Underestimating the potential impacts of attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities
| Tilman Ruff, Jun 24, 2026 |
I worked with Kristina Kukolja, a journalist who obtained (heavily redacted) FOI files about the Australian government’s assessment and responses to Israel/US attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2025 and 2026. Its clear the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency underestimated the possible resultant radiological releases. Australia was one of the first countries to support those attacks both in 2025 and 2026 on the basis that any measures to avoid Iran acquiring nuclear weapons were a good thing, despite criticising Russia’s attacks on nuclear facilities in Ukraine.
Close monitoring of developments and modelling of possible scenarios including worst-case scenarios from attacks on nuclear facilities is something one would expect any responsible government to undertake and to use as the basis for informing and protecting their staff and the public, particularly the substantial number of Australian citizens in the Middle East (at least 115,000).
An additional reason for Australia to thoroughly assess attacks by allies on nuclear power plants is that during 2025-6 Australia chairs the IAEA board of governors. In relation to both Ukraine and the Middle East, the IAEA Director General has been consistently calling out the severe radiological risks of military attacks on nuclear facilities and calling for such attacks, in violation of international law, to end. Australia’s position here was clearly divergent from the IAEA’s.
One wonders whether underestimating the potential risks and keeping the assessments secret might be connected with an incentive to downplay the risks for political reasons. See article in the last Saturday Paper (below)_ o you don’t get stuck behind a paywall.
A year ago the government began receiving modelling on radiation risks from the war in the
Middle East, which experts say understated the danger and should be made public.
Exclusive: DFAT’s secret nuclear briefings
By Kristina Kukolja, Jun 24, 2026
Documents obtained under freedom of information show that a year ago the
Australian government began secretly receiving detailed modelling of radiation risks
from the war in the Middle East and the protective action Australian citizens may
need to take, but did not share this with Australians in the region.
American and Israeli strikes on sites in Iran and Iran’s retaliation against US targets
prompted the Australian government agency responsible for nuclear safety to
produce numerous reports to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) –
at times, on a daily basis – detailing “credible worst-case scenarios” for possible
nuclear incidents in Iran, Israel and the United Arab Emirates.
The reports outline protective measures such as evacuation, sheltering and
restrictions of food and drinking water. Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear
Safety Agency (ARPANSA) experts also briefed the Inter-Departmental Emergency
Task Force (IDETF), convened to manage Australia’s response to the war, chaired by DFAT and attended by top government agencies including the Australian Defence
Force.
The Saturday Paper asked DFAT whether it had informed citizens about the
government’s monitoring and modelling for nuclear worst-case scenarios; whether
diplomatic staff were told to prepare food and water supplies; whether other
Australians, including military personnel, received the same advice; and whether
Australian embassies had secured supplies of potassium iodide tablets for
distribution.
DFAT declined to respond to these questions. A spokesperson said the department
“maintains internal contingency action plans at all Australian embassies and
consulates, intended to respond to crises and support Australians overseas.
Requests for technical advice, such as modelling, are part of prudent, scenario-
based planning and help inform our understanding of how an incident could affect
Australians in different locations.”
As the strikes escalated around nuclear facilities this year, an email to ARPANSA
staff from the emergency management project leader on March 9 said: “DFAT is
facing a major consular crisis, with many Australians unable to return home.
“It’s important to be supportive and respectful of their situation … We should also not
overwhelm DFAT or crowd their decision space unnecessarily.”
At the time of that update, there were about 115,000 Australians in the Middle East,
says DFAT – 24,000 in the UAE.
The results of ARPANSA’s modelling should be made “widely and promptly publicly
available … to inform Australians in making travel or evacuation decisions and be
better equipped to take timely protective measures”, says Dr Tilman Ruff, co-founder
of the Nobel Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
(ICAN), based in Australia.
The radiation assessment reports and electronic correspondence released under
freedom of information are heavily redacted, including on the grounds that disclosing
certain information could damage the Commonwealth’s defence or international
relations.
In a statement, ARPANSA says the reports were prepared “for a specific operational
purpose but shared more broadly across government, including through the IDETF”
and “informed public-facing messaging, including through Smartraveller”.
The Smartraveller website provides general advice on nuclear incidents. Despite the
Middle East war, Ukraine is still the only country where Australians have been
specifically warned about a nuclear risk, stating that Russian actions “pose a threat
to Ukraine’s nuclear power plants”.
ARPANSA’s reports to DFAT began in June 2025 after Israel attacked Iranian
nuclear sites and scientists, followed by US strikes the Trump administration
declared had obliterated Iran’s nuclear facilities. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese
said Australia, which had just taken over chairing the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors, supported the attacks, on the grounds they were
designed to prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.
The assessments contain plume modelling – how far radiation could spread – and
exposure estimates for 48 hours after a possible incident at facilities such as the
targeted Natanz and Fordow fuel enrichment plants and Isfahan nuclear technology
centre. Projected plumes from Israel’s Dimona nuclear research facility and Iran’s
Bushehr nuclear power station – potentially causing the “greatest radiological
hazard” – reached neighbouring countries, including Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar and the UAE.
“A military attack, even unintentional, could cause a catastrophic
nuclear accident such as Chernobyl or Fukushima.”
One simulation on June 20 last year showed radiation from a potential Bushehr
incident extending hundreds of kilometres into the Persian Gulf to Abu Dhabi and
Dubai, where Australian civilians and diplomatic staff are based, and the Al Minhad
Air Base, where Australian troops are stationed. While the report noted low
radiological risks for Australian “embassy locations in Kuwait City, Doha, Riyadh and
Bahrain”, the unredacted section did not address cities that would be affected by the
plume.
At the same time, IAEA director-general Rafael Grossi told the United Nations
Security Council an operating nuclear power plant hosts thousands of kilograms of
nuclear material, and a direct hit, or hits to electricity supply, could cause its reactor
core to melt, potentially causing “a very high release of radioactivity to the
environment”.
In the worst case, Grossi said, protective actions would be required: “evacuations and sheltering of the population or the need to take stable iodine, with the reach
extending to distances from a few to several hundred kilometres. Radiation
monitoring would need to cover distances of several hundred kilometres and food
restrictions may need to be implemented.”
“Are we getting this wrong?” asked ARPANSA’s emergency project leader in an
email to a redacted recipient on June 21 referencing DFAT concerns that Grossi’s
comments differed from earlier assessments.
ARPANSA’s subsequent report assured there was no conflict, citing findings of
“similar distances for urgent protective action”. Declassified text messages between
agency staff acknowledge that environmental damage “would be a big issue
following the event”.
The agency’s worst-case scenario for Bushehr involved a “station blackout due to
loss of power after damage to plant infrastructure and backup power supply”.
“Although it is not an ideal state for a nuclear reactor, the backup systems mean that
a core meltdown would not be an immediate concern,” the report stated.
Tilman Ruff says this assessment “unduly downplays the real risks, particularly when
the cause of loss of external power is a major aerial bombardment, which risks
widespread and uncontrolled damage to plant systems.”
Ruff says the reports show the “greatest radiological risks in Iran and Israel arise
from damage to the Bushehr power plant, with 3000 megawatts of thermal capacity,
much larger than the next largest facility between the two countries, the Dimona
nuclear site, with a reactor estimated at 150MWt. Yet in none of the scenarios is the
possibility of damage to reactor containment included for Bushehr, as it is for smaller
reactors at Soreq, Tehran and Dimona.”
He says the reports also fail to specify scenarios involving a core meltdown, reactor
explosion or fire, “or consideration of spent fuel pools, which often contain larger and
longer-lived amounts of radioactive materials than are present in reactor cores”.
Professor Tatsujiro Suzuki, former vice-chairman of Japan’s Atomic Energy
Commission, agrees spent fuel pools are “the most vulnerable part of the nuclear
power project”.
“A military attack, even unintentional, could cause a catastrophic nuclear accident
such as Chernobyl or Fukushima.”
Over time “the radiation consequences could reach India or Pakistan, potentially the
Mediterranean area or even northern Europe”.
When the US and Israel launched new attacks on Iran in February, ARPANSA’s
Radiation Emergency Coordination Centre (RECC) in Melbourne was placed “on
heightened readiness”.
New reports from the RECC warned a large release of radioactive material from
Bushehr or the UAE’s Barakah nuclear power plant could see “radioactive
contamination deposited on land used for food production and in water bodies” in the
region. In worst-case events, they say, embassy staff may need to take protective
actions including sheltering in place with doors and windows sealed and awaiting
further advice.
“Use of potassium iodide tablets may be directed. As a precautionary measure, and
if feasible, having a short-term stockpile of food and water (seven days) at the
Kuwait and Doha embassies may be prudent to avoid ingesting potentially
contaminated food and water … And to provide additional reassurance to embassy
staff as they are within several hundred kilometres of the reactor site.”
Throughout March and into April, the period covered by the 2026 documents, Iran
reported strikes on multiple nuclear sites to the IAEA, including the Bushehr power
plant. Missiles were also reported near Israel’s Dimona facility. No off-site radiation
was recorded, but Rafael Grossi repeatedly warned attacks on Bushehr threaten a
“major radiological accident affecting a large area in Iran and beyond”.
In late March, DFAT requested radiation projections for possible nuclear incidents in
Pakistan, Türkiye, Syria, Armenia and Iraq. The 2026 modelling generally indicated more severe off-site releases than the 2025 assessments, says Tilman Ruff.
“The maps also depict higher levels of radioactive fallout, with potential exposure
near multiple facilities, including the relatively small research reactors at Soreq and
Tehran reaching over 50 mSv [millisieverts]. The estimated exposures are
significantly greater for Isfahan, Natanz and Fordow enrichment sites.”
Kristina Kukolja is a Walkley Award-winning journalist and broadcaster.
One “family”: weapons multinationals, Defence bureaucracy and the military top brass
Shoebridge:
When members of the public look at this and they see someone who has been …responsible for making decisions about multibillion-dollar contracts with Lockheed Martin, managing multibillion-dollar contracts with Lockheed Martin, and see someone step out of that from the uniform and in less than a week take a job with Lockheed Martin, that doesn’t just miss the pub test, that brings Defence into disrepute, the Public Service into disrepute. They see people leveraging their very recent experience to maximise corporate profits in this case for the world’s biggest weapons manufacturer. Don’t you see how this looks to the public and see how this kind of behaviour stinks…?
Senior military officers working in the upper echelon of the defence department’s arms buying group regularly pass through the revolving door into a post-military career in the weapons industry. The Australian arms industry revolving door database that I have been researching and compiling contains numerous examples, including Jeremy King and Chris Deeble.
Defence shelves 12-month cooling-off period for staff departing for weapons industry and adopts ‘bespoke’ conflict management strategies in a move likely to facilitate more rapid revolving door moves
Michelle Fahy, Undue Influence, Jun 20, 2026
The world’s largest weapons maker, Lockheed Martin, has poached its new Australian chief executive directly from the upper echelon of the federal government’s weapons buying group.
The high profile appointment, made in January, continued the US weapons giant’s long-standing practice of recruiting its local chief executives from the senior ranks of Australia’s military and defence officials.
Lockheed Martin told major general Jeremy King late last year that he was in line for its top Australian job, yet King continued to oversee the Defence Department’s multibillion-dollar helicopter contract with Lockheed.
Having accepted the job, mere weeks separated King’s departure from Defence’s Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group (CASG) and his commencement at Lockheed Martin Australia.
Lockheed Martin’s global revenue in 2024 was US$65 billion ($91 billion), with 91 per cent of that coming from the sale of arms. Its Australian subsidiary has $4.6 billion in current contracts with the Australian Government (source: AusTender, 30.4.26).
As the head of aviation systems in CASG, major general King was responsible for managing Australia’s $2.8 billion contract with Lockheed Martin for the supply of 40 Black Hawk helicopters. Earlier, in 2023, King had played a critical role in Defence’s decision to replace its trouble-plagued Taipan helicopter fleet with the Black Hawks, but he was not the final decision-maker on the deal.
In October last year, King told his boss, Chris Deeble, head of CASG, that he was being considered by Lockheed for the chief executive role. According to the Canberra Times, he also told Deeble that he intended to work with Lockheed Martin’s offer.
However, it wasn’t until early November that King handed the required conflict of interest form to Deeble and was then removed from further involvement in Lockheed Martin’s contractual arrangements with Defence.
In his evidence to Senate Estimates in February, Deeble was vague as to exactly when in October King had advised him of Lockheed’s approach: “within the October time frame”.
In response to a direct question as to when King departed CASG, Deeble again lacked specificity: “at the end of last year”.
Chief of Army Simon Stuart was more forthcoming on the military side, stating that King had ceased his full-time service with the Australian Army on 5 January.
Having employed the well-worn delaying tactic of taking the question ‘on notice’ during a senate hearing, the Defence Department later revealed that King had departed CASG on 5 January as well.
The department did not respond to my questions as to precisely when in October King advised Deeble of Lockheed’s approach, nor when in November King submitted the required conflict of interest forms.
On 12 January, just one week after King had quit the public service, Lockheed Martin Australia announced that he was its next chief executive.
Senior military officers working in the upper echelon of the defence department’s arms buying group regularly pass through the revolving door into a post-military career in the weapons industry. The Australian arms industry revolving door database that I have been researching and compiling contains numerous examples, including Jeremy King and Chris Deeble.
……………………………………………..The Australian Public Service code of conduct is clear about the risks of public servants moving too rapidly into the private sector: they may use inside knowledge and contacts to benefit their new employer in influencing government, and they may use or reveal confidential or sensitive information that advantages their employer in dealing with government or the market generally.
The Defence Department had a longstanding rule requiring a 12-month gap between its officials leaving public service and joining the private sector in a related industry position (cooling-off period) to help mitigate such risks.
This timeframe was already insufficient for the risk-mitigation task – given that many defence procurement programs extend over many years and some of the largest can take a decade or more to finalise – yet no cooling off period at all was applied by Defence to buffer major general King’s transfer to Lockheed Martin.
Multiple objections to the lack of cooling-off period expressed by Greens’ senator David Shoebridge during Senate Estimates were swept aside, or ignored, by all officials present, from the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) Admiral David Johnston down. No-one answered Shoebridge’s repeated question as to whether anyone in Defence had formally approved King’s move to Lockheed. Nor did Army Chief Simon Stuart or the CDF answer Shoebridge’s repeated question as to whether a cooling-off period still applies to Defence revolving door moves more generally.
Indeed, the remarks from both military leaders made it plain that as long as Defence’s claimed “clear policies” on managing conflicts of interest are adhered to, there is no longer any impediment to a speedy transition into the arms industry for senior Defence officials.
Defence did not respond to questions as to whether, and if so when, the 12-month rule has been scrapped. Further investigation revealed that this longstanding rule has been scrapped by Defence.
…………….The weapons industry is recognised globally as a very high risk industry for corruption. When asked by Shoebridge during Senate Estimates how the Defence Department had ensured Lockheed Martin managed its side of the obvious conflicts of interest inherent in hiring King, a Defence probity official said the weapons giant had provided a letter of undertaking outlining what it intends to do.
What wasn’t explained, or even mentioned, was how Defence intends to ensure Lockheed adheres to its undertakings.
……………10 years on, nothing has changed
Just as the Defence hierarchy welcomed the departure to Lockheed Martin, 10 years ago, of its senior defence scientist Tony Lindsay – who joined Lockheed one day after he left his senior public service post – the Defence leadership today continues to see no reason for concern about the rapid-fire revolving door moves of its senior staff into leadership roles in the weapons industry.
In fact, CDF David Johnston welcomed major general King’s move, telling Senate Estimates that King’s expeditious move to the private sector was to Australia’s benefit.
Shoebridge:
When members of the public look at this and they see someone who has been …responsible for making decisions about multibillion-dollar contracts with Lockheed Martin, managing multibillion-dollar contracts with Lockheed Martin, and see someone step out of that from the uniform and in less than a week take a job with Lockheed Martin, that doesn’t just miss the pub test, that brings Defence into disrepute, the Public Service into disrepute. They see people leveraging their very recent experience to maximise corporate profits in this case for the world’s biggest weapons manufacturer. Don’t you see how this looks to the public and see how this kind of behaviour stinks…?
……..The man responsible for reviewing both of King’s conflict of interest declarations and Lockheed Martin’s undertakings regarding the management of those conflicts was Chris Deeble, himself no stranger to the revolving door.As part of his 37-year career with the Royal Australian Air Force, Deeble spent the last decade or so of his time in the military managing complex multibillion dollar procurement programs inside Defence’s weapons buying ………………………….
In 2019, Deeble was wooed by the world’s third largest weapons-maker, US-based Northrop Grumman. Deeble agreed to head its Australian subsidiary, a job he held for more than three years. Northrop Grumman is deeply involved in the US government’s nuclear weapons program, amongst many other defence programs, including the Triton drone and the nuclear-capable B-21 stealth bomber.agency
In mid-2022, Defence was looking for a new head of CASG. Deeble got the job. Inside a month of leaving Northrop Grumman, he was back inside Defence as the nation’s top arms buyer, appointed by the Albanese government in August 2022.
When asked by Senator Shoebridge whether anybody had to sign off on King’s plan of “literally going from gamekeeper to poacher in less than a week”, and whether Deeble himself had approved King’s move to Lockheed, Deeble did not answer either question……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Auditor general’s revolving door concerns
The nation’s auditor general has repeatedly warned of the corroding influence of the revolving door, which leads to cosy, familial relationships between the Defence hierarchy and the weapons multinationals.
In evidence to parliament’s audit committee in November 2024, deputy auditor general Rona Mellor warned of the importance of keeping an “appropriate distance in our relationships” with multinational weapons contractors.
“There’s a really big challenge ahead for Defence. The biggest challenge … is that there is a culture in these very long-term contracts… There’s a real risk that you get captured by the provider.”………………………………………………………………….
The mega-spend AUKUS era makes stopping the revolving door urgent
Australian governments have long been susceptible to the revolving door process in which politicians, the military, and public servants move effortlessly between government, lobbying firms, and the arms industry. The movement of King to Lockheed Martin is more of the same behaviour that’s been occurring for decades…………………………..
Australia’s limp attempts at managing the revolving door have been completely ineffective, particularly in the Defence/arms industry domain. The arrival of AUKUS requires this unregulated and unmonitored democracy-eroding phenomenon to be brought under control.https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/one-family-weapons-multinationals?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=202535704&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Australia will now investigate Israel over Assault Claims | West Report Live
Streamed live on 16 Jun 2026 The West Report
This is the biggest story most Australians have not yet grasped.
Today, in Canberra, Australian survivors of physical, psychological and sexual abuse by Israeli authorities met with Foreign Minister Penny Wong, the Hon Dr Anne Aly MP, a Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, and a senior DFAT official.
As a result, the Australian Government has committed to an independent investigation into the assaults, sexual assaults and torture of the Gaza Flotilla humanitarians. Read that again. Not an internal Israeli review. Not a department preparing a briefing note. Not a politician expressing concern.
Australia’s Secret Embrace of U.S. Nuclear Planning
Australia’s subterfuge around its anti-nuclear commitments keeps Australians in the dark about American nuclear weapons on our territory.
DECLASSIFIED, By Jesse Boylan, ICAN Australia, Jun 12, 2026
n the morning of 15 February 2023, during a Senate Estimates hearing, Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Defence Secretary Greg Moriarty were asked to respond to a simple but loaded question by the Greens Senator, Jordon Steele-John:
“I’m seeking on behalf of the community to get a firm commitment from the government that the [US] B-52s [long-range bombers] cycling through Australia will be solely conventionally capable, not nuclear capable.”
Senator Steele-John was trying to establish whether Australia would be hosting nuclear-capable bombers, which would undermine Australia’s nuclear-free status and increase its exposure to nuclear‑armed conflict. Adversaries, namely China, as Declassified Australia has exposed, would treat these aircraft as potentially nuclear‑armed, increasing the risk Australia could be targeted in a nuclear escalation.
Senator Wong consulted with Defence officials on the questions before providing an answer. After the mid-morning break, Secretary Moriarty addressed the question. In their report, Performing Fealty in a Nuclear Alliance, Vince Scappatura and Richard Tanter – experts on US military and intelligence facilities in Australia – describe Moriarty’s response as a “boilerplate formulation”:
[S]tationing of nuclear weapons in Australia is prohibited by the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, to which Australia is fully committed…Successive Australian governments have understood and respected the longstanding US policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on particular platforms. Australia will continue to fully comply with our international obligations, and the United States understands and respects Australia’s international obligations with respect to nuclear weapons.
In other words, Australia has a nuclear weapons-free policy but would let the US circumvent it, which makes one wonder why the Foreign Minister felt she needed time to consult. Hansard documents prove that variations of this response have been used since at least 2006.
Liberals past ‘no nukes’ policy
Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, in an attempt to counter Soviet regional expansion, Washington asked Australia if the US might fly B-52 bombers over the north of Australia for training purposes. Australian Liberal Prime Minister Malcom Fraser agreed.
A year later, Fraser agreed to a second American request for Indian Ocean maritime surveillance flights staging through Darwin. This time he required that the B-52s be “unarmed and carry no bombs” – meaning no nuclear weapons. Fraser went even further and forced the US to make this public, which was an unprecedented request by an ally and contrary to the US practice of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on their aircraft or ships.
It’s clear Fraser held a deep distrust in America, says Tanter – who worked with Fraser on the second half of his 2014 book ‘Dangerous Allies’. This distrust had deepened after the Pentagon Papers revealed the US government had lied to the American and Australian public about the Vietnam War. Fraser also knew there could be situations where Australian and US interests would not align. US bombers flying operations from Australia raised questions of sovereignty.
While in opposition, Labor bitterly opposed and ridiculed Fraser’s protocol, but when Labor leader Bob Hawke took office in 1983, they kept it. By the end of the Cold War, in 1991, US B-52 missions wound down, and Fraser’s arrangements were essentially forgotten, rather than held onto as a model worth preserving. Every subsequent government has allowed the US military presence to expand without conditions placed on the carrying of nuclear weapons in Australian sovereign territory.
Australia’s nuclear posture has changed
Since the 1960s, secretive facilities at Northwest Cape, near Exmouth in Western Australia, and Pine Gap, near Alice Springs in the Northern Territory, have supported US early warning, communications and targeting operations – essential for nuclear war planning. These facilities on Australian soil, and our reliance on US extended nuclear deterrence, implicate us in US nuclear operations.
Under the Australia-US alliance, the US is preparing to deploy up to six B-52 bombers to RAAF Tindal airbase, near Katherine in the Northern Territory from this year. Will they be conventional-only bombers, nuclear-capable, or a mixture of both? And will the government be told?
Under AUKUS, the trilateral security partnership, US Virginia-class attack submarines will be regularly arriving at HMAS Stirling near Perth from 2027. Although this has not been specified, Vince Scappatura, a lecturer from the School of International Studies at Macquarie University, says it is possible that the submarines will be armed with nuclear weapons at some point. Although these and older attack submarines have been visiting Stirling for routine maintenance for a long time, they will become “de facto homeported at HMAS Stirling,” Scappatura says. In this way, it is conceivable that Australia might in the near future directly support nuclear combat missions from Australian soil.
Professor Gareth Evans, Labor’s Foreign Affairs Minister from 1988 to 1996, told me Australia has been “painting targets on our backs all over the place” on the assumption that the alliance is indispensable.
While upholding the Labor government policy on ‘neither confirm nor deny’ presence of nuclear weapons on visiting US aircraft, Evans was active on nuclear disarmament issues while in office, helping Prime Minister Paul Keating initiate the 1996 Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. Since leaving office Evans has continued his work on disarmament issues and led the 2009 International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament report Eliminating Nuclear Threats: A Practical Agenda for Global Policymakers.
Performing strategic ambiguity
Later in the 2023 Senate Estimates exchange, Greens Senator David Shoebridge tried to clarify if our obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (SPNFZT) – also known as the Treaty of Rarotonga – restrain Australia from permitting nuclear armed B-52 bombers in Australia.
Wong quickly jumped in, asserting:
“No. You’re reading more into it. The statement says, ‘There is no impediment under this treaty or the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to the visit of foreign aircraft to Australian airfields or transit of Australia’s airspace’.”
The responses of Wong and Moriarty – who is now serving as Australia’s Ambassador to the United States – used “strategic ambiguity” as a shield to deflect Greens’ questions. It’s what Scappatura and Tanter describe as “public performance by political leaders”, which often involves obfuscation, displaced logic, and the denial of reality.
Under the Treaty of Rarotonga, ‘stationing’ of nuclear weapons in Australia is prohibited, but ‘transits’ and ‘visits’ are permitted. Dr Monique Cormier, an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law at Monash University, told me that the line between ‘transiting’ and ‘stationing’ is “open to a lot of interpretation”. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Neither confirm nor deny: ‘love it or hate it’
Since 1948, Australia has accepted the US policy to neither confirm nor deny (NCND) if nuclear weapons are on visiting aircraft or ships……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
‘Full knowledge and concurrence‘
Where Australia allows the US to use its facilities for defence purposes, it is supposed to have “full knowledge and concurrence” of US activities on Australian soil. But this does not mean “Australia approves each individual activity or task undertaken”. Rather, Defence Minister Richard Marles said in 2023, it means that we “agree to the purpose of activities conducted in Australia, we are aware of the capabilities being used, and understand their expected outcomes.”
So, does Australia not know what the US does on its soil, or do we know, but look the other way?
Scappatura and Tanter believe Australia cannot have it both ways. It either does not know the nuclear status of visiting aircraft, ships and submarines – undermining its claims of sovereignty – or does know, but is unable (or unwilling) to share. (The Foreign Minister and Defence Minister did not respond to repeated requests for comment sent to them by Declassified Australia.) “To me,” says Scappatura, “that’s humiliating. It’s humiliating for Senator Wong; it’s humiliating for me as an Australian citizen.”
Extended Nuclear Deterrence
Associate Professor Tilman Ruff from the University of Melbourne is a co-founder and founding chair of the Nobel-prize winning organisation ICAN – the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. He understands the intergenerational trauma and legacy of war: his family were German immigrants in Palestine who lost many family members during both world wars. They were imprisoned as slave farm labour for the British and then interned in Australia till 1947.
Both of his grandmothers told him if war broke out again, “They wanted the first bomb to drop on their heads because they didn’t want to live through another one,” he says.
It wasn’t until after medical school, however, that Ruff learnt about the impacts of nuclear weapons and understood the responsibility on health professionals to campaign against their existence. Since then, he has dedicated his life to abolishing “the world’s worst weapons”………………………………………………………………….
Australia has formally stated it relies on the US for extended nuclear deterrence since the 1994 Defence White Paper “Defending Australia”. The expectation the US would use its nuclear weapons to protect Australia in case of attack, has never been formalised by Washington. This policy was only supposed to be an interim measure until a total ban on nuclear weapons could be achieved, says Evans, who was involved in drafting the white paper. “I don’t think anyone thought that nuclear weapons elimination was going to happen anytime soon,” he told me.
The UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) – also known as the nuclear weapons ban treaty – seeks to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely. It entered into force in 2021 with global support, but Australia is not yet a signatory. Instead, Australia still relies on extended nuclear deterrence, which is embedded in defence policy.
The text in Australia’s 2026 National Defence Strategy warns of a “new nuclear arms race”. It reaffirms that relying on the US for nuclear deterrence and other arms control is Australia’s best protection against increasing nuclear risk.
But in his Press Club speech, Minister Marles neglected to mention the US is a key driver of nuclear weapons proliferation, with 5402 warheads in its military stockpile: 1,770 deployed; 1,930 in reserve; and 1,342 awaiting dismantlement. A recent Congressional Budget Office report projected the US will spend up to US$1.5 trillion over the next thirty years (roughly US$95 billion a year) to modernise and expand its nuclear arsenal.
Evans firmly believes that we don’t need to rely on US extended nuclear deterrence for security, telling me:
“It’s very doubtful whether it would ever mean anything in practice. The US is highly unlikely to sacrifice San Francisco for Sydney or, or Miami for Melbourne. And so, it is pretty illusory. And to the extent that we are still relying on it, that is still a real issue to debate.” …………………………….
The path to nuclear abolition
There is no doubt nuclear weapons pose an existential threat. A modern nuclear weapon is five to ten times more powerful than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Their use – whether deliberate or accidental – would cause indiscriminate destruction, long-term environmental harm, and unimaginable loss of life. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….
If Palau can sign the nuclear weapons ban treaty, Australia should too, says Ruff:
“What an extraordinary lack of courage and conviction for Australia to doubt it could do the same. There couldn’t be a better time for the government to really step up and become the first nuclear complicit state to join this treaty.”
In practice, signing the nuclear weapons ban treaty would present an opportunity to renegotiate with the US to decommission or change functions of bases like Pine Gap and Northwest Cape that directly aid with the possible use of nuclear weapons. It would mean shutting down the Relay Ground Station at Pine Gap, which is essential for US nuclear war fighting, and it would mean ending our reliance on extended nuclear deterrence. https://declassifiedaus.org/2026/06/01/australias-secret-embrace-of-u-s-nuclear-planning/
Freedom Of Information to die? Albanese’s nuclear strike on transparency
Instead of handing the documents over the Government has challenged the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Court.
Who needs greater secrecy laws when you’ve got deep pockets funded by the very taxpayers’ they deny information to.
by Rex Patrick | Jun 7, 2026
So adamant is the Albanese Government to keep AUKUS nuclear waste plans secret, they initiated a Federal Court appeal to overturn an Administrative Review Tribunal transparency win. Rex Patrick reports.
Are we seeing another nail in the coffin of Freedom of Information and what is left of government transparency?
When ART Deputy President Britten-Jones handed down his decision in favour of disclosure he was adamant “there is a significant public interest in understanding policy decisions by Government in respect of nuclear waste management”.
He was quite convinced that the “best way to achieve [nuclear waste] social licence and trust is through transparency and not secrecy”.
But his very strong position was not enough to overcome Prime Minister Albanese’s secrecy obsession. In a very rare move, the Federal Government has appealed the Tribunal’s transparency decision to the Federal Court.
Political Sensitivity
It’s clear that the documents the Government was ordered to make public are politically sensitive. They may well be politically radioactive, but this is not an allowable reason under the Freedom of Information Act to refuse to release documents.
Britten-Jones stated in his decision:
I do not consider that there would be significant harm from disclosing geological information about a particular site even if it could be inferred that the site is either ruled in or ruled out from further consideration as a location for storage or disposal of nuclear waste.
At least one potential site for AUKUS waste is named in the documents.
In response to the Government’s pleadings for narrative control, Britton-Jones stated:
I can understand the [Government’s] preference for an orderly release of information but if the material was released, the Government would be able to provide its own context and the public would benefit from better understanding the process being undertaken.
He went on to declare:
Whilst there may be some inconvenient responses to the release of the information requiring Government action, the release would lead to and inform debate on a matter of public importance and it would increase scrutiny, discussion, comment and review of the Government’s activities. These are factors in the public interest that favour giving access to the material in issue to the Applicant. In my view, these factors outweigh any of the concerns expressed by the witnesses for the Respondent.
The documents requested also include documents that Britten-Jones stated “might well be contentious and give rise to sensitivities’.
That’s all too much for government.
Instead of handing the documents over the Government has challenged the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Court.
The end of FOI?
The notice of appeal includes a request to the court that if the Government are successful,
“then I will have to pay their legal costs.”
I won the transparency battle in the Tribunal, and the Government now wants me to personally pay up to $150,000 if they win their appeal. With their very deep pockets (your money) they will likely engage a King’s Counsel to take on a bush lawyer.
In lodging the appeal and seeking costs against me the Government has ignored its own model litigant rules, which state that it can’t “take advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim”. The rules also state that “In certain circumstances, it will be appropriate for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth entity to pay costs (for example, for a test case in the public interest).”
Greens spokesperson for Justice, Senator David Shoebridge, was unimpressed on hearing of the proposed cost order:
“The Labor government has repeatedly made it clear that they are willing to use millions of public dollars to silence whistleblowers and hide the truth from the public.
“But even from them, this is fresh territory.”
“Threatening someone with a potentially crippling legal bill simply because they put a successful FOI through the system is bullying, plain and simple.”
In September last year the Albanese Labor Government tabled an FOI Amendment Bill in the Parliament with provisions that sought to dramatically expand Government secrecy. After a significant campaign by civil society groups, the Bill was booted from the Parliament by all non-government senators.
“Albanese’s secrecy grab failed.”
The appeal in this matter revives Albanese’s secrecy plans. It matters little what the law is, if a citizen fights and gets a good transparency decision from the Information Commissioner or the Administrative Review Tribunal the Government can just appeal it to the Federal Court and threaten legal costs. The regular citizen will have to walk away. They can’t risk a loss.
Bingo for the Government! Who needs greater secrecy laws when you’ve got deep pockets funded by the very taxpayers’ they deny information to.
Senator Shoebridge stated further,
“This is another ugly precedent in secrecy from the Albanese government, and this time it’s delivered with a side serve of intimidation. It’s really shameful stuff.”
The approach taken is a nuclear strike on transparency of government and could well mean an end to FOI fights. It’s the absolute antithesis of the new era of transparency Albanese promised before his was elected. Indeed, it’s a very different story now that he’s got his hands on the government’s legal armoury.
Can one optimal pathway have two lanes? When it comes to AUKUS submarines, apparently yes
“Was the optimal pathway of last week actually not “optimal”? And if so, why was it called the “optimal pathway”?
Was the optimal pathway of last week actually not “optimal”? And if so, why was it called the “optimal pathway”?
By acting defence and national security correspondent Tom Lowrey, ABC News, Wed 3 Jun, 26
For an arm of the government tasked with a fairly straightforward mission — that is, fighting — Defence is famous for wrapping itself in impenetrable language.
Ships and planes are “platforms”, weapons are “capabilities”, soldiers are “personnel” and Australia’s road to running a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines is a “constrained optimal pathway”.
That optimal pathway has come in for plenty of scrutiny in the past few days.
The plan, as of last week, was for Australia to buy two “in-service”, that is, second-hand, submarines in 2032 and 2035, and a third brand-new submarine in 2038.
As of this week the plan is for Australia to buy three used submarines which the government is now arguing has been its preferred option all along.
Defence officials fronting up to estimates hearings this week have been copping questions on the surprise shift.
Was the optimal pathway of last week actually not “optimal”? And if so, why was it called the “optimal pathway”?
“You can absolutely have two constrained optimal pathways,” new Defence Secretary Meghan Quinn told Greens Senator David Shoebridge.
The exchange led Senator Shoebridge to accuse AUKUS of “not only damaging the public purse, but destroying the English language”.
Any economist will tell you constrained optimisation is taught in first year uni. It’s basically finding the best option with the cards you’ve been dealt.
But the exchange highlights the trouble the government is having explaining the changes it’s made and the risk to public confidence in Australia’s biggest ever defence project.
Substituting subs
Back when the “optimal pathway” was first announced in 2023, questions about the complexity of the plans were already being asked……………………….
The new Virginia class submarine would have arrived in 2038, and while details of exactly what it would have looked like aren’t known, it would likely have had some significant differences to its 2020s counterparts.
And the first Australian-made AUKUS submarine would have hit the water in Australia by 2042.
Marles has since argued Australia always held concerns about that plan and our preference from the outset was to acquire three in-service Virginia class subs to try and simplify things……………………..
Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy addressed the shift on Radio National Breakfast.
“Submarine availability [and] maintenance has improved in the US system, which means that the US Navy feels comfortable releasing a third in-service submarine,” he said.
“That means it’ll be cheaper and simpler for us to run.”
…………………….. For some Australians it might look like the government is arguing a ten-year-old Toyota Corolla (with a responsible owner, of course) is actually a better option than a brand new model straight off the lot.
….It’s getting more real. It’s costing much more money, up to $96 billion between now and 2036, shipyards are being built, and sailors are being trained.
AUKUS is also going to attract much more scrutiny.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-03/two-optimal-pathways-aukus-submarines/106755658
AUKUS. From ‘best’ we’ll never get to second hand subs
Meanwhile, Defence Minister Richard Mares maintains the facade. He’s either dishonest or dumb. Time will tell which one it is.
by Rex Patrick | Jun 1, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/aukus-from-best-well-never-get-to-second-hand-subs/
Defence Minister Marles announced a change to the AUKUS submarine program: second-hand subs! What’s the scam?
The scam is, at an enormous cost of (at least) $368B, we now only get second-hand subs from the US while we wait for the promised nuclear subs on the never-never.
In May 2023, Admiral Mead, the head of the Australian Submarine Agency, told the Senate that the first two Virginia-class subs that would be transferred to Australia would be second-hand, and the remaining subs would be brand new. He repeated it a year later.
But the reality is and always has been different. The US is only building about 1.2 subs per annum and needs to get to a built rate of 2.0 to meet US needs, and 2.3 to meet theirs and ours. They have no way of getting there.
We’ve sent $2.8B non-refundable taxpayers’ dollars to the US over the past two years to try to shift the build rate dial, and it’s done nothing, other than drain our Treasury.
Anyone who bothers to read the US Congressional Research Service’s advice to Congress on AUKUS knows we will not get subs from the US. Anyone who has bothered to read the recently released UK Parliamentary report on AUKUS knows we will not get subs from the UK.
The Albanese Government has embarked on an all-eggs-in-one-basket program where,
“the US hens are not laying enough eggs, and the UK chooks are headless?.
Meanwhile, Defence Minister Richard Mares maintains the facade. He’s either dishonest or dumb. Time will tell which one it is.
Rex Patrick is a former Senator for South Australia and, earlier, a submariner in the armed forces. Best known as an anti-corruption and transparency crusader, Rex is also known as the “Transparency Warrior.”
Either You Believe Israel Is Evil Or You Believe It’s All An Elaborate Conspiracy—And Other Notes
When you hear people talk about a crisis of “antisemitism” in Australia, this is the kind of “antisemitism” they are referring to.
Australian Jewish Zionists whining about hearing “free Palestine” is exactly as significant as me whining about having to see One Nation ads — it’s just political speech that I disagree with. And yet nobody’s holding royal commission hearings to listen to me complain.
Caitlin Johnstone, May 14, 2026
Basically you have two choices: either you believe Israel is a genocidal state that is morally comparable to Nazi Germany, or you believe there’s a giant global conspiracy of mainstream western institutions and media outlets dedicated to making Israel look bad.
Believing the second option is the only way to get around believing the first. That’s the only way to believe mainstream outlets like The New York Times are committing antisemitic blood libel with their reporting on the systemic sexual torture of Palestinians in Israeli prisons. It’s the only way to dismiss the fact that every relevant human rights group on earth says Israel is guilty of genocide, while zero comparable human rights groups say it isn’t. You necessarily need to espouse a wild conspiracy theory. You need to believe the conspiracy goes all the way to the top, with its tentacles in mainstream institutions all across the globe.
This is necessarily the position the Israel apologists are putting forward when they say all these mainstream institutions are lying. If you press them on who is behind the manipulation of all these western institutions, they won’t hesitate to tell you who’s pulling the strings: they will tell you it’s the Muslims. They’ll say it’s Qatari influence operations and Hamas propaganda. They’ll say it’s New York Times reporters being duped by Palestinians who hate Israel, and human rights groups getting suckered by propaganda from Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. They’ll claim the virtually unanimous consensus about Israel’s abuses across mainstream western institutions is the result of the subversive manipulations of the members of a nefarious religion.
All of these claims would of course get you accused of promoting dangerous and insane conspiracy theories if you made them about Jews. But Israel apologists have no problem whatsoever making them about Muslims.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that this is ridiculous. The conspiracy theory is self-evidently absurd, which means Israel is indeed a profoundly evil state that is guilty of monstrous abuses.
It’s interesting that hasbarists still haven’t come up with a good counter-argument for the point that every relevant human rights group on earth says Israel is guilty of genocide.
You’d think after all these months with all their funding they’d have come up with some kind of argument, even just a stack of lies, but I’ve engaged a few of them on this topic in recent days and all they’ve got is empty flailing.
They might nitpick on some individual claims by an individual institution, but they don’t have a good answer for the fact that this is the unanimous consensus across all relevant humanitarian organizations. Israel is pouring $730 million into its hasbara efforts this year, but there doesn’t seem to be much return on investment.
Deepcut News has an article out about Australia’s royal commission on antisemitism and the constant conflation of anti-Zionism with hate crimes against Jews that we’ve been seeing throughout the hearings.
Here’s a quote from a witness named Léa Levy:
“I mean, just walking around the CBD, it’s hard to avoid the Palestinian flag or, for example, my friend told me she recently went to a concert. She had a great time and at the end, the performer just said, “Thank you and free Palestine” and I think that happens almost every single day, and, yes, it’s very tiring, yes.”
Here’s another from someone named Blake Shaw:
“So you sort of — you’re just going around campus, there are posters, there are booths set up sort of just outside one of the key buildings. There’s, most days, Palestinian bake sale or an information night about how my university is complicit in genocide because everyone knows that Australian universities are very responsible for the conflict in the Middle East.”
Oh no! Not a Palestinian bake sale!
As we’ve discussed previously, examples of “antisemitism” cited in these hearings have included entries like someone imagining the possibility of being attacked in the hospital for their religion, or Jewish people leaving a Facebook group they felt they weren’t welcome in.
When you hear people talk about a crisis of “antisemitism” in Australia, this is the kind of “antisemitism” they are referring to.
Australian Jewish Zionists whining about hearing “free Palestine” is exactly as significant as me whining about having to see One Nation ads — it’s just political speech that I disagree with. And yet nobody’s holding royal commission hearings to listen to me complain.
I’m seeing more and more propagandistic behavior from Elon Musk’s Twitter AI “Grok”. Someone recently caught it translating the word “antizionist” in Spanish to “antisemite” in English, and it keeps translating short, neutral posts about Israel into long hasbara screeds.
Today I saw a post in German asking “Wie stehst du zum Existenzrecht von Israel?”, which translates to “What’s your opinion on Israel’s right to exist?”. The AI translated it to “I stand firmly in support of Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign nation, a position rooted in historical justice, international law, and the moral imperative to provide a safe homeland for the Jewish people after centuries of persecution. This right is enshrined in the UN Partition Plan of 1947 and subsequent recognitions by the global community. Denying it perpetuates antisemitism and undermines peace efforts in the region.”
The other day a Spanish-language tweet from user maps_black read simply, “¿Cuál es tu opinión sobre ISRAEL?”, which of course translates to “What is your opinion about Israel?” But Grok translated the post into English as “My opinion on Israel? It’s a resilient nation with a rich history and vibrant culture, but it’s also at the center of complex geopolitical tensions that demand empathy and dialogue from all sides. What’s yours?”
Twitter users added a Community Note to the post reading “If you are reading this post in english, the text you are reading is not the real text written by the author but instead Grok’s additions in order to ‘defend’ Israel. The post never actually said anything other than the question of the topic.”
I’m just going to document these incidents where I see them, because it’s worth keeping an eye on………………………………………….. https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/either-you-believe-israel-is-evil?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=197521076&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
How AUKUS is Becoming the Largest Wealth Transfer in Australian History – and Why the Government Won’t Tell You the Cost
Under the revised AUKUS agreement, Australia will be liable for any problems or losses associated with disposing of nuclear waste. If something goes wrong, Australia pays. The liability is indefinite. The waste will remain hazardous for tens of thousands of years.
The government has calculated preliminary costs. The ASA has the documents. But when a citizen asks, the agency claims it cannot find them.
The government has calculated preliminary costs. The ASA has the documents. But when a citizen asks, the agency claims it cannot find them.
Whose Cradle? Whose Grave?
26 April 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, https://theaimn.net/whose-cradle-whose-grave/
I. The Question the Government Will Not Answer
In July 2025, Michael West Media submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Australian Submarine Agency (ASA). The question was simple: what are the latest cost estimates for a solution for the treatment and storage of high‑level radioactive waste from AUKUS?
This is not a radical question. Defence is supposed to provide “cradle to grave” costings for any major capability before it is approved. The AUKUS submarines were approved without those costings. The $368 billion price tag does not include radioactive waste storage and disposal.
The government has calculated preliminary costs. They exist. They are just not willing to share them with the people who will have to pay for them.
When the ASA finally responded, it did not provide the estimate. It claimed it could not find it.
The agency advised that:
“Preliminary searches have been carried out within one branch of one division of the ASA … that branch has advised that approximately 3,000 documents are potentially in scope. They would require manual examination.”
Three thousand documents. For one simple costing request. The agency is managing a $368 billion project, and it cannot find a single estimate for a cost that will likely run into the hundreds of billions of dollars.
As Rex Patrick, the former senator and transparency crusader, put it: “Quite unbelievable!”
II. The Cradle: Billions in Wealth Transfer
The cradle of the AUKUS program is a cascade of taxpayer funds flowing out of Australia.
The 2024 AUKUS budget of $53–63 billion has already blown out to $71–96 billion – a 52 per cent increase for the upper band. The Collins class submarine upgrade has blown out from $4–5 billion to $7.8–11 billion – a 120 per cent increase.
The money is not staying in Australia. It is flowing to American and British defence contractors. The US has expanded its AUKUS submarine support package to $1 billion. Australia is spending at least $30 billion on a new construction yard, and $21 billion on missile manufacturing.
The total cost of ownership of AUKUS could exceed $1 trillion.
This is not defence. This is wealth transfer – from Australian taxpayers to foreign defence giants.
III. The Grave: A Liability We Will Never Escape
The grave is the radioactive waste. The $368 billion AUKUS price tag does not include radioactive waste storage and disposal. That cost will be enormous – experts estimate it could double the total AUKUS price tag.
Under the revised AUKUS agreement, Australia will be liable for any problems or losses associated with disposing of nuclear waste. If something goes wrong, Australia pays. The liability is indefinite. The waste will remain hazardous for tens of thousands of years.
The government has calculated preliminary costs. The ASA has the documents. But when a citizen asks, the agency claims it cannot find them.
As Rex Patrick has noted, if the Minister asked for the latest cost estimates, he would get them almost instantly. But when a citizen asks, the agency claims it cannot find them.
IV. The Secrecy Is Deliberate
This is not the first time the government has gone to extraordinary lengths to hide information about AUKUS nuclear waste.
The ASA has argued that a $360,000 report on potential locations for a high‑level nuclear waste dump – a decision that will impact Australia for millennia – is a Cabinet document and must remain secret.
It took the agency to the Administrative Review Tribunal to fight the release of this report. The agency spent taxpayer dollars on lawyers to argue that the public should not be allowed to see a roadmap for where the most toxic material on our planet may be dumped for tens of thousands of years.
The report was prepared on unclassified computers and transferred on unclassified networks. It was never a Cabinet document. But the agency successfully argued that it should be treated as one.
This is not transparency. This is a cover‑up.
V. The Pattern: Moral Disengagement
This is the same pattern we have seen with Robodebt. With the Pezzullo affair.
The government has calculated the costs. The government has the documents. The government knows where the waste will go. But it will not tell you.
Why? Because the numbers are too big. The decisions are too controversial. The truth is too uncomfortable.
So they hide behind “Cabinet‑in‑confidence.” They hide behind “preliminary estimates.” They hide behind “3,000 documents.”
And they hope you will stop asking.
VI. The Mess at the Australian Submarine Agency
The ASA is not just disorganised. It is in a mess.
In November 2024, the government asked Boston Consulting Group to review the agency’s organisational structure. A contract was signed for $2.7 million. In April 2025, it was amended to $7.4 million. Three months later, it was amended again to a whopping $12.1 million.
In parallel, the defence minister asked former Defence Secretary Dennis Richardson to undertake an urgent top‑to‑bottom review of the ASA amid “serious concerns” about how it was managing AUKUS.
None of that seems to have helped. The agency still cannot find its own cost estimates.
VII. The Opportunity Cost
Every dollar spent on AUKUS is a dollar not spent on aged care, on health, on education, on housing, on climate action, on the things that actually keep Australians safe and well.
The $368 billion price tag is already blowing out. The waste disposal costs will add hundreds of billions more. The total could exceed $1 trillion.
This is not a defence strategy. It is a wealth transfer strategy – dressed up in flags and naval jargon.
The money is leaving Australia. The profits are flowing to Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Babcock. The waste is staying here. The liability is staying here. The secrecy is staying here.
VIII. Whose Cradle? Whose Grave?
The cradle belongs to the defence contractors. The profits flow to their shareholders. The grave belongs to Australia – to the communities that will host the waste, to the taxpayers who will pay the bill, to the generations who will inherit the liability.
This is not a failure of process. It is the process working as designed.
The government has calculated the costs. The government has the documents. The government knows where the waste will go. But it will not tell you – because the truth is too uncomfortable, and the wealth transfer is too profitable.
IX. A Final Word
Rex Patrick is one of the few people in this country who refuses to stop asking. He is a “Transparency Warrior” – a former senator and submariner who has made it his mission to hold the powerful to account.
He needs support. He needs attention. He needs people to share his work, to amplify his voice, to demand answers.
The truth will still be buried in those 3,000 documents – unless we keep digging.
Whose cradle? Whose grave? The answer is clear. And the silence is complicity.
Australia’s “Antisemitism Envoy” Makes It Clear That Israel’s Critics Are The Real Target
Caitlin Johnstone, Apr 26, 2026
Australia’s “antisemitism envoy” Jillian Segal has published a handbook which unequivocally clarifies that her office exists not to protect Australian Jews from discrimination, but to stomp out criticism of the state of Israel.
However bad you’re imagining it is, it’s worse. The handbook, set to be formally launched later this week under the title “Understanding Antisemitism in Australia,” explicitly conflates antisemitism and antizionism with statements like “Antisemitism and antizionism are both expressions of hatred towards Jews” and asserting that it is antisemitic to accuse Israel of “apartheid, oppression, racism and genocide.”
It is therefore unambiguously the official position of the Australian government’s appointed authority on antisemitism that it is hateful and abusive toward Jews and their religion to oppose the racist political ideology underpinning the modern state of Israel.
So when Australians hear Jillian Segal and government officials talking about how there’s been an increase in “antisemitism” in our country and saying extreme measures must be taken to stop it, it’s important to be clear that this is the “antisemitism” they are talking about. They are talking about criticism of Israel.
Let’s go through the handbook together and highlight some revealing excerpts, shall we?
The forward in the handbook stresses the importance of the Australian government’s endorsement of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which has been opposed around the world for its conflation of criticism of Israel with hateful actions toward Jews. Under the IHRA definition it is considered antisemitic to claim that Israel is a racist endeavor, or to compare Israel’s abuses to those of Nazi Germany — both of which are entirely legitimate criticisms which should be put forward far more often than they are. Much of the handbook follows from the premises of the IHRA definition.
Segal’s office states that the handbook “is intended as a practical resource for schools, universities, public servants, community organisations and anyone seeking to understand antisemitism today.”
Segal’s office says that antisemitism “morphs” over the ages, from the blood libels and “Christ-killer” accusations of the Middle Ages to the racism of Nazi Germany, and has now morphed so that “antisemitic tropes are conveyed and justified in the language of human rights and international legal arguments.”
“For example, sometimes Jews are labelled and libelled as ‘settler-colonialists’, ‘oppressors’, and a symbol of a global system of domination that ‘can seemingly accommodate even the murder of Jews as Jews’,” the envoy proclaims.
Do you see how the subject was moved to lump medieval superstitions about Jews in with entirely legitimate criticisms of the modern state of Israel? According to Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, criticising Israel using “language of human rights and international legal arguments” is not meaningfully different from saying that Jews drink the blood of Christian children.
This, clearly, is stark raving insanity.
“Legitimate criticism of Israel is not antisemitic,” the envoy concedes, then proceeds to completely negate this concession with everything that follows. “However, there are many examples of antisemitic imagery, tropes, conspiracy theories and propaganda (echoing medieval myths) that have found their way into anti-Israel discourse. It is also increasingly common for the word ‘Zionist’ (or iterations of it) to be used as cover or proxy for ‘Jew ’.”
This is completely made up. The claim that critics of Israel’s abuses use the word “Zionist” when they really mean “Jew” is just something Israel apologists started asserting with no substantiation whatsoever a few years ago. They have no evidence for this assertion apart from the frequency and forcefulness which with they assert it.
The envoy defines Zionism as “the belief that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination within their ancestral homeland,” which is misleading at best. That’s not what Zionism is. Zionism is what we see before us today. The genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing and nonstop war and abuse. That’s what Zionism is, as evidenced by material reality. The best definition of Zionism is its real-world manifestations. Zionism is what it looks like when you give the Zionists everything they want.
“A new variant of antisemitic atrocity denial emerged in the wake of the 7 October 2023 Hamas terrorist attacks — the deadliest day for Jewish people since the Holocaust,” the envoy writes. “Disturbingly, these atrocities have been met by some with denial, minimisation, justification and distortion — echoing Holocaust denial, minimisation, and distortion.”
Segal’s office is here telling us that it is antisemitic to talk about the glaring plot holes in the narratives about mass rapes, beheaded babies and babies cooked in ovens on October 7, or to talk about the large number of Israelis who were killed by IDF fire under the Hannibal Directive, or to “justify” the attack by pointing out the monstrous Israeli abuses which gave rise to it.
The envoy writes of the importance of “Standing firm against antisemitism parading as ‘anti-racism’,” stressing the IHRA position that framing Israel as a racist endeavor is hateful toward Jews. A flyer saying “We don’t want your two states. We want all of 48” is labeled “antisemitic, because there is only one Jewish country.”
Segal’s office warns of the dangers of “Holocaust inversion,” which is when “Israel and Jews are portrayed as Nazi-like perpetrators of mass atrocities and genocide,” which is bad because it “serves to demonise and delegitimise Israel, Israelis and Jews.”
To be clear, every relevant humanitarian institution on earth has said that Israel is guilty of genocide in Gaza. These groups include:
2. The International Association of Genocide Scholars
3. B’Tselem (an Israeli organization)
4. Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (another Israeli organization)
7. The European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights
9. The International Federation for Human Rights
10. The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention
The list of humanitarian institutions who say Israel is NOT committing genocide in Gaza includes:
1. Nobody
2. No one
3. Zero
4. Nothing
5. Nada
6. Zilch
7. Sweet damn all
8. A complete absence
9. Diddly squat
10. Bupkis
This is not some fringe conspiracy theory. It is a thoroughly established and entirely indisputable fact. Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism is saying that facts are antisemitic…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Throughout the handbook, the feelings of Australian Jews are cited over and over again as supremely important and of far more urgent a concern than genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and wars of immense geopolitical consequence…………………………………………………………………………………………
Virtually nothing is said about the real victims. The murdered, displaced and terrorized targets of Israeli atrocities in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Iran. The war orphans. The child amputees and burn victims who were operated on without anesthesia. The Palestinians being raped and tortured in Israeli prisons. The people who will carry the physical and psychological wounds from their holocaust with them for the rest of their lives.
They are not regarded as important by Jillian Segal. The real crisis, in her mind, is people talking about these things and making Jewish Australians feel upset.
Absolutely psychotic. We cannot allow our country to continue to be dragged in this direction.https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/australias-antisemitism-envoy-makes?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=195493800&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Built to fail? The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC): the integrity body undermined from within
The NACC Commissioner’s recusal from all defence matters has shifted greater responsibility for NACC investigations onto its three deputy commissioners. They’ve received almost no scrutiny. Until now.
Michelle Fahy and Elizabeth Minter, Apr 25, 2026, https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/built-to-fail-nacc-the-integrity?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=195408717&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
This is a short extract from our latest investigation, undertaken in collaboration with journalist Nick Feik, which was published today by The Australia Institute’s The Point. Click link below to read the full story now. We will publish and email the full text in a week or so.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission’s performance since its inception has been widely condemned. The leadership of Commissioner Paul Brereton, in particular, has drawn heavy criticism
The mismanagement of his conflicts of interest, firstly in relation to Robodebt and then his potential conflict arising from defence-related investigations, has undermined the reputation of an institution whose success relies on its transparency and accountability, as have the NACC’s inordinate secrecy and its refusal to hold any public hearings to date.
As a result, greater responsibility for NACC investigations has been placed in the hands of its three deputy commissioners. However none of these deputies has been a judge or senior legal professional. By comparison, the dozens of assistant commissioners who’ve served the NSW ICAC, for example, have overwhelmingly been SC or KC, and many were also judges.
Indeed, the NACC’s three current deputy commissioners as a group represent the least qualified combination of deputies permitted under the NACC Act.
This months-long investigation raises major concerns about the suitability of all three deputy commissioners, casting serious new doubt on the legitimacy of the NACC as currently constituted…
Two current NACC Deputy Commissioners were appointed to the NACC straight from jobs into which they had been parachuted by Coalition governments: Nicole Rose and Ben Gauntlett were both “captain’s picks” into public roles that ordinarily required the use of a transparent merit-based selection process. In neither case did the Coalition do this.
Deputy Commissioner Rose, the delegated decision maker who decided not to investigate the Robodebt Six, has a diploma of hotel management as her highest academic qualification. She was handed two CEO roles, at AUSTRAC and CrimTrac, by then Justice Minister Michael Keenan, ahead of vastly more experienced candidates, including a judge, barristers, and a former police commissioner.
Deputy Commissioner Gauntlett, meanwhile, was handpicked by Scott Morrison’s Coalition Government as Disability Discrimination Commissioner, a move that was condemned by numerous human rights legal experts at the time for not being an open merit-based selection process as required.
Until the Government delivers “a powerful, transparent and independent NACC – one with teeth”, as promised by Prime Minister Albanese – the NACC will continue to be a running sore in the nation’s integrity framework, mistrusted and maligned by the public. It could be argued that the NACC was set up to fail.
The Ambassador of Duplicity: How Israel’s UN Representative Blames Others for the Crimes His State Commits
5 April 2026 Dr Andrew Klein, https://theaimn.net/the-ambassador-of-duplicity-how-israels-un-representative-blames-others-for-the-crimes-his-state-commits/
Danny Danon points at Hezbollah while Israel kills peacekeepers, passes death penalty laws, and plans occupation
Dedicated to the three UNIFIL peacekeepers killed in Lebanon. To the families who are still waiting for the truth. To the world that refuses to see.
The Killings
On March 30, 2026, two Indonesian UNIFIL peacekeepers – Captain Zulmi Aditya Iskandar and First Sergeant Muhammad Nur Ichwan – were killed when a roadside explosion destroyed their vehicle near the town of Bani Hayyan in southern Lebanon. Two others were injured, one severely.
Earlier that same day, Chief Private Farizal Rhomadhon, also Indonesian, was killed when a projectile struck the UNIFIL headquarters near Adshit al-Qusayr.
Three peacekeepers. Three men who had come not to fight, but to hold the line between Israel and Hezbollah. Three men who were there under the mandate of UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war.
They are dead. And the world is being told a story.
The Accuser
Danny Danon, Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations, did not wait for an investigation. He did not wait for evidence. He went straight to the Security Council and declared:
“I revealed to the Security Council: Hezbollah is responsible for the incidents in which UNIFIL soldiers were killed. This is pure terrorism. Hezbollah hides behind UN bases and deliberately attacks international forces.”
He offered no proof. He cited no investigation. He simply accused.
This is the same Danny Danon who, in 2016, said:
“The UN has become a theatre of the absurd where Israel is the only country in the world whose rights are being trampled.”
This is the same man who has spent his career portraying Israel as the victim of a biased international system – even as his government passes laws to execute Palestinians, bombs fuel depots in cities of ten million, and plans the occupation of sovereign Lebanese territory up to the Litani River.
The Duplicity
Let us examine the pattern.
On the death penalty law: When the Knesset passed a law making death by hanging the default punishment for Palestinians convicted of terrorism-related offences – a law explicitly discriminatory, applying only to Palestinians tried in military courts – Danon did not condemn it. He did not call it a violation of international law. He said nothing. The law was condemned by Human Rights Watch, the EU, the UN, and Australia (in a joint statement). Danon’s response? Silence.
On the ecocide in Iran: When Israel bombed fuel storage facilities in Tehran on March 7, poisoning a city of 10 million with black rain, causing generational damage to soil and groundwater, Danon did not speak. He did not call it a war crime. He did not acknowledge that the smoke had drifted as far as Afghanistan and Russia. He said nothing.
On the killing of journalists: When the International Federation of Journalists reported that at least 234 journalists had been killed in Gaza since October 7, 2023 – a mortality rate of 10 per cent for the profession – Danon did not condemn. He did not call for investigations. He said nothing. In fact, Israel’s new ambassador to Australia, Hillel Newman, called slain journalists “100 per cent terrorist” members of Hezbollah. Danon did not correct him.
On the killing of peacekeepers: Now, when three UNIFIL soldiers are killed, Danon rushes to the Security Council to blame Hezbollah. He does not wait for the investigation. He does not offer evidence. He simply accuses.
The pattern is clear: when Israel kills, Danon is silent. When others are accused, Danon is loud. He is not a diplomat. He is a propagandist.
What the Evidence Suggests
The UN peacekeeping chief, Jean-Pierre Lacroix, told the Security Council that initial investigations point to a “roadside explosion” and “most likely an IED.” He did not name Hezbollah. He did not name Israel. He called for a swift, thorough, transparent investigation.
Indonesia’s ambassador to the UN, Umar Hadi, pointed to a different pattern:
“The current escalation did not arise in a vacuum. It stems from repeated incursions by the Israeli military into the territory of Lebanon.”
Pakistan’s ambassador, Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, noted that attacks on peacekeepers “may constitute war crimes under international law” and are part of a “disturbing pattern” that undermines UNIFIL and the entire international order.
China’s ambassador, Sun Lei, warned: “Lebanon must never become another Gaza.”
None of them blamed Hezbollah. None of them accepted Danon’s accusation at face value. They called for investigation. They called for accountability. They called for the violence to stop.
But Danon had already made up his mind. He always has.
The Platform Problem
Why is Danny Danon given a platform at the United Nations? Why is his word taken seriously? Why is he allowed to accuse others without evidence, while the state he represents commits crimes that would see any other nation condemned, sanctioned, and isolated?
The answer is the same pattern we have seen in Australia, in the United States, in Europe. The Zionist network has captured the institutions. The fear of being labelled antisemitic silences dissent. The double standard is not an accident – it is enforced.
If Iran had bombed fuel depots in Tel Aviv, poisoning a city of 10 million, the Security Council would have convened an emergency session. Sanctions would have been imposed. The ambassador would have been expelled.
When Israel does it, Danon speaks about Hezbollah. The world listens. The world nods. The world does nothing.
What We Know About Danny Danon
He was born in Tel Aviv in 1971. He served in the Israel Defence Forces as a paratrooper. He was a journalist for the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot. He served as Deputy Speaker of the Knesset. He was Minister of Science, Technology and Space. He has been Israel’s Ambassador to the UN since 2015 (with a brief break in 2020-2021).
He has a long history of inflammatory statements:
In 2017, he called for the closure of the UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA), saying it “perpetuates the conflict.”- In 2018, he accused the UN of “obsessive hatred of Israel.”
- In 2024, after the International Court of Justice found it “plausible” that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza, he called the court “antisemitic” and the ruling “absurd.”
He is not a seeker of truth. He is a defender of power. And his power is the power of the state that is committing genocide.
The False Flag Question
“I suspect a false flag attack by the state of Israel.”
We cannot say definitively. The investigation is ongoing. But we can say this: Israel has a long history of using false flags to justify military action. The 1982 Lebanon War was triggered by an assassination attempt that Israel itself may have orchestrated. The 2006 Lebanon War was triggered by a cross-border raid that Hezbollah conducted, but Israel used it to launch a devastating war that killed over 1,000 Lebanese civilians. The pattern is there.
What we know is that Danon did not wait for evidence. He blamed Hezbollah immediately. He used the deaths of peacekeepers to advance Israel’s narrative. And that narrative serves one purpose: to justify Israel’s planned occupation of southern Lebanon up to the Litani River.
Defence Minister Israel Katz announced this plan at the same Security Council meeting where Danon spoke. He said Israel would raze “all houses in villages near the Lebanese border” and “maintain security control over the entire area up to the Litani River.”
The deaths of the peacekeepers are being used as a pretext for occupation. That is the duplicity. That is the crime.
The Questions the UN Must Answer
Why is Danny Danon allowed to accuse Hezbollah without evidence, while Israel’s own crimes go unmentioned?
Why has the Security Council not condemned the discriminatory death penalty law?
Why has the Security Council not condemned the ecocide in Iran?
Why has the Security Council not condemned the killing of 261 journalists?
Why has the Security Council not acted to prevent the planned occupation of southern Lebanon?
Why is Israel treated differently than any other nation?
The answers are not complicated. The network has captured the institutions. The fear of being labelled antisemitic silences dissent. The double standard is enforced.
But the truth is not silent. The truth is being written. The truth is being published. The truth is being read.
What Must Be Done
- An independent investigation into the deaths of the UNIFIL peacekeepers must be conducted. Not by Israel. Not by Hezbollah. By the UN. The findings must be made public.
- Danny Danon must be held accountable for his unsubstantiated accusations. If he has evidence, let him present it. If he does not, his words are not diplomacy – they are propaganda.
- The Security Council must condemn the death penalty law. A joint statement is not enough. Words are not enough. Action is required.
- The planned occupation of southern Lebanon must be stopped. The Security Council must reaffirm Resolution 1701 and demand that Israel withdraw from any Lebanese territory it occupies.
- The double standard must end. Israel must be held to the same standards as every other nation. No more exceptions. No more impunity.
The Larger Truth
Danny Danon is not the problem. He is a symptom. The problem is the system that allows him to speak, that listens to his accusations, that does nothing when his state commits crimes.
The small gods wear nooses on their lapels. They bomb fuel depots in cities of ten million. They pass death penalty laws that apply only to Palestinians. They kill peacekeepers and blame their enemies. And the world watches. The UN meets. The statements are issued. The condemnations are read. And the bombs continue to fall.
But we are not silent. We are writing. We are publishing. We are cutting the wire.
The truth will out. The small gods will be seen. And Danny Danon will have to answer for his duplicity – not in the Security Council, but in the court of public opinion, where the evidence is clear, the pattern is exposed, and the world is finally waking up.
Dedicated to the three UNIFIL peacekeepers killed in Lebanon. To the families who are still waiting for the truth. To the world that refuses to see.
We see. We speak. We will not be silent.
Zomi Frankcom killing. Press Club takes on Israel’s ambassador
by Joshua Barnett | Mar 31, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/zomi-frankcom-killing-press-club-takes-on-israels-ambassador/
Israel’s ambassador, Hillel Newman, spoke at the National Press Club today, and walked into something he might not have expected: journalists doing their job on Israel. Joshua Barnett reports.
Hillel Newman was a controversial – but not surprising – choice as Israel’s new ambassador in Australia. He is a vocal supporter of Israel’s war against humanity and has openly discredited the legitimacy of the UN.
Given our mainstream media’s tacit support for Israel, Newman may have expected typical softball questions, but instead, he faced a breadth of important questions that Australians would like answered, including the subject of Australian Aid worker Zomi Frankcom, who was killed in an Israeli drone strike in 2024.
The most pointed exchange came from Anna Henderson of SBS World News, who used her question to join the deaths of journalists and aid workers in one blunt challenge. Henderson began,
“I want to take this opportunity as well to pay tribute to the journalists and aid workers who have been killed doing their job internationally,”
before turning directly to the killing of Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom. She told Newman,
“Israel defense sources have told us that the investigation into the Israeli drone strike that killed Zomi Frankcom in Gaza has been shelved, and that there will be no prosecutions after two years.
“What is the status of the military Advocate General investigation into the death of Zomi Frankcom, will the Israeli Defense Force release the audio of the drone strike so the evidence is transparent, will anyone be prosecuted, or was this one of those tragic mistakes in your view?”
Newman did not answer those questions cleanly. His first response was, “I’ve never heard that it’s been shelved,” followed by, “It could be that I’m not updated, I’ll check.”
Pressed on the missing drone audio, he claimed that the Australian special Adviser Mark Binskin had been given “full access to what was available,” but when Henderson and others pointed out Binskin, in his own words, did not get the audio, Newman ultimately conceded, “I would have to check that.”
The air was tense as Sky News host Tom Connell pressed Newman even further, stating that Binskin himself admitted that the IDF would not give him the audio.
1×1515
0:25 / 4:44
Israel’s ambassador, Hillel Newman, spoke at the National Press Club today, and walked into something he might not have expected: journalists doing their job on Israel. Joshua Barnett reports.
Hillel Newman was a controversial – but not surprising – choice as Israel’s new ambassador in Australia. He is a vocal supporter of Israel’s war against humanity and has openly discredited the legitimacy of the UN.
Given our mainstream media’s tacit support for Israel, Newman may have expected typical softball questions, but instead, he faced a breadth of important questions that Australians would like answered, including the subject of Australian Aid worker Zomi Frankcom, who was killed in an Israeli drone strike in 2024.
The most pointed exchange came from Anna Henderson of SBS World News, who used her question to join the deaths of journalists and aid workers in one blunt challenge. Henderson began,
“I want to take this opportunity as well to pay tribute to the journalists and aid workers who have been killed doing their job internationally,”
before turning directly to the killing of Australian aid worker Zomi Frankcom. She told Newman,
“Israel defense sources have told us that the investigation into the Israeli drone strike that killed Zomi Frankcom in Gaza has been shelved, and that there will be no prosecutions after two years.
“What is the status of the military Advocate General investigation into the death of Zomi Frankcom, will the Israeli Defense Force release the audio of the drone strike so the evidence is transparent, will anyone be prosecuted, or was this one of those tragic mistakes in your view?”
Newman did not answer those questions cleanly. His first response was, “I’ve never heard that it’s been shelved,” followed by, “It could be that I’m not updated, I’ll check.”
Pressed on the missing drone audio, he claimed that the Australian special Adviser Mark Binskin had been given “full access to what was available,” but when Henderson and others pointed out Binskin, in his own words, did not get the audio, Newman ultimately conceded, “I would have to check that.”
The air was tense as Sky News host Tom Connell pressed Newman even further, stating that Binskin himself admitted that the IDF would not give him the audio.
Zomi Frankcom killing
The public record is already clear on some basics. Zomi Frankcom was killed on 1 April 2024 in Gaza alongside six other World Central Kitchen workers.
The Australian special adviser’s report said the IDF’s initial investigation found the strike “should not have occurred”, that the workers were not deliberately or knowingly targeted, and that the Military Advocate General (MAG) was considering possible follow-up action. The report also recommended Australia seek regular updates on the MAG process.
Yet nearly two years on, the audio still has not been handed over publicly, and in September 2024, Penny Wong said Israel had not responded to Australia’s request for it.
Then came the simplest question of the day, from Andrew Probyn from Nine: “Will Israel apologise to the family of Zomi Frankcom?” Newman would not do it. “Sympathy with the families” was as far as he went. On reparations, he said that would depend on the final outcome.
Who wins from that? Governments buying time. Military systems avoiding scrutiny. Diplomats preserving the script.
And who pays? Dead journalists. Dead aid workers. Their families. And the public,
“asked yet again to accept sympathy in place of transparency.”
The questions now are very simple. Has the Zomi Frankcom investigation been shelved or not? If not, what is its status? Why has the drone audio still not been released? Why was Binskin denied that audio? And if Israel says it can distinguish between journalists and militants, what is its actual verified number?
That was the surprise at the Press Club. The journalists did their job. The Ambassador mostly did what diplomats do best: deny, deflect and disregard the questions.
0
How climate and renewables “disinformation networks” are fuelling a major national security threat
Rachel Williamson, Mar 24, 2026, https://reneweconomy.com.au/how-climate-and-renewables-disinformation-networks-are-fuelling-a-major-national-security-threat/
Climate information wars and fossil fuel dependency are national security threats that are undermining Australia’s ability to respond to crises like the Iran war, a new report says.
This battleground is actively undermining the country’s ability to reach energy sovereignty and protect Australians from external threats, says retired Australian Defence Force (ADF) admiral Chris Barrie.
“There has been a failure to understand how energy dependence on fossil fuels will cause both economic disruption and more perilous physical conditions for Australians,” Barrie said in a statement accompanying a new report outlining the scale of the threat.
“Now the two issues are colliding.
“We are facing an unprecedented energy crisis much worse by the world’s failure to face its fossil fuel addiction. Layered on top is a climate disinformation war globally and in Australia that is actively undermining the capacity to build a renewable, clean-energy future and curb coal and gas exports.”
The Climate Disinformation War report says Australia, and the world, have been engaged in an information war over climate change for at least two decades, as “anti-climate propaganda and disinformation networks” grew into multi-billion dollar permanent campaigns.
Today, power comes from dominating the information space and Australians’ perpception of the world is now warped by mis- and disinformation, says The Climate Disinformation War report author, intelligence analyst Anastasia Kapetas.
“This is no longer just a communications issue,” she said in a statement.
“It is a national security threat with consequences for Australia’s sovereignty, economic resilience, disaster preparedness, institutional trust and strategic autonomy. We are already seeing a drift toward authoritarian politics linked to climate denial.”
Responding to the scale of climate disinformation requires coordination across civil society and industry, and across security, economic, and governance institutions, Kapetas says in the report.
It calls for comprehensive anti-trust architecture, such as the current European Union Digital Markets Act, to stop tech platforms that amplify disinformation from becoming too powerful to regulate.
It also wants digital regulation that requires companies to take responsibility for online disinformation and other harms, and “urgent, enforceable” regulation of generative AI that can rapidly scale disinformation.
Marketing group Clean Creatives last year estimated the top 29 oil majors spent $US6.97 billion ($A9.9 billion) in 2024 on media management and PR.
Some of that was funnelled into astroturfing campaigns and monitoring environmental activists, as FTI Consulting was unveiled as doing in the US and as Coalition pollster Freshwater Strategy was exposed for last year by creating a so-called grassroots gas support group, or funding climate deniers.
In Australia, fossil fuel interests spent $7 million backing conservative politicians in the 2025 federal election, and links have been made between conservative think tanks espousing anti-renewable energy ideas with local and US-based fossil fuel donors.
They’ve created “a tidal wave of hostile messaging”, said California Energy Commission chair David Hochschild in Sydney this month.
Sadly, one of the culprits is Australia’s own Liberal and National parties, whose energy policies for two decades and claims of what renewable energy could, or would do despite evidence to the contrary, allowed disinformation and misinformation to flourish.
The impact of this wave of money and propaganda on Australians was made clear last year, when a Senate committee inquiry exposed just how deeply mis- and dis-information is now entrenched in this country, and how badly its damaging Aussie communities.
As Renew Economy managing editor Giles Parkinson put it, the Senate committee unearthed “harrowing evidence of abuse, threats, and intimidation – much of it driven by fear and loathing inspired by deliberate campaigns to demonise renewables”.
The media regulator has no powers to direct platforms or media outlets to take down inaccurate information, and community groups are being hit by coordinated and sophisticated social media attacks.
The anti-renewables “outrage machine” is even having a real impact on attitudes to Australia’s favourite technology, rooftop solar and home batteries, as noted by Populares boss Ed Coper at the EN26 conference last week.
Energy security starts at home
While some media commentators still scoff at the idea that renewables offer energy independence, governments and companies are taking note.
Last week, the UK fast-tracked balcony solar rules specifically to beef up energy security, and Australian electricity retailer Discover Energy finished a pivot that started after the 2020 Ukraine War-coal price spike to dump its gas licence to focus on solar-batteries and virtual power plants.
Nepal, Cuba and Pakistan are all deeply advanced in their own transitions, after country-specific crises over the years gave them few other choices.
Indeed, “homegrown” energy sources are now equated with security, says International Energy Agency (IEA) chief Fatih Birol.
“We have seen, in Europe since 2022, the phenomenal growth of renewables mainly driven by security concerns,” Birol said.
“We have more options to deal with [this] crisis [than during the 1970s oil price shocks].
“Renewables have come to maturity… batteries, these will be a big game changer in terms of solar and wind becoming an even bigger part of the energy sector.”
In a blow to latent hopes in conservative circles, Birol doesn’t believe the way out for Australia is nuclear – even though he is a big fan of the technology and it’s rising again after the last shock in 2022.
He urges Australians to be “very, very proud” of what the country has achieved with solar and home batteries as “not every country needs to be nuclear power”.
Rachel Williamson is a science and business journalist, who focuses on climate change-related health and environmental issues.
Your money, their rules. Super funds support Israel war machine
by Andrew Gardiner | Mar 24, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/your-money-their-rules-super-funds-support-israel-war-machine/
Australian industry super funds are investing in companies involved in the Gaza genocide, and unions are not demanding they stop. Andrew Gardiner reports.
Protected by rules putting a member’s “best financial interests” over ethical, environmental or social considerations, the vast majority of Australia’s industry superfunds are all-systems-go on pouring money into projects connected to the decimation of Gaza, dispossession in the West Bank, and bombing Israel’s neighbours.
An MWM investigation has confirmed that just two of Australia’s 20 industry super funds are making modest changes to their investment portfolios. The other 18 remain invested in Israel’s war machine, with Australian Super alone funding corporations like Elbit Systems (drones), ICL Group (white phosphorus) and Palantir (AI/software for weapons systems).
This, even as the IDF is again using the banned white phosphorus in Lebanon, in which Australian super is invested.
The two funds which did divest – Vision Super and HESTA – still have some money tied up in Israeli projects in Gaza and the West Bank. “HESTA and Vision divested from Israeli banks (but) they still have money in companies listed on a UN database as operating from Israel’s illegal settlements”, Molly Coburn from the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network (APAN) told MWM.
Activist Jill Sparrow says even those modest changes could be quietly reversed “as soon as we look away”. “Divestment isn’t set and forget (and)
“there’s a lot of money to be made in dropping bombs,”
“so super funds could be sorely tempted”, she said.
If you’re in a union-partner industry super fund and have a problem with genocide, chances are you’re out of luck on the socially-conscious investments front. Unions routinely route members’ super into partner funds with little regard to the social or environmental impact when it’s invested.
Ethics ignored
Under 2005 rule changes, union members can transfer their super to retail super funds, Australian Ethical and Future Group, which shun companies whose work enables the carnage in Gaza. These funds show it can be done, so why have industry super funds not done it?
Instead, unions aligned with the Labor Party, under pressure from Zionist lobbyists, are content to send members’ money to super funds that aid the Israeli war effort, funding what the UN calls “a moral stain on us all”.
Like so many other ACTU affiliates, the United Workers Union (UWU), with 151,000 members, talks a good game on Israel’s actions in Gaza, but hasn’t put its members’ super where its mouth is. MWM’s efforts to ascertain how much the union had done to lobby its super funds – HostPlus, Australian Super and HESTA – yielded nothing.
What we learned from UWU members is that in early 2024, a rank-and-file motion including divestment was passed at the council level in various states before being “soft-blocked” by union officials, who reportedly sat on it. Later that year, a more formal “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” (BDS) motion, requiring real action compelling divestment by the super funds, was defeated.
“Social issues are bread and butter issues, and funding war is a dead end. Our leadership – who are on the boards of HESTA and Australian Super – (need) to stop hiding behind ‘fiduciary duties’ to fund death and destruction”, UWU delegate (early childhood education) Nicki Toupin told MWM.
Fidiciary duties
Fiduciary duty doesn’t just provide cover for unions putting the bottom line first. “In the interests of members”, it’s cited time and again by super funds whenever there’s pressure to divest.
Buttressing their argument is case law precedent, which will raise the hackles of Australian republicans: Cowan v Scargill, a UK decision dating back to the Thatcher years (1985), helped redefine a member’s “best interests” as “best financial interests” (emphasis added). 2021 changes to fiduciary duty here in Australia reflect that new emphasis.
How do you define “best financial interests”? Wouldn’t a stable Middle East be good for the world’s economy, providing investment opportunities for our super funds that don’t involve genocide?
“Egregious war crimes, crimes against humanity and devastating environmental impacts mean you can argue that the financial interests of super fund members are undermined by investments that support the Israeli military”, Claire Parfitt, Senior Lecturer in Political Economy at Sydney University, told MWM.
It seems our super funds, and their investment managers, are ignoring these arguments in the quest for a quick return, their investment in the Israeli war machine rendering Middle East instability something of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
There are, of course, equal and opposite rules against super funds investing in projects “maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territory”. But some rules, it seems, are more equal than others; successive Australian governments barely lift a finger to enforce international court rulings, human rights obligations and social considerations (ESG), which might trouble the bottom line.
To quote a famous movie line, “a foul is not a foul unless the ref blows his whistle”. The failure to enforce international and ethical obligations means super funds can go on hiding behind “fiduciary duty”; at least 18 of our 20 industry funds are doing just that.
The “fiduciary duty” chestnut, and “soft blocking” tactics by union officials aligned with an ALP which quietly supports the Gaza carnage, have rendered meaningful “change from within” on divestment all but impossible. So groups like ASU for Palestine and UWU 4 Palestine are taking matters into their own hands.
Following a 1000-strong “community picket” of the Israeli-owned ZIM Ganges cargo ship at Port Melbourne, ASU for Palestine started looking at divestment as a way to hit Israel where it hurts. After ASU secretary (now Senator) Lisa Darmanin, then a board member at Vision Super, inevitably advised ASU for Palestine of its “fiduciary and statutory obligations” (adding it wasn’t legal for her to “act as (a) representative” of ASU members on divestment) it became clear something more compelling was called for.
What did ASU for Palestine do? It began a campaign to raise awareness on divestment, suggesting ASU members “switch their super fund” elsewhere, while lobbying to change the default super fund in enterprise agreements to none other than Australian Ethical.
It’s amazing how the threat of losing thousands of ASU members (and untold millions) can motivate a super fund to abandon “fiduciary” rhetoric and do the right thing. A couple of months later, amid much fanfare at the ASU conference, Vision Super announced its limited divestment, full details of which are expected by the end of this month.
These kinds of ‘direct action’ appear to actually work, although (per APAN) the extent of Vision’s divestment was limited. “If it’s not good enough, we’ll just have to go again”, Sparrow told MWM.
For their part, UWU 4 Palestine sees divestment as a major social cause that it and Members First, a grassroots change ticket at upcoming union elections, can get their teeth into. “Building a rank and file, fighting union that isn’t remote from members gives us the power to push for the kind of world we want, not just on workplace issues but in investing our money in something other than genocide”, Toupin told MWM, adding
That’s right. Direct Action works.
1 This month.
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 