An Israel voice to Parliament? | Scam of the Week
20 Jul 2025 The West Report playlist
Albo heads to China, gets blasted for no good reason. Angus Taylor wants to pack us off to a US war against China to save Taiwan and The Voice (that one for First Australians) might have failed but somehow Jillian Segal has established a Israel’s Voice to Parliament without a referendum. somehow Voice to Parliament, pushing censorship under the guise of antisemitism. Elsewhere, Nine, CBA’s Mat Comyn and much more.
Welcome to #auspol Scam of the Week.
00:00 — Albo’s China Win
02:45 — Angus Taylor Talks War 04:00 — Sky News & Barnaby Blow-Up
05:15 — Jill Segal’s Antisemitism Push
07:07 — Nine vs Israel Lobby in Court 08:50 — Beer Garden Journalism
09:35 — Bradfield Challenge & Wealth Tax Uproar
10:30 — Fake AS Plots & The Netanyahu Voice
13:10 — Jill Segal’s Report & IHRA Plan
15:00 — Albo’s No-Win Game
17:01 — SOTW Winner
Why Voters Reject Richard Marles US War
27 June 2025 AIMN Editorial By Denis Hay
Description
Richard Marles US war has anti-war voters turning against him. Learn why peace, sovereignty, and democracy are at stake in 2028.
Introduction
Darwin, 4:42 a.m., June 2025. KC-46 tankers lift off from RAAF Base Darwin, refuelling U.S. bombers returning from a strike on Iranian nuclear sites. Veteran Ron McKinnon, 71, stares from his porch. “Here we go again,” he mutters, haunted by his service in Iraq.
Just hours later, Defence Minister Richard Marles appears on ABC News: “Australia stands shoulder to shoulder with our ally.” Foreign Minister Penny Wong echoes him. But the public mood is shifting fast, as concerns over the Richard Marles US war agenda grow louder.
Agitate: The Iran strike has deepened fears of entanglement in endless U.S. wars.
Solution: Voters now demand a sovereign, peaceful defence policy – and they’re ready to make it an election issue.
PROBLEM – Public Trust Collapse Over U.S. Military Alignment
1. Polls Signal a Sea Change
• 40% of Australians now believe we should distance ourselves from the U.S. (Lowy Institute, 2025)
• Only 26% say we should follow the U.S. into military conflicts.
• 74% oppose involvement in a future war with Iran or China, reflecting a growing rejection of the Richard Marles US war direction.
2. The Trigger: Iran Strike
Australia’s support for the June 2025 U.S. strike on Iran shocked many voters. While the government called it a “measured response,” Australians viewed it as another unjustified conflict.
3. Personal Voices
Ella Tait, an ICU nurse from Newcastle, recalls messaging her brother at RAAF Tindal: “Are you being deployed?” He didn’t reply for hours. Online, #MarlesWarMachine trended as thousands shared anti-war posts.
“We save lives in hospitals, not bomb people across the world,” Ella said.
4. Strategic Concerns
• Pine Gap may have been used to assist the Iran targeting
• Darwin and Tindal bases make Australia a first-strike target in future retaliations
• Experts warn Australia’s role in U.S. wars increases – not decreases – our risk
Consequences of Following the U.S. War Machine
1. Economic Trade-Offs
• AUKUS subs will cost taxpayers $368 billion over 30 years
• Meanwhile, public housing, health, and disaster funding suffer under the financial burden of the Richard Marles US war priorities.
• Australia’s dollar sovereignty means we don’t need to choose war over welfare, but our leaders are
2. Voter Backlash
• Greens, Teals, and Independents have made “Peace Vote” pledges
• In 18 marginal electorates, candidates are calling for War Powers reform
• Many voters say: “If Marles won’t represent peace, we’ll find someone who will”, a clear repudiation of the Richard Marles US war stance.
3. Moral Injury
Every new conflict escalates demand for veterans’ services.
• Defence-linked trauma spikes 19% during combat support operations
• Public sympathy for veterans turns into public anger at those who sent them
“It’s not anti-troop to be anti-war,” says veteran Ron. “It’s anti-stupidity.”
A Peace-First Defence Strategy
1. Use Australia’s Monetary Power for Peace
As a sovereign currency issuer, Australia can fund:
• Fire & flood resilience
• National mental health services
• Cyber defence and coastal radar
No foreign wars required.
2. Model Countries
• Costa Rica abolished its military in 1948 and outperforms neighbours on education & health
• Austria maintains military neutrality and invests heavily in civil defence
• Ireland avoids entangling alliances yet contributes to UN peacekeeping missions, offering a powerful contrast to Richard Marles US war framework.
3. A Legislative Blueprint
A new, independent body could investigate and publicly review Pine Gap’s involvement in past conflicts such as the Iraq and Iran strikes, both tied to Richard Marles US war alignment.
Peace Policy Roadmap: A legislative alternative to Richard Marles US war approach, focused on sovereignty, diplomacy, and the public good.
• Defence of Australia Act – Bans combat beyond 1,000 nm (1,852 km) without a referendum
• War Powers Tribunal – Reviews Pine Gap’s role in Iraq & Iran
• Universal Housing & Health Fund – Redirect defence funds toward social programs
• Pacific Peace Office – Expands diplomacy and soft power in the region
Voter Toolkit
TheyVoteForYou.org.au – Track MPs’ war‑powers votes…………………………………………………………………https://theaimn.net/why-voters-reject-richard-marles-us-war/
Crossbench Calls for AUKUS Inquiry
Crossbench MPs from the House of Representatives and Senate have written to Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles, calling for an urgent parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS.
In April, the UK Parliament’s Defence Committee announced an inquiry into the AUKUS arrangements, and this week the US defence department announced they were undertaking a rapid review of AUKUS.
AUKUS represents Australia’s largest defence investment in decades and is central to our defence and foreign affairs strategy.
Australians are concerned to know more about the strategic and financial implications of this policy which has been jointly adopted by major party governments without significant parliamentary scrutiny.
A full and formal parliamentary inquiry is therefore both important and timely.
Quotes from letter to Deputy Prime Minister, Richard Marles
Allegra Spender, Independent MP for Wentworth
AUKUS is the centrepiece of our defence and foreign policy strategy, but it’s been adopted by the major parties with very poor public engagement. AUKUS will shape Australia’s future for decades with enormous implications both financially, economically, and strategically, but in discussions at the community level, there are consistent questions and concerns that have not been addressed. AUKUS won’t work without wider community interrogation and engagement, and a parliamentary inquiry is the first step to building that.
We also need a more open discussion of the challenges facing AUKUS. Most urgently, the US Navy is currently short of attack submarines and there is a very clear risk that the US President at the time will not be able to certify that the Virginia class submarines can be transferred to Australia without undermining US Navy capability: a requirement of the current enabling legislation. We must publicly face those risks and actively manage them including identifying viable alternatives.
Helen Haines, Independent MP for Indi
In light of the reviews of AUKUS by our two partner nations and the consequential nature of the agreement, it important for our Parliament to apply the same level of scrutiny.
Andrew Wilkie, Independent MP for Clark
More than ever an Australian Inquiry into AUKUS is needed, and President Trump’s caution about the deal gives Australia a great chance to reset. Nuclear subs were always the wrong technology for Australia’s future submarine needs given the shallow littoral and offshore waters in our region, not to mention the ridiculous cost and impractical timeframe.
Nicolette Boele, Independent MP for Bradfield
Any time Parliament commits to spend $368 billion, we should at least have a full parliamentary inquiry. The case for an inquiry on AUKUS is even stronger given the rules of global co-operation have dramatically changed since it was signed.
AUKUS now risks our defence — because we don’t know if these submarines will ever arrive. It risks our budget — because we may waste $368 billion in taxpayer’s money. And it risks our Australian values, which we do not import from the United States.
Sophie Scamps, Independent MP for Mackellar
Circumstances have changed significantly since the AUKUS deal was first announced and it’s only reasonable it be reviewed in the current context.
This is the largest investment in our defence capability in decades, other parties are conducting their own reviews, and the Australian community largely supports a parliamentary inquiry – it’s high time the Government responds.
Senator Jacqui Lambie
We’ve poured billions into AUKUS with nothing to show for it but broken promises and cancelled defence programs. It’s a $368 billion blank cheque to the US and UK with zero guarantee of real capability for decades.
Australians deserve better and it’s time for a full parliamentary inquiry into this dud deal.
Senator David Pocock
With the UK and now the US reviewing AUKUS, Australia is now the only country not actively considering whether the agreement in its current form best serves our national interest. Given the scale and cost of this deal, a transparent review is not just sensible, it’s overdue.
Kate Chaney, Independent MP for Curtin
AUKUS is a monumental strategic commitment with far-reaching implications for our economy, sovereignty, and security posture, yet it continues to unfold with minimal public transparency and virtually no parliamentary accountability. Australians want to understand whether this is the best use of our resources and the right path for our security.
The 375 billion dollar blunder
12 June 2025 Roswell, https://theaimn.net/the-375-billion-dollar-blunder/
It’s just my opinion, but…
When then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison secretly negotiated the AUKUS pact in 2021, he didn’t just commit Australia to the most expensive defence project in its history – he also blindsided France, abruptly cancelling a $90 billion submarine deal and damaging an important diplomatic relationship. Now, with the Trump Administration threatening to torpedo AUKUS, Australians are left wondering: Was this deal always a $375 billion mistake?
For that eye-watering sum, Australia could have transformed healthcare, built affordable housing, or lifted thousands out of poverty. Instead, we locked ourselves into a decades-long military splurge for submarines that won’t arrive until the 2040s – assuming they ever do. Meanwhile, the U.S. and UK get a massive economic windfall while we foot the bill for their shipyards.
Worse still, Trump’s comments expose the fragility of relying on America’s political whims. If Washington pulls out, Canberra shouldn’t just walk away – it should claw back every cent we have paid them. Why waste money on a deal that may never deliver?
Defence planning is vital, but not at the expense of everything else. If Trump kills AUKUS, it might be the best thing that ever happened to Australia’s budget.
Liberals put nuclear power policy to the sword
Tess Bennett, AFR 2 June 25
Liberals won’t revisit nuclear power plant policy, says Paterson
Shadow finance minister James Paterson has all but put to the sword the Coalition’s nuclear power policy, saying the more simplistic approach of lifting the moratorium on the energy source was more in line with Liberal Party principle.
Last week, as part of a new Coalition agreement, Liberal leader Sussan Ley and Nationals leader David Littleproud agreed that the ongoing commitment to nuclear energy be limited to lifting the moratorium………………… https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/ukraine-drone-strikes-hits-russian-air-bases-20250602-p5m41e
Marles’ misstep: welcome to the backlash
June 2, 2025 Michael Taylor https://theaimn.net/marles-misstep-welcome-to-the-backlash/
Defence Minister Richard Marles’ support for US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s call for increased Asia-Pacific security contributions, particularly to counter China’s military build-up, has sparked significant backlash.
Prime Minister Albanese has reportedly been upset by Marles’ stance. Albanese recently criticised a security think tank report warning of Australia’s unpreparedness for regional conflict, showing his sensitivity to escalating military rhetoric. Marles’ alignment with Hegseth, especially amid pressure from the Trump administration to raise Australia’s defence spending to 5% of GDP (from the current 2.02%), directly contradicts Albanese’s more cautious approach. This has created tension within the government, with Albanese likely viewing Marles’ comments as undermining his authority and Australia’s independent foreign policy.
Australians, too, are frustrated. Many see this as a repeat of Peter Dutton’s failed strategy of aligning closely with the Trump administration, which contributed to his election loss. Scores of comments on X reflect this sentiment, with some calling Marles’ approach “America-friendly” and a betrayal of national interests. Others argue that the focus on military spending – potentially at the expense of social programs, community infrastructure, and welfare – prioritises US agendas over domestic needs. For instance, there’s concern that funds could be better used to build a better society rather than fueling what some see as a provocative stance against China.
China, predictably, has reacted strongly. Beijing issued statements condemning Hegseth’s rhetoric as “defamatory,” accusing the US of being the true hegemonic power destabilising the Asia-Pacific. China also dismissed comparisons between Taiwan and Ukraine as “unacceptable,” asserting Taiwan as an internal affair. Marles’ call for transparency on China’s military build-up, made at the Shangri-La Dialogue, was met with silence from Beijing, which instead sent a low-level delegation to the summit, signaling its displeasure. China’s criticism extends to the broader US-led push, including the AUKUS pact, which Marles defended as “on track” despite regional unease.
Additionally, an overwhelming number of commentators on social media have criticised Marles for potentially escalating tensions with China. They argue that Australia should avoid provocative actions – such as sending warships near China’s coast – and focus on diplomacy rather than aligning with a US administration that has slashed Pacific aid and abandoned the Paris Agreement, moves that Pacific nations have also criticised.
Overall, the criticism paints Marles’ alignment with Hegseth as a risky move that alienates his own government, frustrates Australians wary of US influence, and provokes China, all while regional stability hangs in the balance.
The backlash reflects deep concerns about the implications of Marles’ stance, both domestically and regionally. The tension with Albanese, public frustration, and China’s response highlight the complexity of Australia’s position in this geopolitical context.
Turnbull says ‘stupid’ Nationals picking ‘fight over nothing’ as Liberals weigh nuclear
An agreement on nuclear is likely to settle on the lifting of the moratorium, but without binding the Liberals to keeping the full policy taken to the last election.
Two Liberals from different wings of the party told the ABC there was no chance the party could agree to keep the policy they say lost them votes, but that lifting the moratorium would allow the private sector to invest in nuclear if it became viable.
ABC News, By political reporter Tom Crowley, national political lead David Speers and political reporter Pablo Viñales, Fri 23 May
In short:
David Littleproud had a last-minute change of heart yesterday about detonating the alliance with the Liberals, but insists his four policy demands must be “ratified” before the partnership can resume.
In a lengthy early evening meeting, frustrated Liberals said the Nationals were acting in bad faith but that the Coalition was important and they were determined to be “the adults in the room”.
What’s next?
Malcolm Turnbull has told the Insiders: On Background podcast that this amounts to “holding a gun to the Liberal Party’s head” and risks damaging both parties if Sussan Ley is seen to capitulate to Nationals’ pressure.
Resentful Liberals have unloaded on the Nationals for holding them to ransom over a series of policy demands, which former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has likened to “holding a gun to [the] head” of the party he once led.
But while a lengthy Liberal phone hook-up late on Thursday ended without a clear timeline for resolution, colleagues agreed with leader Sussan Ley that the Coalition should be salvaged, and a nuclear deal seems likely.
Mr Littleproud had a last-minute change of heart yesterday on detonating the alliance, hitting pause just hours away from enacting a split when Ms Ley agreed to consider his four policy demands.
Irritated Liberals said they believed their junior partner was acting in bad faith but agreed to be the “adults in the room”, as one put it, and will meet again today to discuss their position.
‘Back off’, says Turnbull
Mr Turnbull, who as prime minister regularly clashed with Nationals on climate and energy, said the minor party should “back off” and the Liberal Party should not agree to any policies so soon after a heavy election defeat.
“Policies are of academic interest only until such time as we get close to an election … This is a fight about nothing. They’ve just done enormous harm for no purpose at all, the Nationals, by blowing it up in this way,” he told the ABC’s Insiders: On Background.
“It’s really, really unwise [and] stupid politically … The National Party is treating the Liberal Party with zero respect and trying to stand over them, and if Sussan Ley goes along with it … everybody will be saying this is just another case of the tail wagging the dog.”
Liberals frustrated but ready to talk
There is disagreement between Ms Ley and Mr Littleproud about exactly what led to Thursday’s stay of execution, announced by the Nationals leader yesterday in a chaotic press conference in the corridors of Parliament House.
Ms Ley said talks resumed after Mr Littleproud agreed he would respect cabinet solidarity, but Mr Littleproud insisted this was never in doubt and talks resumed because the Liberals agreed to consider “ratification” of his demands.
In a phone call with Liberal colleagues on Thursday afternoon, Ms Ley discussed the possibility of a limited agreement on nuclear energy, supermarket divestiture, a $20 billion off-budget regional fund, and better connectivity in the bush.
The proposal was for those policies to be carved out of what was going to be a comprehensive review of everything the Liberals took to the election………………………….
Nuclear agreement likely on moratorium
Liberals who spoke to the ABC were broadly confident the Nationals’ demands could be met.
An agreement on nuclear is likely to settle on the lifting of the moratorium, but without binding the Liberals to keeping the full policy taken to the last election.
Two Liberals from different wings of the party told the ABC there was no chance the party could agree to keep the policy they say lost them votes, but that lifting the moratorium would allow the private sector to invest in nuclear if it became viable……………….
But Nationals colleagues are on the record calling for the nuclear policy to be retained in full, while Matt Canavan, who challenged Mr Littleproud for the leadership, is among the voices advocating for the net zero emissions target to be dropped entirely…………………….
Mr Turnbull said it was important that the Coalition be reformed, or else there was “no prospect of forming a government”.
Turnbull declines to endorse Ley, savages Dutton
The former prime minister, who has been a vocal critic of his party since leaving politics after his ousting, blamed longtime rival Tony Abbott and his conservative allies for the Coalition’s calamitous election defeat.
“The angertainment ecosystem in which the right wing of politics exists nowadays, they got what they wanted. They got Peter Dutton as the leader and they got control of the party, and they have burned it to the ground,” he said………………………………………….. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-23/turnbull-says-nationals-picking-fight-over-nothing/105325522
Nuclear power may have cost the Coalition 11 seats in the federal election
even if a Coalition government managed to repeal the legal ban, there is no realistic prospect of privately-funded nuclear power plants. That’s why the Dutton Coalition proposed taxpayer-funded nuclear plants.
“Support for nuclear reactors seems to be melting down in the regions who’ve been told they are hosting them. These communities weren’t asked if they want nuclear reactors in their backyard, and have been told it’s happening whether they like it or not.
Jim Green, May 25, 2025, https://reneweconomy.com.au/nuclear-power-may-have-cost-the-coalition-11-seats-in-the-federal-election/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKfkqFleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFhajFIaEp5YUgwblJ2b1dnAR4mAGGM8t3q6FAYGZAUFRhTYWueycBG8grfFPPDMidaGksemNdmgxN8O11QUA_aem_osPG4UnoECyz8P69zj0Wug
On the day after the Coalition’s disastrous performance at the May 5 federal election, Nationals leader David Littleproud said nuclear power was not responsible for the Coalition’s historic loss.
Ted O’Brien, head salesman for the nuclear policy and now deputy leader of the Liberal Party, refuses to concede that the nuclear policy cost the Coalition votes, saying it would be “premature” to judge.
In fact, a vast amount of evidence clearly shows that the nuclear policy cost the Coalition many votes. It may have cost the Coalition around 11 seats, as discussed below.
If not for the swing away from the Coalition for other reasons, the nuclear policy could have cost the Coalition many more seats. In the seat of Dickson, for example, nuclear power was clearly unpopular but Peter Dutton would likely have lost his seat regardless of the nuclear policy.
Voter rejection of nuclear power was evident to the South Australian Liberal Party, which abandoned its pro-nuclear power policy and abolished the position of ‘Shadow Minister for Nuclear Readiness’ two days after the federal election. State leader Vincent Tarzia acknowledged that nuclear power has been “comprehensively rejected” by the electorate.
There is some understanding within the Coalition that the nuclear policy cost them votes and seats. But there’s no willingness to vent this issue publicly since the Coalition seems likely to agree to retain its pro-nuclear power policy, albeit in a watered-down form which involves promising to repeal legislation banning nuclear power but without the commitment to build seven nuclear power plants at taxpayers’ expense.
While there’s no willingness to publicly discuss the vote-killing nuclear elephant in the room, an unnamed Coalition MP told the ABC that the nuclear policy “definitely cost us votes, and anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.”
The MP flagged a compromise: the Nationals could be persuaded to stick with a net zero policy and in return the Liberals would accept the (watered-down) nuclear power policy. But that is the same compromise that got the Coalition into this mess in the first place.
There are any number of problems with the proposed compromise. Coalition candidates will go to the next election with a nuclear target on their political backs, just as they did at this election.
There is no chance of nuclear power making the slightest contribution to emissions reductions before 2050 despite the conservative mantra that Australia can’t reach net zero by 2050 without nuclear power.
The ABC reported: “Two Liberals from different wings of the party told the ABC there was no chance the party could agree to keep the policy they say lost them votes, but that lifting the moratorium would allow the private sector to invest in nuclear if it became viable.”
But even if a Coalition government managed to repeal the legal ban, there is no realistic prospect of privately-funded nuclear power plants. That’s why the Dutton Coalition proposed taxpayer-funded nuclear plants.
Malcolm Turnbull told the ABC that taxpayer-funded nuclear power was a “truly crazy idea” and lifting the legal ban is acceptable given there is “no prospect of anyone in the private sector ever building a nuclear power plant here.”
The evidence that the nuclear power policy cost the Coalition votes and seats is summarised below and a detailed analysis is posted online.
National attitudes
A RedBridge poll of around 2,000 Australian voters in May 2024 found that support for nuclear power exceeds opposition among Coalition voters, those aged over 65, those who earn more than $3,000 per week, those under no financial stress, and those who own their own home.
Support is outweighed by opposition in every other category: non-Coalition voters, those aged under 65, those earning less than $3,000 per week, those under financial stress, and those who don’t own a home.
The Murdoch / News Corp. press released polling results on April 19 showing that the nuclear policy was “driving a collapse in the Coalition’s primary vote in marginal seats across Australia.”
The RedBridge-Accent poll in 20 marginal seats found that 56 percent of respondents agreed with Labor’s claim that the Coalition’s nuclear power plan will cost $600 billion and require spending cuts to pay for it, while only 13 percent disagreed. RedBridge director Tony Barry said the issue was “smashing the Liberal brand” and “atomising the primary vote.”
The Adelaide Advertiser and other News Corp. publications reported on May 1, four days before the election, that 41 per cent of 1011 respondents to a Redbridge-Accent national poll ranked concerns about the Coalition’s nuclear power plan among their top five reasons for deciding to oppose a particular party. Only one issue topped nuclear power as a vote-changing turn-off.
Liberals Against Nuclear polling
Polling commissioned by the Liberals Against Nuclear group provides further evidence of the political poison of the Coalition’s nuclear policy. The group summarised some of its commissioned research a week before the election:
Liberals Against Nuclear: polling
Polling commissioned by the Liberals Against Nuclear group provides further evidence of the political poison of the Coalition’s nuclear policy. The group summarised some of its commissioned research a week before the election:
“A new uComms poll shows leading Liberal frontbencher Michael Sukkar could lose his seat at the coming election if the Party persists with its unpopular nuclear plan.
“The poll, commissioned by Liberals Against Nuclear, shows Labor and the Coalition tied at 50-50 in two-party preferred terms in Deakin. However, the same polling reveals that if the Liberals dumped their nuclear policy, they would surge to a commanding 53-47 lead.
“The polling follows a broader survey across 12 marginal seats that showed the Liberal Party would gain 2.8 percentage points in primary vote if it abandoned the nuclear energy policy.
“An earlier poll in the seat of Brisbane found the nuclear policy was a significant drag on Liberal candidate Trevor Evans’ support.”
Thus the nuclear policy may have decided the result in Deakin and cost Michael Sukkar his seat. Assuming a national swing comparable to that found by Liberals Against Nuclear polling in 12 marginal seats – a 2.8 per cent drop in the Coalition’s primary vote — the Coalition may have lost around 11 contests because of the nuclear power policy:
* Aston (Vic) — ALP retain — the Coalition’s two-party preferred vote was 46.6 per cent as of 21 May 2025
* Banks (NSW) — ALP gain — 47.6 per cent Coalition two-party preferred
* Bendigo — ALP retain — 48.5 per cent
* Bullwinkel (WA) — ALP retain — 49.5 per cent
* Deakin (Vic) — ALP gain — 47.2 per cent
* Forde (Qld) — ALP gain — 48.2 per cent
* Hughes (NSW) — ALP gain — 47.1 per cent
* Menzies (Vic) — ALP gain — 48.9 per cent
* Moore (WA) — ALP gain — 47.0 per cent
* Petrie (Qld) — ALP gain — 48.9 per cent
* Solomon (NT) — ALP retain — 48.7 per cent
A Resolve poll for Nine newspapers in April 2025 found that 31 per cent of respondents cited nuclear power as one of their biggest concerns about voting for the Coalition, up 5 per cent from the previous poll.
In October 2024, nuclear power regained its status as Australian’s least popular energy source, overtaking coal. Two months later, nuclear was still Australia’s least popular energy source.
The 2024 National Climate Action Survey of more than 4,000 respondents found that 59 per cent wanted to keep the legal ban on nuclear power in 2024, up from 51 per cent in 2023. Sixty-six per cent of women and 51 per cent of men supported the ban.
Polling released by the pro-nuclear group WePlanet Australia found that support for nuclear power dropped from 55 per cent in February 2025 to 42 percent in late April while opposition increased from 34 per cent to 44 per cent. Net support fell from +21 per cent to -2 per cent in less than three months. The poll found majority opposition among those aged 18-34 (38:48) despite countless claims in recent years that young Australians support nuclear power.
Attitudes in rural and regional areas
Many polls over the past 20 years demonstrate opposition to a locally-built nuclear power plant. For example the 2024 National Climate Action Survey found that 73.5 per cent of participants were moderately to extremely concerned about the possibility of a nuclear plant being built within 50 kilometres of their homes.
Only 11.2 per cent were ‘not at all concerned’. In contrast, about 80 per cent of respondents viewed wind and solar favourably with the majority expressing little or no concern if such projects were established nearby.
A poll conducted by SEC Newgate for News Corp. in mid-2024 found 39 per cent support for nuclear power among regional Australians. Asked to rank 12 energy options, regional Australians ranked nuclear power at number eight.
Building large-scale wind farms and solar farms and new transmission lines in regional areas was more popular across all states than building nuclear power plants on coal sites connected to existing transmission lines.
An April 2025 YouGov poll of 1,622 respondents found that regional and rural Australians support renewables over nuclear by a considerable margin: 50 per cent preferred more wind, solar and batteries compared to 30 per cent who preferred nuclear power.
Polling in March 2025 by 89 Degrees East for the Renew Australia for All campaign found little support for nuclear power in some of the regions targeted for nuclear power plants by the Coalition.
Just 27 per cent of respondents supported “developing large-scale nuclear energy infrastructure” in Gladstone, 24 per cent in the rest of Central Queensland, 24 per cent in Bunbury, 22 per cent in Central West NSW which includes Lithgow, 32 per cent in the Hunter, and 31 per cent in Gippsland. The poll also found that just 13 per cent of respondents thought nuclear reactors would bring down their bills the fastest compared to 72 per cent for renewables.
Responding to the 89 Degrees East polling, RE-Alliance national director Andrew Bray said:
“Support for nuclear reactors seems to be melting down in the regions who’ve been told they are hosting them. These communities weren’t asked if they want nuclear reactors in their backyard, and have been told it’s happening whether they like it or not.
“We see multiple polls from Porter Novelli, CSIRO, 89 Degrees East and more showing strong support for renewable energy on local farmland, between 66 per cent and 71 per cent. Now the polling shows us support for nuclear reactors in these regions is between 22 per cent and 32 per cent.”
For more information on public attitudes towards nuclear power in Australia, see the detailed analysis posted online.
Dr Jim Green is the national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia and a member of the EnergyScience Coalition.
Trump’s man in London backs Aukus partnership with UK and Australia
The new US ambassador to the UK Warren Stephens used his first public speech to praise the trilateral security alliance.
David Hughes, Jndependent, UK, Monday 19 May 2025
Donald Trump’s new ambassador to the UK has used his first public speech to back the Aukus partnership with Britain and Australia.
Warren Stephens highlighted how “vital the US-UK relationship is to our countries and to the world” at an event in Parliament attended by Sir Keir Starmer.
Mr Stephens said the Aukus partnership, which is developing a new fleet of nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines for the UK and Australia, would help maintain a “free and open Indo-Pacific”………………………………………..
Mr Stephens also highlighted the economic opportunities from the project: “Government works best when we get out of the way and let our businesses innovate, compete and collaborate to improve people’s lives……………………… https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/australia-aukus-trump-london-barrow-b2754029.html
David Littleproud cites nuclear energy disagreement as major factor in Coalition split
The Conversation, John Quiggin , Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland, May 20, 2025
Nationals’ leader David Littleproud has singled out nuclear energy as a key reason for his party’s spectacular split from the Liberals, as both parties seek to rebuild following the Coalition’s devastating election loss.
Speaking to the media on Tuesday, Littleproud said:
our party room has got to a position where we will not be re-entering a Coalition agreement with the Liberal Party […] Those positions that we couldn’t get comfort around [include] nuclear being a part of an energy grid into the future.
The junior partner had long held strong sway over the Coalition’s climate and energy stance, including the plan to build nuclear reactors at seven sites across Australia using taxpayer funds.
After public sentiment appeared to go against nuclear power during the election, the Nationals had reportedly been weighing up changes to the policy. It would have involved walking away from the plan to build reactors and instead lifting a federal ban on nuclear power.
But some quarters of the Nationals remained deeply wedded to the original nuclear plan. Meanwhile, Nationals senator Matt Canavan had called for the net-zero emissions target to be scrapped, and Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie insisted renewable energy was harming regional communities.
Now, with the Nationals unshackled from the binds of the Coalition agreement, the future of its energy policy will be keenly watched.
A graceful way out of nuclear
Littleproud on Tuesday did not confirm where exactly he expected the Nationals to land on energy policy. But he rejected suggestions his party was unwise to stick with the nuclear policy after the Coalition’s poor election result, saying public opinion had been swayed by a “scare campaign”.
Even if the Coalition had won the election, however, the policy was running out of time.
CSIRO analysis showed, contrary to the Coalition’s claims, a nuclear program that began this year was unlikely to deliver power by 2037. But up to 90% of coal-fired power stations in the national electricity market are projected to retire before 2035, and the entire fleet is due to shut down before 2040.Now, the earliest possible start date for nuclear is after the 2028 election. This means plugging nuclear plants into the grid as coal-fired power stations retire becomes virtually impossible.
This very impossibility provided the National Party with a graceful way out of the policy. It could have regretfully accepted the moment had passed.
With nuclear out of the picture, and coal-fired power almost certain to be phased out, that would have left two choices for the Coalition: a grid dominated by gas, or one dominated by renewables.
However, expanding gas supply frequently requires the controversial process of fracking, which is deservedly unpopular in many regions where it’s undertaken.
What’s more, gas is an expensive energy source which can only be a marginal add-on in the electricity mix, used alongside batteries to secure the system during peak times.
Logically, that would have left renewable energy as the only feasible energy policy option for the Nationals – but it wasn’t to be…………………………….
The Nationals’ hostility to renewables may in part be driven by pressure from anti-renewable activist groups.
The Institute of Public Affairs, for example, has sought to promote rural opposition to renewables and emissions reduction and focused its efforts on Nationals-held seats
And the now-defunct Waubra Foundation, named after the small town in northwest Victoria, opposed wind farms and claimed they caused health problems. The group was created by an oil and gas executive with no apparent links to the town…………………………………………………………………………..
Renewables can be good for the bush
Nationals Senate leader Bridget McKenzie last week said her party was concerned that renewable energy targets are “impacting rural and regional communities”. The party has long voiced concern about the impact of large-scale wind and solar projects in the bush.
However, many farmers and other rural landowners benefit financially from hosting solar and wind farms, which, in many cases, do not prevent the land from also being used for farming.
Concerns that wind farms and solar panels might slash the value of neighbouring properties have been shown to be ill-founded.
And importantly, the increasing frequency of extreme climate events is already a challenge to Australia’s agriculture sector and will become more difficult. Tackling the problem is in regional Australia’s interests.
The Nationals’ hostility to renewable energy comes at a cost to rural and regional Australians. But Littleproud clearly could not balance competing views within the Nationals on energy policy while inking a deal with the Liberals. Instead, the party will now go it alone. https://theconversation.com/david-littleproud-cites-nuclear-energy-disagreement-as-major-factor-in-coalition-split-256904
Nuclear power blows up coalition’s political marriage
Canberra Times, By Dominic Giannini, May 20 2025
Nuclear energy has blown up a political agreement between the Nationals and the Liberals after leaders failed to reach common ground, but left the door open for a reconciliation.
The traditional political marriage couldn’t be consecrated following a disastrous result for the coalition at the federal election with the Nationals standing firm on wanting to retain four key policies.
These included remaining committed to nuclear energy, divestiture powers to break up big supermarkets, a $20 billion investment fund that would disperse $1 billion a year on regional infrastructure and universal phone services……………………………….
The change in opposition doesn’t have a substantial impact on the government’s ability to pass legislation with Labor commanding a major majority in the lower house and only needing the Greens in the Senate.
The Liberals still have the numbers to pass legislation in the Senate with Labor without the Nationals.
Without a coalition agreement, Labor has a significant electoral advantage with the Liberals holding fewer than 30 of 150 lower house seats and the Nationals 15.
The Nationals won’t sit in shadow cabinet, meaning they won’t hold sway over policies and the half-dozen MPs who were around the table will take a paycut………………………………………. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8971350/nuclear-power-blows-up-coalitions-political-marriage/
Sussan Ley, David Littleproud caught in coalition rift over net-zero and nuclear deal
The Nightly 19 May 25
A senior Liberal frontbencher has urged the party not to abandon its net-zero target as divides over climate and nuclear energy policies threaten the coalition’s election rebuild.
Liberal leader Sussan Ley and Nationals counterpart David Littleproud continue to hammer out a power-sharing agreement, with the number of ministers assigned to each party central to negotiations.
But outspoken blocs within each party are urging their leaders to ditch the coalition’s support of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, while some Nationals want a commitment from the Liberals to keep their nuclear power policy before signing a new agreement.
Liberal senator Jane Hume said policies were a matter for each party room, but her personal opinion was to keep net-zero.
“The electorate has sent us a very clear message about what it is that they want in their government,” she told Sky News on Monday.
“Abandoning net zero, I don’t necessarily think is consistent with that.”…………………………………………………… https://thenightly.com.au/politics/sussan-ley-david-littleproud-caught-in-coalition-rift-over-net-zero-and-nuclear-deal-c-18739795
Labor’s got a new mandate to act. Still condones war crimes. Why?
by Michael Pascoe | May 19, 2025 https://michaelwest.com.au/labors-got-a-new-mandate-still-condones-war-crimes-why/
The Palestine elephant remains in the room. It’s putrid, stinking of death while our government holds its nose and looks away, ignoring the war crimes, writes Michael Pascoe.
Yesterday, The Guardian reported another 140 people killed in Gaza, while Israel continues its blockade of all aid from coming in, now entering its 11th week.
Let’s keep this very simple: Is depriving the civilian population of food, water and medicine a war crime? Yes, it is.
So, what is the penalty for this crime? The Australian Government says there is none. You can blockade a couple of million people, use starvation as a weapon of war, and Australia will look the other way.
The old “the standard you walk past is the standard you accept” line means we effectively condone this crime. That we have willingly imposed sanctions for lesser crimes makes us arch hypocrites by ignoring this crime against humanity.
We are made fools when we have given more than $100 million in humanitarian aid to Gaza, but such aid is now blocked without meaningful protest.
We are made jokes of by having imposed sanctions on seven Israeli individuals over settler violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, but dare not mention.
even thinking of action over starving and killing tens of thousands of children.
“We call on Israel to hold perpetrators of settler violence to account and to cease its ongoing settlement activity,” Foreign Minister Wong said last year while announcing sanctions on the token individuals.
All words and no action
“The Albanese Government has been firm and consistent that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law and a significant obstacle to peace,” Penny Wong said, but the Albanese Government is game to do nothing more than to mouth those words.
Apply financial and travel sanctions against all Israeli West Bank settlers – a reasonable course of action against those breaching international law – and I might begin to believe the government means it.
But the colonisation of the West Bank pales in comparison with the Gaza blockade.
We know exactly who is responsible, who is committing this catastrophic crime: Benjamin Netanyahu and his Cabinet. And we do nothing.
Australia actively maintains sanctions against a long list of individuals and organisations. You can read all their names, date and place of birth and last known address on what DFAT calls the Consolidated List.
They range from targeted financial sanctions and travel bans on members of the Myanmar military and companies and banks that deal with them to the three individuals held directly responsible for shooting down MH17 over Ukraine, but there’s not even a wrist slap for those ordering malnutrition, disease and death for Palestinians in Gaza.
Double standards
In mitigation for the Russian and Ukrainian MH17 killers, it is possible they did not realise they were destroying a civilian aircraft. On the other hand, there is no lack of knowledge about what Israel is doing to Gaza, no doubt about the murder of aid workers, about the hunger and the denial of medical supplies.
The Jewish Council of Australia has called out genocide, has underlined the International Court of Justice orders, and has repeatedly called on our government to impose sanctions. The government has ignored it.
The grubby politicisation of the Gaza war in the lead up to the federal election, the dog whistling, has run its course. It ended up doing little more than increasing antisemitism and Islamophobia.
Now Albanese has a government so secure it can afford to burn senior Cabinet ministers. Now it has the political capital to stand on principle or continue to effectively condone war crimes.
There are two simple questions to be asked of every government member, and especially the Prime Minister.
The first is the one this started with: Is depriving the civilian population of food, water and medical supplies a war crime?
The second: What are you going to do about it?
Australian Financial Review readers want nuclear plan scrapped, climate ambition raised
Paul Karp AFR, 18 May 25
Most readers of The Australian Financial Review want the Coalition to scrap its nuclear power policy and believe the re-elected Albanese government has a mandate to be more ambitious on its climate policies.
A fortnightly poll of readers found overwhelming support for Opposition Leader Sussan Ley over her vanquished Liberal rival Angus Taylor, but a deep split about whether the Coalition should recommit to net zero emissions by 2050 under her leadership.
As Ley faces calls from the Nationals to include nuclear power in the Coalition agreement, the poll found most readers (57 per cent) want the Coalition to scrap nuclear.
The nuclear policy should be dumped, the business case does not stack up,” said one reader.
“The problem with the Coalition’s nuclear policy is that there are no [small modular reactors] currently working anywhere and the one being built is already over budget,” said another.
A third reader noted that Australia “is not an established player, we have no industry and experience” in nuclear power, meaning that “even if a plant was started today it would be many years off operating. The policy was a furphy.”
Another said: “The nuclear policy [Peter] Dutton took to the election was seen by the electorate as a ploy to kick the emissions abatement can down the road.”……………………………………………………………… https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/afr-readers-want-nuclear-plan-scrapped-climate-ambition-raised-20250516-p5lzv2?utm_content=heres_what_else_happened_today&list_name=4CC7DE0B-EBBE-4073-9A9C-F421CED270D0&promote_channel=edmail&utm_campaign=afr-need-to-know&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=2025-05-18&mbnr=MzA5MjY3OTA&instance=2025-05-18-20-06-AEST&jobid=31478047
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 