Today In Dystopia: Burning Books For Israel, Burning Books For AI
Caitlin Johnstone, Aug 20, 2026
I’ve been putting out more and more of these “today in dystopia” write-ups because our society is plunging into iron-fisted authoritarianism and AI-induced idiocracy so rapidly that it’s hard to keep up with how it’s unfolding day by day without shoveling multiple stories into a single essay.
Today in dystopia they’re really going after books. A library in Sydney has removed the book “How to Sell a Genocide” by Adam Johnson from its shelves after Zionists complained about its criticisms of Israeli mass atrocities in Gaza.
The Guardian reports:
“A Sydney library has removed a book critical of Israel called How to Sell a Genocide, following a complaint reportedly from a survivor of the Bondi beach terror attack.
“Waverley library at Bondi Junction is in the same council area as Bondi beach.
“A Waverley council spokesperson said: “The book has been removed from library shelves for review, and council will further consider processes to ensure closer oversight of book selection.”
“They seem to be objecting largely based on the title using the word ‘genocide’,” Johnson commented. “But ‘genocide’ is not my word, or my finding. The fact of genocide in Gaza is the overwhelming consensus of the human rights world, and it is a wholly mainstream opinion among those tasked with studying and determining such matters.”
So in Australia they’re now banning books for Israel. I guess it was only a matter of time.
Also today in dystopia, Amazon is buying and destroying rare books in a secret facility to train AI.
404 Media has been doing some great reporting on how companies like Google and Anthropic have been buying up rare and out-of-print books to train their LLM models before destroying them, and now 404 has a new article out describing how its reporters placed a tracking device on a shipment of books and followed it to an Amazon warehouse where the books are being scanned and shredded.
Here’s an excerpt:
“That final destination was an Amazon warehouse in Las Vegas, Nevada. Amazon employees who work at this location say all they do is receive massive shipments of printed books which they then cut the bindings off in order to scan the books more quickly. The printed book is destroyed in the process. The logo of the Amazon team that works at this warehouse, called VGT3, is a dinosaur, brandishing its teeth and with a book in its hands.”
That’s right: the logo for Amazon’s book-destroying location is an angry tyrannosaurus preparing to rip apart a book…………………………………
Today in dystopia, the Israeli government is working harder and harder to manipulate the information AI chatbots feed their users about Israel and its myriad military projects in the middle east.
Politico reports:
“Israel has launched a new campaign to influence how large-language models like ChatGPT are answering questions about Gaza and the Israel Defense Forces amid declining public support for the country across the U.S. political spectrum.
“French PR firm Havas Media, which runs the lion’s share of Israel’s FARA-registered foreign influence work in the U.S., appears to have stood up an ‘institute’ aimed at feeding LLMs positive information about Israel via one of its subcontractors, boutique ad agency Piro, Inc.”
This builds on previous reporting from Drop Site News about FARA revelations showing that former Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale secured a lucrative deal with Israel to set up dummy pro-Israel websites designed to be read not by humans, but by the web crawlers that LLMs get their information from. Drop Site found that Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, and Perplexity were the AI companies most vulnerable to Parscale’s manipulations.
Today in dystopia it’s becoming more and more common for online commenters to accuse me of using AI to write my essays, which I have never done and will never do.
I hate that this is a thing now. I’ve been writing essays every day for a decade, and nobody who’s been reading me for a long time believes I use AI. But now that so many people are using these creepy chatbots to do everything for them, people believe it’s impossible for a human brain to produce a few paragraphs of text.
I don’t mind the accusations, I just hate what it says about where we’re heading as a species. These things have only existed for a few years, but some people are already forgetting what it was like to be able to use your own mind to complete simple cognitive tasks. I find it deeply disturbing.https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/today-in-dystopia-burning-books-for?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=211937785&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Renewables, nuclear, gas? Data centre boom energises political debate
ABC, By political reporter Lexie Jeuniewic, 29 Jul 2026
New AI data centres in Australia will be required to deliver “at least as much energy” into the grid as they take out under mandatory rules under the government’s blueprint for AI regulation.
And as the race to attract the power-hungry warehouses accelerates, political debate about how to generate the energy to feed them is intensifying.
There are about 160 operational data centres across the nation, but that number is expected to balloon to accommodate the rise of AI.
During a major speech on AI earlier this month, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the government wanted the next generation of data centres to build “new renewable generation and firming” to strengthen the nation’s energy resilience.
The government is pursuing batteries, pumped hydro, and gas as firming energy technology, which is used to stabilise the grid when renewables such as solar and wind are unavailable.
But the Coalition says a moratorium on nuclear power is deterring investment in Australia.
Under the government’s proposed mandatory standards, new data centres will be required to underwrite new power supply, minimise water use, and maximise energy efficiency.
It is understood the government will use a yet-to-be-determined energy threshold to decide which future data centres are captured by the mandatory standards.
The plan has already hit a snag, with Queensland and the Northern Territory signalling yesterday they will not back national standards requiring facilities pursue renewable power.
Not all data centres are created equal’
Data centres that support AI technology typically have greater energy and space requirements than traditional data centres used to store and process information, and according to recent analysis from McKinsey and Company, will account for 70 per cent of data centre demand from 2025–2030.
The prospect of large-scale facilities cropping up in Australia’s cities and regional areas has sparked community concern, especially around higher power prices and potentially harmful impacts on the environment.
But the government says an influx of data centre applications means Australia can be selective.
Assistant Minister for Technology Andrew Charlton said the government was receiving more applications than Australia could build, creating an opportunity to prioritise projects.
“Not all data centres are created equal,” Mr Charlton told the ABC.
“Better data centres are the ones that bring their own clean energy, that use water responsibly, that contribute positively to their community.
“Worse data centres are the ones that plug into our grid, drink our water and push up bills.”
The proposed rules for large data centres will build on a set of non-binding “expectations” released by the government earlier this year.
The expectations state that facilities should “not place upward pressure on energy prices”, make a “positive contribution” to the nation’s energy transition, and work in coordination with energy regulators and suppliers.
The CEO of Data Centres Australia, Belinda Dennett, said operational data centres in Australia were already offsetting 70 per cent of their energy use with renewable energy projects, but there was still a reliance on diesel for back-up power.
“Data centre operators and their customers currently underwrite new, renewable energy generation and firming, and pay their way on energy and water infrastructure,” Ms Dennett said……………………………………………………………………………….
Coalition MPs push for nuclear-powered data centres
Shadow Energy and Emissions Reduction Minister Dan Tehan has argued the government’s proposed standards for data centres are too restrictive.
“The problem is that the government has said that pretty much it’s wind and solar as the only two forms of renewable energy that data centres can use,” Mr Tehan told the ABC.
Ahead of releasing the Coalition’s revitalised energy policy, Mr Tehan has said that all options should be on the table to power future data centres, including nuclear energy.
“When [companies] look to invest in Australia, they are deterred by our moratorium preventing them from powering their centres through nuclear,” Mr Tehan said in a statement.
Mr Tehan said that US companies such as Google and Amazon were investing in “their own zero emissions nuclear power to power data centres”.
According to the International Energy Agency [IEA], nuclear energy plays a supporting part in powering the world’s biggest data centre markets: the United States and China.
The autonomous intergovernmental organisation expects nuclear power’s role to grow from 2030, when it is expected that more small modular reactors [SMRs] come online.
Google, for example, signed a landmark deal in 2024 with Kairos Power to buy energy from several SMRs to help support the tech giant’s AI infrastructure.
The first of the reactors is expected to come online by 2030.
Nationals Deputy Leader Darren Chester, whose electorate of Gippsland in Victoria is experiencing significant data centre investment, said he believed that it was “inevitable” that Australian-based facilities would be powered by nuclear energy to some degree in the future.
Mr Chester said “large-scale” nuclear reactors were “proven technology”, but he would be open to other options in the years to come, such as SMRs.
“Removing the moratorium on nuclear [energy] is a sensible thing to do,” Mr Chester said.
Shadow Infrastructure and Sovereign Capability Minister, Andrew Hastie, said it was not feasible for AI data centres to be powered solely off renewables.
“There needs to be a mix of base load power, and nuclear should be part of that mix,” Mr Hastie said in a statement.
The Coalition’s nuclear energy aspirations for Australia suffered a significant blow in its election drubbing in 2025.
An internal review found the opposition’s election campaign was perceived as “incoherent,” and acknowledged the Coalition’s plan for nuclear was among policies widely criticised as “politically mistimed or alienating”.
At the core of the policy was a plan to build seven nuclear power sites, but the party did not specify whether large-scale reactors, small modular reactors [SMRs], or a combination of both, would be used.
National science agency CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator [AEMO]’s latest GenCost report showed introducing nuclear power to Australia would attract significant up-front costs.
“New large-scale nuclear costs are significantly lower than nuclear SMR, but both represent moderate-to high-cost sources of electricity generation,” the report stated.
Nuclear power generation has been banned in Australia under federal laws since the late 1990s.
States and territories also have legislation prohibiting nuclear energy production, with some jurisdictions also restricting certain nuclear-energy-related activities, such as uranium mining.
Labor is emphatically opposed to lifting the moratorium on nuclear energy in Australia.
Energy Minister Chris Bowen recently told Sky: “Nuclear is not an answer for Australia any time.”
Instead, the government is focusing on transitioning to renewable energy, specifically solar and wind energy backed up by hydro storage and gas, with a goal of having 82 per cent of electricity generated by renewables by 2030…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Greens urge pause as AI race accelerates
Beyond the obvious, at least initial, financial benefits, the Labor government also sees attracting AI data centres as a key to building sovereign capability.
“Not just adopting or accommodating AI. Designing it, making it, building the capability right here … building our sovereignty — and our economic resilience as a result,” Mr Albanese said.
As the prime minister urged haste on AI, the Greens have called for a moratorium on data centre approvals until mandatory standards are implemented, saying the government must take its time to get the right policy settings in place.
“With more than 90 data centres already in the pipeline, we cannot allow a free-for-all in the meantime,” Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young said in a statement.
The federal government says it will legislate the new mandatory regulations early next year. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-07-29/data-center-boom-powers-up-political-energy-debate/106929726
Australian Political Futures: AUKUS and National Sovereignty
17 August 2026 Denis Bright, https://theaimn.net/australian-political-futures-aukus-and-national-sovereignty/
As the fifth anniversary of the AUKUS commitment by the Morrison Government approaches, investigative media reports must not overlook the murky background, confusing present and unknown strategic projections of being so entangled with the US Global Alliance. Australia’s social and essential service spending options are totally compromised by the direct financial burdens of AUKUS and its effects on security protocols for future investment in the domestic economy with China as Australia’s key trading partner.
In an article for The AIMN last year I expressed concerns about the new imperial role that had been assigned to Australia within the US Global Alliance by the AUKUS deal announced by the Morrison Government in 2021.
Foreign affairs journalist Ben Packham of The Australian continues to chip away with more revelations of these secret AUKUS protocols. A vastly different and morcontracts. A fleet of twelve conventional submarines would now be operational at a fraction of the cost of AUKUS to offer Australians a higher level of national sovereignty in operational commitments with a focus on regional operations over extended manoeuvres in troubled waters to distant parts of Asia and Micronesia.
The long-term costs of AUKUS extends into our domestic economy. More controls on Chinese investment are being maintained in the new AI era while the Trump administration cultivates new commercial ties with China as covered in dozens of YouTube videos.e open strategic future could have prevailed through a continuation of the French submarine Here is but one example: [on original]
As the AUKUS delivery mechanisms move on, the AUKUS Inquiry under the direction of its Commissioners has new relevance:
The online AUKUS Inquiry site has been developed to facilitate submissions.
In my own submission to the AUKUS Inquiry, I emphasized that the outrageous spending on AUKUS added to regional security problems in the Indo Pacific Basin as a commitment to Forward Defiance priorities on behalf of the US Global Alliance including sabre-rattling over the status of Taiwan.
Ironically, Australia is more committed to closer strategic and economic ties with the prevailing US administration than the absolute loyalty offered by the post -1945 governments of other Middle Powers like Italy. Some remnants of these Cold War commitments remain.
Ben Packham’s recent news article in The Australian (7 August 2026) mentioned the NSA Navy Base in Naples (From the US Navy):
Naples 18 June 2026: U.S. Naval Support Activity Naples, Italy is a host to more than 50 separate commands and approximately 8,500 personnel. NSA Naples is located approximately 60 miles (96 kilometers) south from the city of Gaeta and 145 miles (235 kilometers) from Rome.
The U.S. Naval Support Activity (NSA) Naples Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) program hosted a garden party onboard Carney Park, June 11 to showcase extensive park renovations, cabin upgrades, and quality-of-life improvements.
This US social outreach to Italians is commonplace at other military bases in Italy with patriotic themes and displays of conventional weaponry. The Gioia del Colle Base near Bari once hosted Jupiter Nuclear Armed Missiles which were withdrawn by agreement with the Soviet Union in negotiations to end the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
At the Joint US-Italian Base near Livorno and Pisa, military and civilian leaders met to celebrate the U.S. Army’s 251st anniversary celebration at Camp Darby, Italy, on 10 June 2026. Such joint operations extend beyond social events and nostalgic ceremonies.
Italy continues to welcome the presence of US bases and submarine visits to locations shown on the strategic map [on original]. However, more controls are being imposed by Italian governments over the use of these bases for offensive operations .
The strength of the industrial Labor Movement across Australia during the Cold War era kept US bases away from Australia as a commitment from both sides of politics until the 1960s. However, agreement was reached by the LNP on the establishment of the NW Cape Communication Station in 1963 and Pine Gap Joint defiance Facility followed in 1966 as ties with the US Global Alliance intensified during the Vietnam war era.
In opposition and government after 1975, the Labor Party moved in more pragmatic policy directions in relation Australia’s national sovereignty within the US Global Alliance.
The ANZUS Agreement which was given bipartisan support in 1951-52. The text of this agreement is readily available online. Commitments to the use of the Security Council to avoid armed conflicts were a key priority of the ANZUS text. Joint military operations as currently favoured by the Trump administrations were always a last resort. Threats of tariffs, purchases of territory from prospective rivals and military occupations had no place in the agendas of representative governments in traditional ANZUS protocols.
Such strategic alliances with budgets in the trillions annually do not give the US President a right to harass the leaders of Middle Power States within the US Global Alliances (Riccardo Alcaro of The Guardian 1 July 2026):
If Giorgia Meloni thought that she could put her April spat with Donald Trump over the pope’s criticism of the US war on Iran behind her, she had not banked on the US president’s capacity to bear a grudge.
Trump reignited tensions by telling an Italian TV journalist that the Italian PM had “begged” him for a picture at the recent G7 meeting in France. The Spanish newspaper El País suggested that Trump’s feathers had been ruffled by a video at the same meeting, showing Meloni appearing to scold him. In any case he doubled down on his tale in a Truth Social post, adding that Meloni wanted the photo to boost her flagging approval ratings, which he blamed on her failure to support the US in the Iran war.
Trump’s line of attack is hardly surprising, but Meloni’s forceful response is. In a social media video, she said Trump’s claim about the picture was “made up”. She expressed puzzlement at the US president apparently treating his allies worse than his adversaries. Fusing personal and national pride in a single retort, she concluded: “I do not beg, nor does Italy.”
What a top secret navy officer case says about the The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) and Defence’s ‘cosy’ relationship
Defence initially referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) a case involving a former ‘star-ranked’ navy officer. The NACC chose to send it back to Defence to investigate itself instead — and not for the first time.
Michelle Fahy, Aug 16, 2026, https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/what-a-top-secret-navy-officer-case?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=211342821&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
A former “star-ranked” officer of the Royal Australian Navy is facing a court-martial in September on eight charges relating to reported “lucrative defence contracts” for sustainment work at the Henderson shipyard near Perth, which the government has invested $12 billion in to prepare for AUKUS purposes.
The ADF’s chief judge advocate, Major General Michael Cowen KC, is hearing the case and has suppressed all details thus far, including the identity of the accused former officer.
Several elements of the case have drawn attention from defence commentators, who have argued that it appears as if Defence leadership and ministers are trying to “bury” the case from public view, and that the case should take place in an open civil court.
But a key point of interest is the fact that the National Anti-Corruption Commission, after initially being referred the matter by Defence, as required by law, chose to hand the case back.
This means Defence is overseeing its own investigation into the matter.
It’s not the first time this has happened
The NACC has a history of handling certain cases like this.
In mid-2024, the national audit office found that a Defence official had given French weapons maker Thales confidential information during a protracted negotiation process. The official subsequently took a position with Thales, just before the company was awarded a 10-year, $1.2 billion contract to manage two Commonwealth-owned munitions facilities.
When Defence referred that matter to the NACC, the watchdog sent the case back to the department to investigate. Minister for Defence Industry Pat Conroy later claimed the department had “thoroughly investigated” the Thales matter and found “no evidence to substantiate the allegation”.
But as former Australian Federal Police investigator Chris Douglas said at the time, Conroy was wrong to make this claim.
Douglas, who worked for the AFP for 31 years in intelligence and operational units before going on to advise domestic and foreign governments on the design and implementation of anti-corruption programs, said Defence cannot effectively investigate allegations that could involve corruption.
A “thorough” investigation can only be undertaken by a law enforcement agency, particularly the NACC, “using a full suite of investigation powers including electronic evidence gathering.”
“There might be evidence at the person’s home, Defence isn’t going to find that, or in premises occupied by Thales, Defence won’t find that either. That is why we have a NACC.”
The NACC also did not appear to have placed sufficient weight on the seriousness of the matter, particularly as Thales is linked to several international corruption matters, operates in one of the most corrupt industries in the world, and currently manages Australian government contracts worth billions of dollars.
Douglas added that if Thales were an individual, “based on its past behaviour it would not be given a security clearance and therefore no employment”.
‘They should have been investigated’
Talking with Crikey, Douglas said the NACC’s decision to send the naval contracts case back to Defence for investigation provides further indication that “it lacks an understanding of how to approach serious corruption matters”.
While there are valid reasons for a department to be asked to conduct preliminary investigations into minor matters, Douglas said the case involving the former Navy officer is not minor.
“They should have been investigated thoroughly by the NACC. Defence does not have the power to tap telephones, install listening devices or compel witnesses to speak.”
Senator David Shoebridge, Greens spokesperson on Defence and Justice, agrees.
“It is now a pattern of behaviour where the NACC, which is meant to be the independent watchdog that takes on corruption, has handballed its responsibility back to the institution at fault,” he told Crikey.
Douglas also criticised the court-martial process, noting that police officers do not sit on judicial panels overlooking other police. “You wouldn’t have a corrupt cop who’s been taking money from outside being adjudicated by police only; those matters go to a civil criminal court.”
In contrast to the secrecy being imposed by Defence, the former AFP investigator supplied several examples in which the names of senior law enforcement officers have been made public regarding serious offences. These included former assistant WA police commissioner Gailene Hamilton, who was stood down from the WA police force in July last year. Her trial started in May.
Further bolstering the argument that the former navy officer’s case should be heard in a civil court is news that entities external to Defence also appear to be involved in the matter, with interactions to be examined between Defence’s former arms buying group — the Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group — and several large companies that completed sustainment at Henderson shipyard.
‘Cosy’ relationship between NACC and Defence
The NACC’s freedom of information disclosure log contains documents related to the abovementioned Thales matter of 2024. The six documents reveal emailed interactions between relevant personnel at the NACC and Defence, and show what Douglas has described as an apparently “cosy relationship” between the two.
Notably, the NACC notified Defence, from the outset, of the expected length of its investigation: four to six weeks.
Senior Elder petitions to halt rocket and military testing at Koonibba Test Range
Giovanni Torre, August 7, 2026, https://nit.com.au/06-08-2026/25800/senior-elder-petitions-to-halt-rocket-and-military-testing-at-koonibba-test-range
More than 1,300 people have thrown their support behind a Senior Elder’s petition urging federal Minister of Environment and Water, Murray Watt, to halt rocket and military testing by Southern Launch in South Australia.
Aunty Sue Coleman-Haseldine, the Senior Googatha Elder who started the petition, expressed grave concerns over the potential environmental and heritage impacts on the area.
“Southern Launch have been using my Country and Sacred sites as a test range for dangerous experimental launches without my consent, putting the delicate ecosystem and endangered animals at risk,” she said.
“I am worried for the animals with the fire hazard that these rockets cause and I am worried that my sacred sites will be destroyed by the falling debris.”
Southern Launch operates from Koonibba Test Range which covers 41,000 km squared of Yellabinna Regional Reserve and Yumbarra Conservation Park.
Both the reserve and the park are home to many endangered and threatened species such as the Golden Mole, Pink Cockatoo, Mallee Emu-Wren and Sand Hill Dunnart. It is also home to the only stunted mallee habitat in the world.
The petition calls for an immediate cessation of the company’s activities to protect the Yellabinna Regional Reserve and Yumbarra Conservation Park.
Aunty Sue said the company’ activities in the area are also putting her and her family at risk as they regularly make trips into the area to fulfil their cultural duties “caring for the land and many sacred sites that are out there”.
“They have launched multiple rockets now while I have been in the rocket range with full knowledge my safety was at risk,” she said.
Her petition states that Southern Launch rocket tests are “experimental and as result extremely dangerous especially in such a fire vulnerable environment”, noting that “earlier this year the park and reserve experienced the largest fire in decades devastating thousands of acres of land which will take over a century to recover”.
“The park and reserve will completely collapse if another fire happens,” the petition warns.
A federal government spokesperson told National Indigenous Times said any concerns about the site can be raised through formal avenues.
“Businesses have a responsibility to look after the land they operate on, and respect the history of that site,” they said.
“We take reports of cultural or environmental risk to sites and species seriously, and would encourage anyone with evidence of behaviour that breaches those regulations to submit it to the relevant authority.”
National Indigenous Times understands no formal applications have been received under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act or the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act in relation to the Koonibba Test Range.
The primary responsibility for the protection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage in South Australia rests with the State Government.
The Segal State: the office Australia never voted for
by Andrew Brown | Aug 9, 2026 , https://michaelwest.com.au/the-segal-state-the-office-australia-never-voted-for/
Jillian Segal holds power over what Australians may say, teach, report and believe. No election gave it to her. No Parliament ratified it. Nothing like her office has existed in the federation. Labor built it. The Coalition wants it bigger. Nobody asked you. Andrew Brown – The Segal State, Part One.
Remember the referendum in which Australians voted to create a Voice to Parliament for Israel?
You don’t. It never happened. We got one anyway.
In 2023, 60.06 per cent of Australians rejected a constitutionally recognised Voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. A body that could only make representations, only on matters concerning the people whose ancestors have been here sixty thousand years.
Too much, the No campaign shrieked. Division. Privilege. Special treatment.
Nine months later, Anthony Albanese handed Jillian Segal what the Voice never dreamed of asking for. Not a right to be heard. Power. No election. No parliamentary vote. No hearing. A three year commission reporting personally to the Prime Minister, with a mandate reaching into every campus, newsroom, classroom, gallery, charity, arts contract and visa file in the Commonwealth.
“Australia has never seen an office like this. Not once in 125 years.”
We have been here before and we said no. In 1951, Robert Menzies asked Australians for power to outlaw communism and police political belief. Even Menzies put it to a referendum, because a democracy does not seize control of ideas by fiat. A frightened people refused him.
That refusal became a founding settlement of this country. The state does not decide what citizens may think.
A captain’s call
Albanese tore up that settlement with a press release. No referendum. No bill. No debate. One man appointed one advocate, and the checkpoint went up.
An open society grants authority over its citizens three ways. Election. Appointment ratified by Parliament. Or a court, ruling in public, subject to appeal. Segal’s power arrived by none of them. The word for that is illegitimate. Not unlawful. Worse. Lawful, and
“authorised by nobody but one man”.
Do not look to the opposition for rescue. The Coalition demanded a national antisemitism crackdown before Labor delivered one, and its only complaint since is that the checkpoint is too small and the universities let off too lightly.
Resistance has come from the cross-bench alone. When both major parties agree on machinery this size, the voters have been deleted from the equation. Neither will ask whether Segal’s authority is legitimate, because both intend to use it. That is imposition.
“That is Australia in 2026.“
Say it plainly. Antisemitism is real. It is sometimes murderous. Jewish Australians deserve safety, delivered without mercy by police, courts and criminal law against anyone who menaces a synagogue or a schoolchild.
Safety does not require a private advocate enthroned above the speech of 27 million people. That is not protection. That is capture.
The wrong person, chosen on purpose
Segal ran the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. She chaired the Australia Israel Chamber of Commerce. Israel lobby groups.Advocacy for Israel is her right as a private citizen. It is also the precise reason no honest government would put her near an office ruling on the boundary between antisemitism and criticism of Israel. Albanese did not blunder into the conflict. He shopped for it.
Her selection sits buried under Freedom of Information redactions. Up to $16.9 million was approved for the Envoy offices. You were not asked. You were not told. You are paying her a reported $1,070 a day, and Home Affairs refuses to tell you her salary.
The machinery of a small authoritarian state
Jillian Segal produced a 20 page plan. Thirteen recommendations. Forty nine actions. And behind them, nothing. No published evidence base. No consultation paper. No regulatory impact statement.
Not one piece of credible research showing any of it would prevent a single antisemitic incident. For all the rigour on display, the plan might as well have been drafted at her Point Piper kitchen table. In December 2025 the Government swallowed it whole anyway, named it a program of work led by Segal, and pledged action on every recommendation, unquestioned.
Read the list and ask which country you are living in. Media monitoring. A university report card. Withholding university funding. Terminating academic grants. Stripping charities of their status. Screening visa applicants for their opinions. Ideological training for the public service. Cancellation clauses so arts grants can be ripped back from artists who say the wrong thing about the wrong state.The fig leaf is that Segal cannot personally cancel anything. Her office helps define the offence, grades the accused and recommends the sentence.
Ministers supply the muscle and the deniability. Prosecutor, judge and probation service in one unelected body, answerable only to the man who created it. Build this for any other subject and Australians would name it instantly.
A censorship ministry.
A rigged definition, wired into everything
At the centre sits the contested IHRA definition, whose own lead drafter has protested its use as an enforcement weapon. The ABC, SBS, Amnesty International and hundreds of scholars warn its Israel related examples can melt criticism of a state into hatred of a people. Segal bolts it into government regardless.From January 2027, universities must define antisemitism under an enforceable national standard. Then Segal’s report card marks whether the definition is appropriate, while her plan demands IHRA everywhere. Choice, the way a loan shark offers choice.
No vice chancellor will need to be ordered to censor.
“They will censor themselves in advance.“
That is only the architecture. Then Segal took an oath and showed what it is for.
And hold one question in your head overnight, the one polite Australia refuses to ask. Why does one form of racism summon a ministry, a report card and $130 million, while First Nations families waited thirty years and 590 deaths in custody for recommendations nobody implemented?
Why machinery for one hatred and a media release for the rest? You are not supposed to ask. Ask anyway.
Tomorrow, Part 2: the mask off under oath. The plan for your children. The $50,000 nobody will investigate. And the question answered.
Britain can’t provide us with nuclear submarines, says Malcolm Turnbull.
Speaking at an inquiry into the viability of the Aukus deal, the former
Australian prime minister said the agreement was ‘a colossal mistake’.
The former Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has called British
shipbuilding an “industry in disarray” and predicted it will produce
few, if any, of the nuclear-powered submarines promised under the Aukus
agreement in the foreseeable future.
Speaking at an independent inquiry
into the implications and viability of the tri-nation submarine deal, which
will cost Australia the equivalent of nearly £200 billion, the former
Liberal Party leader described the pact as “a colossal mistake”.
Times 10th Aug 2026, https://www.thetimes.com/world/australasia/article/australia-submarines-aukus-deal-malcolm-turnbull-jqc2x66hq
Why Renewables Win
Australia has one of the world’s fastest-moving electricity systems. It
leads the world in rooftop solar, has deployed grid-scale batteries at
extraordinary speed, and is now starting to replace its ageing coal fleet
with cleaner sources of energy. But as renewable costs rise and electricity
demand grows, can the transition remain affordable while maintaining a
reliable power system? This week on Cleaning Up, Michael Liebreich is
joined by Paul Simshauser, CEO of Iberdrola Australia, and one of
Australia’s leading energy economists. Drawing on decades of experience
across electricity markets, networks and policy, Paul explains what makes
Australia’s power system unique, and what the rest of the world can learn
from it.
Cleaning Up 10th Aug 2026 https://cleaninguppod.substack.com/p/why-renewables-win
Royal Commission into Antisemitism a “$131 Million Whinge”
by Andrew Brown | Aug 5, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/royal-commission-into-antisemitism-a-131-million-whinge/
“Australians are not being investigated for hating Jews. They are being investigated for objecting to a genocide.” Andrew Brown on the Royal Commission into Antisemitism.
Apparently antisemitism simply fell from the sky. Fully formed. Immaculately conceived. Entirely unrelated to anything happening in Gaza. That is the finding Australia has pre-purchased for $131.1 million, confirmed at Senate Estimates in February, with $91 million alone for staffing, property, lawyers and security.
“Every single dollar buys theatre.“
Measure the obscenity. The banking royal commission, which gutted an entire industry’s misconduct, cost $75 million. Aboriginal Deaths in Custody cost $50.2 million.
This inquiry outspends both combined. Meanwhile there is no royal commission into the domestic violence killing a woman most weeks, none into Islamophobia, now soaring. Australia found $131 million for the one inquiry designed never to ask an obvious question.
Blame where it belongs. Anthony Albanese wrote the answer into the question. His Letters Patent instruct the Commission to find the drivers of antisemitism in extremism and radicalisation, the war deleted from the terms of reference before Virginia Bell was even sworn in.
The Albanese government wrote the verdict into the terms of reference, then spent more than the banking royal commission to have a judge read it back. Here is what the money is buying.
Commissioning an alibi
Albanese promised the inquiry would deliver, in his own words, the right outcome. A Prime Minister announcing the right outcome in advance is commissioning an alibi.
This is the government that will gesture at recognising Palestine while refusing to utter the word genocide, that ships F35 components into the supply chain of the slaughter, that sanctions two Israeli ministers and calls it courage. It needed a grand national explanation for collapsing social cohesion that never once mentions its own complicity.
“For $131 million, it has bought one.“
The process delivered. In the first three days of hearings, 23 of 36 witnesses characterised criticism of Israel, opposition to Zionism or Palestine advocacy as antisemitic. Jewish organisations opposed to Zionism were refused leave to appear. Palestinian voices were excluded for lacking a direct and substantial interest.
The accused were barred from the courtroom so the prosecution could run unopposed at public expense.
The grievance parade
And the substance? A grievance parade.
The ABC and SBS hauled in to answer for Jillian Segal’s strong perception, her phrase, that their Gaza coverage lacks balance, then interrogated for declining the contested IHRA definition Bell waved through as uncontroversial.
Keffiyehs, flags, watermelon art, chants of Free Palestine, student encampments and fundraisers for maimed children tendered as exhibits of hate. Protest. Tents. Journalism. Every place an ordinary Australian expressed solidarity with a people being exterminated, recast at public expense as a crime scene. Australians are not being investigated for hating Jews.
“They are being investigated for objecting to a genocide.“
The complainants were welcomed like royalty. Alex Ryvchin of the ECAJ, who called the anti-Israel movement indistinguishable from neo-Nazism, testified at length while his silk objected to opposing counsel merely uttering the word genocide, a finding the International Court of Justice considered plausible back in January 2024.
Robert Gregory of the self-appointed Australian Jewish Association, which the ECAJ itself calls unrepresentative, told the Commission the government egged on antisemitism, fresh from blaming Bondi on visas for Palestinians fleeing the bombs.
Sky’s the limit
Sky News completes the circuit, wheeling Gregory out to demonise protesters, then feeding its own segments back into the panic as evidence.
The outcomes are as predetermined as the terms.
Come 14 December, expect IHRA stamped across the public service and pushed onto civil society, work Segal has begun. Expect ABC oversight its own ombudsman rejected. Expect protest reframed as policing, and regulators monitoring speech the way AHPRA already does, having admitted under oath it watches nurses and doctors for criticism of Israel after Segal’s pressure.
“Expect everything blamed but the war.“
And expect antisemitism not to fall, because you cannot cure what you refuse to diagnose. Every recommendation will manufacture the resentment it claims to fight, and Labor will call the wreckage cohesion.
For almost three years the world has watched a genocide live-streamed by a state claiming to act in the name of the Jewish people, while its Australian cheer squad defended, excused or denied every atrocity.
Now they ask why anger grows.
None of this excuses antisemitism. Not one word of it. The Bondi gunmen murdered Jews for being Jews, and the law should fall hard on every bigot who follows them. Fifteen dead Australians deserved a fearless inquiry. They got a pantomime, their graves deployed as a shield for a foreign state and the government that armed it.
The elephant is blocking the doorway and eating $131 million of paperwork, yet everyone keeps peering around it, declaring there is nothing to see.This Commission will not defeat antisemitism. It will deliver the most expensive whinge in Australian history, commissioned by a government purchasing its own absolution with public money.
The Advertiser (Adelaide) tries to be fair about AUKUS nuclear waste, but can’t quite make it.
Waste Storage Issue
Robyn Wood, 3 August 26
The Advertiser published my letter on AUKUS today, though they edited it to remove the cost of “tens of billions of dollars” and removed my sentence asking just what the government was trying to hide from us.
To answer David Harris’ suggestion on the eventual storage of high level waste at the end of AUKUS nuclear submarine life – (Stiring the waste – letters 30/7/26), Australia is definitely responsible for it, even nuclear waste generated by the U.S. in the second-hand subs we will supposedly get from them.
Eventually a deep geological nuclear waste facility would have to be built in Australia at a vast cost which has not been budgeted for.
The government is keeping its plans secret.
Former Senator Rex Patrick recently won a legal case to bring about release of government documents detailing potential AUKUS nuclear waste storage and disposal sites, which the government is currently appealing, in their wish to keep the plans from public view.
Royal Commission: lawyers spar over Gaza genocide, health regulator admits Segal pressure
by Stephanie Tran and Wendy Bacon | Jul 30, 2026 , https://michaelwest.com.au/royal-commission-lawyers-spar-over-gaza-genocide-health-regulator-admits-segal-pressure/
A heated exchange erupted at the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion on Wednesday after counsel for the Jewish Council of Australia, Kirsten Edwards SC, questioned Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) chief executive Justin Untersteiner about whether healthcare workers could face complaints for describing Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocide.
The exchange prompted strong objections from counsel for the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Michael Borsky KC, who argued the commission should not become
“a platform” for “false claims” about Israel.”
Edwards’ questioning centred on an example contained in the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism’s handbook, which AHPRA adopted alongside the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition in June.
One reading of the analysis provided of this example is that describing or using the words genocide, apartheid, or ethnic cleansing in connection with Israel’s actions in Palestine is antisemitic,” Edwards said.
She noted that international bodies, including the International Court of Justice, had used the term genocide in relation to Israel’s conduct in Gaza and asked how practitioners expressing similar views would be treated under AHPRA’s new approach.
“Prior to the publication of this handbook in January 2024, the International Court of Justice ruled that it was
plausible that Israel’s acts in Gaza could amount to genocide,” Edwards said.
“Genocide claims antisemitic, claims Israel lobby lawyer“
Borsky immediately objected and said the “false claims” would “fuel antisemitism”.
“I object. We respectfully submit that this Commission ought not be used as a platform for referring to such allegations. My friend is wrong. That’s not what was found, and the suggestion is, in any event, irrelevant to the Commission’s terms of reference, it could only be relevant to the subject of the Commission’s terms of reference in fuelling anti-Semitism and eroding social cohesion for these false claims to be advanced through this forum,” he said.
Commissioner Virginia Bell rejected the submission that the questioning was irrelevant.
“As I understand where Ms Edwards is going,” Bell said, “it is to contend that in some contexts, use of the word genocide … might nonetheless not be evidence of hostility towards Jews, but might reasonably be taken as a political statement about the conduct of the State of Israel.”
“I think that’s very much at the heart of aspects of the work of this Commission.”
Genocide denied
Borsky doubled down.
“Commissioner, with the greatest of respect, we understand and accept that. But accuracy matters and what my friend put was inaccurate. It was false. She put that the International Court of Justice has ruled that it was plausible that Israel’s acts in Gaza could amount to genocide.
“That is false, and its airing in public is liable to exacerbate the problem of anti-Semitism in his country,” he said.
Commissioner Bell disagreed.
“Mr Borsky, calling it false might be going one step beyond a neutral way of framing it,” she said.
Bell observed that the ICJ had not determined whether genocide had occurred but had accepted there was a prima facie case warranting provisional measures while proceedings continue.
Counsel assisting the Royal Commission, Richard Lancaster SC also interjected Edwards’ line questioning twice.
On the first occasion, Lancaster objected to Edwards’ characterisation of the example in the Special Envoy’s handbook, telling the Commission:
“I object to that because it refers to Zionism. It doesn’t refer to Israel.”
On his second interjection, he once again emphasised that the example of antisemitism in the handbook referred to the term “Zionist”.
“The launching pad for Ms Edwards’ questions was an example given in the ASECA handbook.The example does not involve expressions using the word Israel or the government of Israel. It uses the terms Zionist, and so the launching pad for the question does not sit well with Miss Edwards’ explanation of it,” Lancaster said.
The analysis of the example on page 76 of Segal’s handbook argues that “trying to separate ‘antisemitism’ from ‘antizionism’ ignores the history of misinformation, disinformation and antisemitic propaganda that has shaped narratives about Israel and Zionism … Antisemitism and antizionism are both expressions of hatred towards Jews.”
Untersteiner was unable to answer whether the handbook example would be found to be antisemitic. He said that it would depend on “context” in each case and that he was not a decision maker of complaints.
Segal handbook was “tipping point”
Earlier in his evidence, AHPRA CEO Justin Untersteiner confirmed AHPRA had resisted adopting the IHRA definition because of concerns it could inhibit legitimate political speech.
We resisted it for a period of time,” he said, because AHPRA had heard concerns about “the risk of the IHRA definition stifling free speech … within the healthcare system.”He said publication of the Special Envoy’s handbook earlier this year altered the regulator’s assessment.
“The handbook really provided greater granularity and detail about the definition, about what it does mean and what it doesn’t mean,” Untersteiner said.
“It was on the basis of that handbook, as well as all the feedback that we’d had over a period of time, that we felt it was the right decision then to adopt it.”
When Edwards suggested the handbook had been the “tipping point” in AHPRA’s decision, Untersteiner agreed.
Handbook to inform disciplinary action
Untersteiner also confirmed the handbook would not simply assist staff in triaging complaints but could
“inform disciplinary decisions made by professional boards.“
Asked whether the IHRA definition would be referenced if AHPRA alleged a practitioner had breached professional standards through antisemitic conduct, Untersteiner replied that it would.
“The recommendation and the report … would very much reference IHRA,” he said.
“The appropriate board would be referencing IHRA in making that final decision.”
He further agreed that AHPRA was embedding not only the IHRA definition but also the Special Envoy’s handbook into its regulatory framework.
When asked whether both documents could inform assessments of whether conduct was antisemitic and whether complaints were vexatious, Untersteiner answered: “Correct.”
AHPRA begins social media monitoring
The hearing also revealed AHPRA has begun using social media monitoring tools to monitor practitioners’ social media activity.
“We, like most regulators, use a range of different regulatory tools,” Untersteiner said.
“That includes the use of social media monitoring tools … to help us identify where there might be activity of concern to us related to, for instance, racism or discrimination.”
“We’ve engaged a service provider that undertakes general social media monitoring, and they will use a range of different methods to identify. And by the way, this isn’t just about discrimination, which relates to other issues that might play out in the health system,” he said.
Pressed on whether the monitoring involved searching for particular terms, such as “genocide”, Untersteiner said he was not sufficiently familiar with the technical operation of the system to answer.
Untersteiner said that 85% of complaints related to Islamophobia and anti-Semitism were related to social media activity compared to 40 to 45% of overall complaints regarding racism and discrimination.
Chilling effect acknowledged
Edwards also questioned Untersteiner about complaints made against doctors who had spoken publicly about Gaza.
She referred to correspondence from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners raising concerns that complaints relating to political speech, even when ultimately dismissed, were taking months to resolve and causing considerable stress to practitioners.
Untersteiner acknowledged that even
“unsubstantiated complaints could have a “chilling effect”.
He said AHPRA was considering whether practitioners should sometimes not be notified about complaints unlikely to result in regulatory action in order to reduce unnecessary anxiety.
Abuse after adopting IHRA
Questioned later by Borsky, Untersteiner said he had received abuse following AHPRA’s adoption of the IHRA definition, including allegations that he supported genocide or had been influenced by the Israel lobby.
Borsky also referred to abuse directed at Special Envoy Jillian Segal, who will reappear at the Commission on Thursday.
The hearing did not examine claims that AHPRA had also come under sustained lobbying from pro-Israel organisations before adopting the IHRA definition.
MWM previously revealed that AHPRA’s decision followed months of lobbying by the Australian Zionist Health Alliance and other advocacy groups, including calls for Untersteiner’s removal and repeated engagement with senior government officials.
Lucas Heights nuclear reactor was always intended as a step towards nuclear weapons, AND IT STILL IS.
Canberra hoped that aiding Britain might be a step toward its own bomb.
Australia took tentative steps to go it alone. This included the Lucas Heights nuclear plant on Sydney’s southern fringe. Still Australia’s only reactor, it began its life researching, among other things, nuclear weapons
“We have the people, the knowledge, the history, the uranium and we still have Lucas Heights.”
Australia’s secret plans to have its own nuclear arsenal, AMERICA. Russia. China. Britain. The world’s most powerful countries all have nuclear arsenals — and few people know Australia was almost one of them, Benedict Brook@BenedictBrook, news.com.au, JULY 11, 2017 “…….A military expert has told news.com.au, that top secret plans were so advanced Australia was considered “top of the pile” of countries expected to acquire its own nuclear arsenal
It was 60 years ago that the last nuclear bomb was detonated in Australia, a British weapon at the Maralinga test site in South Australia.
If you look closely, evidence of Australia’s plans for its own nuke remain. A few hours south of Sydney, at picturesque Jervis Bay, a small road leads into the bush. By a boat ramp is a large car park.
However, this was never designed to be a place for tourists’ vehicles. Rather, it is the unfinished foundations of Australia’s first commercial nuclear power station.
The public were told it would revolutionise the country’s energy needs. The truth was it would enrich uranium for Australia’s atomic bombs.
Associate Professor Wayne Reynolds is a defence and foreign policy expert at the University of Newcastle and author of the book Australia’s Bid for the Atomic Bomb….. “We wanted to have a navy; in WWII we wanted access to heavy bombers; and so we wanted nuclear weapons. We wanted to maintain a strategic leading edge.”
Australia didn’t want to go it alone. During WWII, British and Australian experts had worked alongside their American counterparts on the Manhattan Project to build the world’s first atomic bomb.
The expectation was that the US would share the results with its allies.
“In 1946, the Americans changed that calculation by announcing they would not share any of the technology or weapons,” says Prof Reynolds. “Britain and Australia were cut out from the club”……. Many in the government harboured a desire for a joint “Empire” bomb produced between Australia, Britain, Canada and South Africa.
Despite the UK’s ownership of the bombs it detonated at Maralinga, Canberra hoped aiding Britain might be a step toward its own bomb. Certainly, no one underestimated Australia’s atom ambitions. “German, Italy, the Netherlands — all wanted nuclear weapons but Australia was top of the list because of our uranium resources, our scientists and our enrichment program,” Prof Reynolds says.
Australia took tentative steps to go it alone. This included the Lucas Heights nuclear plant on Sydney’s southern fringe. Still Australia’s only reactor, it began its life researching, among other things, nuclear weapons…..
In the early 1960s, the Menzies Government was discussing with the US the top secret “SEATO plan 4” which could have seen American bombs on Australian soil.
“This were absolutely not known by the public and plan 4 was only declassified thirty years later,” says Prof Reynolds.
…..In 1968, ex-RAAF pilot Gorton became Prime Minister. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) was already in the works. However, a big supporter of a homegrown nuclear deterrent, Gorton wanted to Australia to be on the “brink of manufacture” of a weapon, says Prof Reynolds…….
Gough Whitlam formally ended Australia’s atom ambitions by signing onto the NPT and tying the country’s security to the US…….
Prof Reynolds says it is unlikely Australia would seek to host nuclear bombs — its own or others. But history warns you to never say never.
“Historically, we’ve gone with the major powers. But if this unravels we might need a capability down here,” he says.” “We have the people, the knowledge, the history, the uranium and we still have Lucas Heights.” benedict.brook@news.com.au http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/australias-secret-plans-to-have-its-own-nuclear-arsenal/news-story/2bcac85b0f2cbe3f7e377217d6ef999b?platform=hootsuite
Pat Conroy,Australia’s Minister for Defence Industry in denial about U.S. military bases (?targets) in Australia
Colin Mitchell, 31 July 26
On the 7.30 Report (Wed night) Pat Conroy would only talk about the current 5 year agreement for Rotational Force West due to end in 2032. Presumably the agreement could be renewed or another agreement made in 2032 for another 5 years or longer. He would not explicitly say that US subs would not come to HMAS Stirling after 2032 when asked directly by Sarah Ferguson on that. Instead he simply repeated that the current agreement ends in 2032.
“There are no foreign military bases in Australia” he said. What a whopper! (Pine Gap and NWCape are “joint” US – Australian bases).
He insisted that US Subs will not be “based” here, simply rotated through, because they will not be at Stirling for more than a year!
He wouldn’t give any shorter time limit than a year.
As for the Treaty of Rarotonga that Treaty does not prevent nuclear weapons entering Australia as he implied. It merely says that they can’t be “stationed” here. What length of time “stationing” would be is not defined in the Treaty. That leaves a gaping loophole in the Treaty. The shortest time Pat Conroy would specify for Stirling is one year! The Treaty of Rarotonga is no barrier to nuclear weapons transiting or “rotating” through Australia, with the length of time constituting a “transit” or “rotation” not specified. Pat Conroy’s idea would be anything less than a year.
A sub could go to sea and then come back again for another year! Likewise a plane could fly out on an exercise and come back again.
Yes the US will respect the Treaty of Rarotonga because the Treaty does not prevent nuclear weapons from being in Australia for extended periods of time.
When genocide is silenced in the name of “unity”
30 July 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, https://theaimn.net/when-genocide-is-silenced-in-the-name-of-unity/
When genocide is silenced in the name of “unity”: Labor’s festering wound
Dedicated to the young Senator, the young Muslim – who dared to speak when others stayed silent.
I. Introduction: A Funeral for Unity
In July 2026, over 400 delegates gathered in Adelaide for the Australian Labor Party’s National Conference. They were there to shape the party’s platform – to decide what Labor would stand for over the next three years. Yet, during that conference, a debate about the genocide in Gaza was killed before it could begin.
Labor MP Ed Husic moved an amendment acknowledging the UN inquiry’s finding that Israeli authorities had “deliberately targeted Palestinian children, resulting in genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Gaza Strip.” His motion was initially seconded by the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA).
But on the morning of the debate, the union withdrew its support. Without a seconder, the motion could not proceed. The debate was over before it started. Husic said:
“I’m astonished by the extraordinary amount of energy that’s been put into preventing this being discussed rather than discussing it, rather than having a conversation, rather than thrashing it out better.”
He did not back down. He said: “If they put me in the freezer, I don’t give a shit.” But another voice emerged. Mike Kelly, a former Labor minister and a former Australian Army officer – made extraordinary comments.
II. Kelly’s Accusations: The Weaponisation of Conspiracy Theory
Mike Kelly’s comments were not merely offensive – they were pathological.
Kelly claimed that “hard core, violent revolutionary communists in league with Islamist extremists are subverting the union movement, branches and the Labor Party.” This was not a policy disagreement. This was a conspiracy theory dressed up as political analysis.
One observer described his remarks as “bizarre dangerous claptrap.” They are.
What is the truth?
Kelly is using the spectre of the Cold War to delegitimise anyone who criticises Israel. He is trying to reframe opposition to genocide as a product of extremism. He is trying to silence those who dare to speak.
His own colleague, South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas, questioned Husic’s motives, suggesting he might be “pursuing a barrow” for attention. This is a classic smear tactic: when you cannot rebut the argument, you attack the character.
III. The Pattern of Suppression
The incident is not isolated. It is a pattern:
- A crisis occurs. The evidence of genocide is overwhelming.
- The government tries to control the narrative. Dissent is silenced. Critics are marginalised.
- The “unity” narrative is weaponised. Anyone who speaks out is framed as a threat to party cohesion.
- The dissenters are isolated. Payman is attacked. Husic is put in “the freezer.” The seconder disappears.
At the conference, Husic said Labor had become unwilling to engage in open disagreement. He argued that the “trauma” of the Rudd-Gillard years had created a situation where anything that looked like debate was seen as “disunity” that could bring down the government.
But as one participant noted: “Unity must be based on democratic consent, not bureaucratic diktat.”
IV. The Lancet and the Numbers
The Lancet published a study estimating that the death toll in Gaza could exceed 186,000 people. The study accounted for both direct violence and indirect causes – starvation, disease, the collapse of the healthcare system.
Mike Kelly’s response to these numbers? He did not rebut them. He supported the killers and cheered them on.
That is not leadership. That is moral abdication.
V. The Deputy Prime Minister’s Admission
Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles made a rare admission (paywalled): while Labor’s platform on Israel-Palestine was flawed, compromise was necessary for unity.
In other words: truth matters. Morality matters. Justice matters. But unity matters more.
It is a calculation we have seen elsewhere – the calculation of those who place power over principle, cohesion over conscience.
VI. Conclusion: The Festering Wound
The festering wound inside the Labor Party will not be healed by performances of “unity.” It will not be healed by those sitting in air-conditioned rooms, saying it is “complex,” and hoping the problem goes away.
The young Senator Fatima Payman dared to cross the floor. Ed Husic dared to speak. They were isolated. Attacked. Put in “the freezer.”
But they were not defeated.
They are a reminder that we have real consciences – and not just servile obedience to party loyalty.
AUKUS Inquiry exposes nuclear weapon-sized crater
by Rex Patrick | Jul 25, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/aukus-inquiry-exposes-nuclear-weapon-sized-crater/
The AUKUS Public Inquiry has reminded Australians of a nuclear weapon proliferation problem that the Government is yet to solve and one that could change the program from full-steam-ahead to a dead stop.
AUKUS Public Inquiry
It’s the inquiry the Labor government and Coalition opposition didn’t want. It’s the “AUKUS Inquiry unauthorised!”
The inquiry will likely have little direct effect on Prime Minister Albanese and his Cabinet National Security Committee.
They’re completely blinded by the gold epaulets on the shoulders of the admirals that are briefing them (the same admirals who spent $3B not buying French submarines, buying the most expensive frigates known to man and procuring patrol boats that were found not fit for purpose).
But the Inquiry will inform the public.
Nuclear weapon material
One very useful submission to the Inquiry was from Tilman Ruff, a Nobel laureate. He laid out some facts about the nuclear fuel inside a Virginia Class submarine’s reactor.
At the start of their life every Virginia class submarine has about 650 kg of highly enriched uranium that will power the vessel’s reactor. That’s a 93% enrichment – 610 kg of fissionable uranium-235. At the end of each submarine’s life the fuel elements in the reactor still be 83% enriched – 375 kg of uranium 235. The Hiroshima bomb was 80% U-235.
Waste responsibility
Australia must deal with the waste from our AUKUS submarines. By binding treaty agreement with the United States and the United Kingdom, AUKUS provides that “Australia shall be responsible for the management, disposition, storage, and disposal of any spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste resulting from the operation of Naval Nuclear Propulsion Plants …”
The Australian Government is doing everything it can to not talk about how it will deal with nuclear waste. It recently lodged an appeal in the Federal Court to try to overturn a Freedom of Information win on the topi
Whatever they ultimately do on the waste front, it’s going to be expensive.
Tilman told the AUKUS Public Inquiry that AUKUS nuclear waste needs a really high level of security because “in 10,000 years, someone could still go and dig that stuff up and build nuclear weapons with it”.
Non-proliferation risk
And therein lies one of the problems with AUKUS that the Government has been unable to solve.
Australia is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and associated materials and technology.
Under the Treaty, non-nuclear-weapon states (including Australia) are obligated to not manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons.
Correspondingly, nuclear-weapon states (including the US and the UK) are obligated not to transfer nuclear weapons to any recipient, and not in any way to assist, encourage or induce any non-nuclear-weapon state to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons.
IAEA decision the key
Associated with the Treaty are legally binding Comprehensive Safeguard Agreements between a signatory country and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to allow the IAEA to verify that a country’s nuclear material is being used only for peaceful purposes and not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
Article 14 of the treaty allows Australia to pursue naval nuclear propulsion, but it requires that we renegotiate our Comprehensive Safeguard Agreement, originally agreed in 1974 with no contemplation of operating weapon grade naval reactors.
If we do not reach agreement with the IAEA, the US and UK will not transfer submarines to Australia
Follow the money
Australia commenced negotiations on a new Comprehensive Safeguard Agreement in May 2023. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has taken the lead on the negotiations.
There has been considerable secrecy from the Government in relation to progress on the Agreement, which is opposed by several countries including Indonesia, Malaysia and China. Opposing countries argue that
“AUKUS could weaken the non-proliferation regime.“
Information on progress has been limited. So MWM has followed the money.
In the 2023-24 Budget, DFAT was allocated $35M for financial year 23/24 and $40M for 24/25 to provide legal, policy and diplomatic support for AUKUS non-proliferation related negotiations. No money was allocated for financial years 25/26 or 26/27.
In the 2024-25 budget optimism was still alive with $40M remaining allocated for that financial year and, again, nothing allocated in 25/26 or 26/27.
In the 2025-26 budget optimism had faded and another $39M was thrown in to the pot to cover ongoing negotiations. Nothing was allocated for the following years.
This year’s Budget papers are telling. It allocated $43M for this financial year and includes $44M for 27/28.
“The negotiations have gone from a two year $75M task to a four year $200M task (at least).“
Like happens so often with Defence projects, the whole thing has been a complete under-estimation.
Nuclear explosion-sized crater
When MWM made the first ever FOI request for an Australian Submarine Agency’s Budget Estimate’s Brief (October 2023) there were seven pages dedicated to nuclear non-proliferation. In the latest Budget Estimate’s Brief (June 2026) there was nothing.
If the IAEA does not reach agreement with Australia, whether for political or technical reasons, AUKUS is dead. The price of then proceeding without IAEA agreement would be to risk a catastrophic breakdown of the already shaky nuclear non-proliferation regime.
“That would be something the AUKUS powers could not afford. “
The US and UK can walk away, thankful for the billions in taxpayer’s dollars that we’ve gifted to their industry. And even more will have been wasted here in Australia.
We’ll be left with a nuclear explosion sized crater in our Defence budget with nothing to show for it. The money will be gone, and our national security will have been compromised.
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 