and refining of rare earths, controlling over 90 per cent of global production.
In Western Australia, Iluka Resources is building Australia’s first rare earths refinery.
The process — crushing rock, separating minerals, and neutralising the waste — requires vast amounts of water.
Iluka’s refinery will consume just under 1 gigalitre of groundwater per year.
Iluka head of rare earths Dan McGrath told the ABC the refinery would operate as a zero liquid discharge facility.
“Our design avoids generating liquid waste altogether, and the reagents we use create a saleable fertiliser by-product instead of requiring disposal.
“All remaining solids will be disposed of in existing mine voids, removing the need for new waste containment facilities or above-ground disposal facilities.”
Professor Mavrogenes said water scarcity was already shaping where new mining projects could go ahead.
“Water is an issue because most ores are located in areas that don’t have enough water,” he said.
The Iluka refinery will produce both light and heavy rare earth oxides used in advanced manufacturing of items, including medical devices and defence weaponry.
A wastewater treatment plant will form part of the facilities, but the plan has drawn criticism amid ongoing water shortages.
In Victoria, Astron has secured water entitlement from Grampians Wimmera Mallee Water.
Geologists including Professor Mavrogenes have warned that a secure water supply and planning needed to account for climate change.
“Flooding can shut down processing, especially with heap leaching,” he pointed out.
Heap leaching is where a chemical solution is trickled through a heap of crushed ore, often in a pond, to dissolve the metals.
Other environmental concerns once shadowed Lynas Rare Earths, Australia’s largest producer of rare earths, which ships semi-processed concentrate to Malaysia for refining.
The company initially faced local protests over low-level radioactive waste.
Kuan Seng How, assistant professor in Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman’s Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, said Lynas had since built a permanent, sealed facility to prevent groundwater seepage — an expensive but necessary fix.
Together, Iluka’s new refinery and Lynas’ remediation effort illustrate the same lesson: refining is not just an engineering problem but a resource-management one.
A cleaner frontier
China now lines its wastewater ponds with bentonite clay to reduce leakage and collects some run-off for reuse.
Yet even those measures have not stopped some seepage leaking outward, according to a recent article published in the Chinese journal Modern Mining.
Industry and researchers are now exploring waterless extraction technologies such as solvolysis — a process that uses chemical solvents instead of water to extract rare earths.
“It can leach and separate the metals in one step,” Professor Valix said.
“But it hasn’t been scaled up yet — and right now it’s more expensive.”
She sees water management as the defining test of Australia’s ambitions.
Her colleague Susan Park from the University of Sydney added that as countries raced to upgrade rare earth processing, Australia must invest more in knowledge.
“One of the issues is the absence of long-term research and development into these technological processes and training people,” she said.
China may already be a step ahead, testing new techniques on a large scale.
In January, the Chinese Academy of Sciences claimed a breakthrough: an electrokinetic extraction technique that slashes the use of leaching agents by 80 per cent, mining time by 70 per cent and energy consumption by 60 per cent.
According to the scientists who revealed the development in the journal Nature Sustainability, the method could soon be viable for large-scale production.
For Australia, Professor Valix said the barrier was not capability but commitment.
“It’s not that we don’t have the technology,” she said.
“What we don’t have is the investment and the uptake market here like battery makers or manufacturers.”
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 