ASSANGE JUDGE IS 40-YEAR ‘GOOD FRIEND’ OF MINISTER WHO ORCHESTRATED HIS ARREST
Julian Assange’s fate lies in the hands of an appeal judge who is a close friend of Sir Alan Duncan – the former foreign minister who called Assange a “miserable little worm” in parliament.
MATT KENNARD AND MARK CURTIS, 2 DECEMBER 2021, Declassified UK
Lord Chief Justice Ian Burnett, the judge that will soon decide Julian Assange’s fate, is a close personal friend of Sir Alan Duncan, who as foreign minister arranged Assange’s eviction from the Ecuadorian embassy.
The two have known each other since their student days at Oxford in the 1970s, when Duncan called Burnett “the Judge”. Burnett and his wife attended Duncan’s birthday dinner at a members-only London club in 2017, when Burnett was a judge at the court of appeal.
Now the most powerful judge in England and Wales, Burnett will soon rule on Assange’s extradition case. The founder of WikiLeaks faces life imprisonment in the US. ……………………………….
Duncan served as foreign minister for Europe and the Americas from 2016-19. He was the key official in the UK government campaign to force Assange from the embassy.
As minister, Duncan did not hide his opposition to Julian Assange, calling him a “miserable little worm” in parliament in March 2018.
In his diaries, Duncan refers to the “supposed human rights of Julian Assange”. He admits to arranging a Daily Mail hit piece on Assange that was published the day after the journalist’s arrest in April 2019.
Duncan watched UK police pulling the WikiLeaks publisher from the Ecuadorian embassy via a live-feed in the Operations Room at the top of the Foreign Office.
He later admitted he was “trying to keep the smirk off [his] face”, and hosted drinks at his parliamentary office for the team involved in the eviction.
Duncan then flew to Ecuador to meet President Lenín Moreno in order to “say thank you” for handing over Assange. Duncan reported he gave Moreno “a beautiful porcelain plate from the Buckingham Palace gift shop.”
“Job done,” he added. https://declassifieduk.org/assange-judge-is-40-year-good-friend-of-minister-who-orchestrated-his-arrest/
AUKUS coming to dinner
AUKUS dinner guests at the Cosmos Club, Washington: US Secretary for Navy, Carlos Del Toro; Republican Congressman Rob Wittman; Labor MP Meryl Swanson; Australian ambassador, Kevin Rudd; Liberal senator James Paterson; ex-Minister for Defence, lobbyist Christopher Pyne. (Photo: Pyne & Partners)
by Kellie Tranter | Jun 10, 2023 https://michaelwest.com.au/aukus-coming-to-dinner/
Declassified Australia reveals the feast for lobbyists, US defence contractors and hangers-on which is the AUKUS $370bn submarines deal, Kelly Tranter reports.
The defence lobbying firm Pyne & Partners – chaired by the former Australian Defence Minister Christopher Pyne – co-hosted an AUKUS reception and dinner in Washington at the swanky Cosmos Club on Embassy Row, with Northrop Grumman Corporation, on 3 April 2023.
Northrop Grumman is one of the largest defence companies in the world, and is the parent company to spin-off Huntington Ingalls, the US’s largest naval shipbuilder and one of the builders of the Virginia-class submarines destined to come to Australia.
The meeting was ‘private’ even though it concerned Australian defence contracts and arrangements and was attended by the Australian Ambassador and two Australian MPs, and senior US defence officials. Without public disclosure of what happened at the gathering, the Australian public once again is left in the dark.
However, Declassified Australia has been able to prise open the locked shutters on the private event to shine in some needed light. With hundreds of billions of dollars at stake through the AUKUS submarine deal, what calibre of people could be expected to attend such an event and what could possibly be their interest?
Documents produced pursuant to Freedom of Information (FOI) laws, by this writer, confirm that Australia’s Ambassador to the USA, Kevin Rudd, was invited to provide a speech, the contents of which journalists had previously reported to be ‘off the record’.
Declassified Australia has obtained the Ambassador’s briefing notes – though somewhat redacted due to national security considerations, ‘for the security of the Commonwealth’ and to avoid ‘damage to the defence, or international relations, of the Commonwealth’.
Rudd’s address was scheduled to follow those of the US Secretary for Navy, Carlos Del Toro, and Congressional Representative Rob Wittman. Rudd was allowed a period of five minutes for his remarks, ‘in between the main course and dessert’.
Congressman Wittman was among a bipartisan group of members of the US House of Representatives who in January sent a letter to President Joe Biden expressing support for the AUKUS deal. He unsurprisingly welcomed the huge AUKUS submarine spend as ‘a unique opportunity to leverage the support and resources possible under AUKUS to grow our industrial base to support both US and Australian submarine construction’.
In January he also was suggesting sending a jointly operated US submarine to Australia, saying, “I think it would be dual-crewed. I think too, that the command of the submarine would be a dual command”. These remarks, of course, raise sovereign control issues.
Another claim to fame of Representative Wittman was being named in a September 2022 analysis by The New York Times as one of at least 97 members of Congress who bought or sold stock, bonds or other financial assets that intersected with their congressional work or reported similar transactions by their spouse or a dependent child.
Rob the insider trader
Although the Times noted that U.S. lawmakers are not banned from investing in any company, including those that could be affected by their decisions, the report confirmed that Congressman Wittman traded shares of three defence contractors while he was a member of the House Armed Services Committee, which incidentally included the AUKUS event co-sponsor, Northrop Grumman
The Congressman’s response to the media revelation was to say: “I have consistently believed members of Congress should not improperly benefit from their role, and I support measures to avoid conflicts of interest.” He went on to say, “This is why I relinquish all control of my investment decisions to my financial adviser to use third-party investment managers who implement trades at their own discretion without my consultation or input,” which, he noted, is allowed under House ethics rules.
The new FOI documents confirm that Congressman Wittman is currently the Vice Chair of the US House Committee on Armed Services, Chair of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Committee and Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, is on the House Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the US and the Chinese Communist Party (sic), and is on the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee of the US Congress.
The FOI documents reference that, ‘Rep Rob Wittman was first elected to serve the first congressional district of Virginia in December 2007. His district is adjacent to Naval Base Norfolk as well as the major shipbuilding facilities in Newport News, Virginia – including one of the shipyards that builds Virginia-class attack submarines (Huntington Ingalls). Many of his constituents are employed either by the shipyards themselves, or by the supporting industry in the region.’
So it’s all just hunky-dory that through his investment advisor he can invest to profit from the success of defence contractors.
As to Secretary of the Navy, The Hon Carlos Del Toro, the FOI document suggests under the sub-heading, ‘Industrial collaboration’, that Ambassador Rudd was specifically tasked to ‘seek Toro’s ongoing support and endorsement’, and to recognise that ‘we continue to work with the US government agencies to overcome barriers to industrial base, supply chain and technology collaboration’.
China’s military modernisation program and its operation of nuclear-powered submarines, including both nuclear and conventionally armed, are mentioned in Ambassador Rudd’s ‘briefing notes’ obtained under FOI, along with this acknowledgement:
‘We do not oppose any nation’s right to invest in and develop defence capabilities. However, a lack of transparency around military capabilities can fuel insecurity.’
Transparency debacle
The stated concern about lack of transparency is at odds with the Australian government’s own lack of transparency to Australian citizens in relation to the entire AUKUS deal. They have yet to make signed copy of the agreement publicly available.
As to the effect of AUKUS on Australia’s defence sovereignty, Rudd’s briefing notes confirm Australia’s generous desire to ‘ease pressure on the US supply chains’ and provide the US submarines with their long-desired Indian Ocean naval base:
‘Australia will build new maintenance and repair capabilities that will directly benefit US submarines rotating through HMAS Stirling [naval base near Perth]’.
The language of the FOI document – ‘aligning national priorities’, ‘collective strength’, ‘mutual strategic benefit’, ‘deeper cooperation’ – all seems to be geared towards a fully integrated strategic and industrial base with little room for Australia’s sovereign defence issues.
And what does it say when a private Australian defence lobbyist funds eight-day international trips for the attendance of two Australian ‘non-Defence’ politicians to a private Washington event it is co-hosting with one of the largest defence companies in the world? And what does it say when the lobbyist invites a US guest speaker who trades in defence company stocks while holding political defence offices? And what does it say when input by senior US military officials and by our own ambassador to the US, until this FOI application, we’re not even permitted to see?
Transparency and integrity of decision-making in relation to AUKUS ought not be shrouded in lavish invitation-only discussions where private interests eye-off the billions in potential profits — and where Australia’s future is on the table.
This story was first published by Declassified Australia
Crooked company Price Waterhouse Cooper STILL HAS ACCESS TO THE DEFENCE SECRET NETWORK
Greens Senator David Shoebridge likened PwC advising the Government to “Dracula at the blood bank” after it was discovered that PwC also still has access to the Defence Secret Network.
Greens Senator David Shoebridge likened PwC advising the Government to “Dracula at the blood bank” after it was discovered that PwC also still has access to the Defence Secret Network.
The PwC disaster — Neoliberalism on steroids
Independent Australia By Michelle Pini | 1 June 2023
Australians are tired of neoliberalism. We are sick of that much talked about and ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots.
The idea that endless privatisation and unfettered corporate greed will somehow leave us all better off no longer appears to be swallowed by the vast majority of Australians. Certainly, public confidence in our political leaders as well as in our institutions has been severely eroded in recent years.
PUBLIC PAIN FOR PRIVATE GAIN
This week, the Pricewaterhouse Cooper (PwC) scandal – in which nine (as yet unidentified) partners of the consultancy firm enlisted to help the Coalition Government design tax laws, leaked confidential Treasury information to benefit PwC’s private clients – has left Australians outraged.
And if that’s not enough, it was revealed on Tuesday (30 March) that PwC is also:
“…The internal auditor of both Treasury and the AFP.”
This adds another level of complication to an already convoluted matter, given the Australian Federal Police (AFP) chose not to investigate the matter, despite being urged to do so by the Australian Tax Office (ATO) over a period of two years.
Appearing before Senate Estimates, ATO Commissioner Chris Jordan said:
“After sharing the information with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) over the period 2018 and 2019, and providing a number of documents upon their request after our initial sample of the emails, we had to ultimately formally refer the matter to the Tax Practitioners Board in July 2020.”
Jordan explained that once the AFP investigation was closed the only option was the Tax Practitioners Board, since:
“There was nowhere else to go.”
But an AFP spokesperson said there was “insufficient information” to proceed.
According to a report in the Financial Review:
he AFP assessed, based on the material that the ATO provided, was that there was insufficient information in the material, to support a formal referral … In consultation and agreement with the ATO, the matter was closed in 2019.”
Greens Senator David Shoebridge likened PwC advising the Government to “Dracula at the blood bank” after it was discovered that PwC also still has access to the Defence Secret Network.
SHARING BUT NOT CARING
And Australians watched, mouths agape, as the PwC tax scandal finally exploded, resulting in nine directors being “stood down” and our government institutions – to which the firm still consults – were left exposed. Of course, since PwC is a private company, no information has been shared with the public as to who these directors may be, what is meant by “stood down” or what redundancies they may take with them if their directorships are ever severed — never mind disciplinary action.
It’s a pity sharing information about its own lack of accountability does not appear to be a likely move from the consultancy firm that has received eyewatering amounts of taxpayer funds for advising the Federal Government — before also sharing confidential government information with its own client base.
And it’s not only PwC that contributes to this “shadow public service” concept so favoured by the former Coalition Government. An audit (not conducted by PwC, thankfully) has shown close to $21 billion was spent by the Morrison Government on external labour hires in the public service in 2021-22, alone………………………………… https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/the-pwc-disaster–neoliberalism-on-steroids,17570#disqus_thread
Defence reveals seven new PwC contracts worth $6m after tax scandal broke
Crikey, ANTON NILSSON MAY 31, 2023
The Defence Department has reported seven contracts with PwC, worth a total of nearly $6 million, since the firm’s tax scandal broke, Crikey can reveal.
Greens Senator David Shoebridge told Crikey that Parliamentary Library research showed the single contract worth the most money — $4.6 million for “management advisory services” — started on February 1.
That’s just over a week after the Tax Practitioner’s Board (TPB) issued a media release revealing PwC’s former tax partner Peter-John Collins had been deregistered as a tax agent over integrity breaches……………………………
Crikey can reveal the Defence Department entered into the following contracts with PwC after January 23:………………………………………………….
In total, the Defence Department has 54 contracts with PwC, also known as PricewaterhouseCoopers, worth a total of $223,299,943, the department’s Associate Secretary Matt Yannopoulos told Senate estimates on Tuesday. …………..
The senator, who is the Greens’ defence spokesperson, told Crikey the tax scandal hadn’t stopped the department “signing contract after contract with PwC”.
“This isn’t a single contract from a rogue tender panel, it’s at least seven contracts for work across the entire [Australian Defence Force]” Shoebridge said. “What this shows is how deeply PwC has its tentacles into the defence establishment and how complicit defence is with that cosy arrangement.”…………………………
https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/05/31/defence-pwc-contracts-tax-scandal/?utm_campaign=crikeyworm&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
Australia pays former US defence chiefs $7000 a day for advice
By Matthew Knott, April 27, 2023 https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australia-pays-former-us-defence-chiefs-7000-a-day-for-advice-20230427-p5d3lh.html
The federal government is paying retired senior American military officials up to $7500 a day for advice on major defence projects such as the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine pact.
The government this week announced that, following its sweeping defence strategic review, retired United States Navy vice admiral William Hilarides would be hired to lead a snap review of the Royal Australian Navy’s surface fleet.
The review, to be handed to the government later this year, will examine whether planned fleets of Australian-made frigates and patrol vessels should be cut to free up money for smaller and more nimble vessels.
Hilarides has previously charged the Australian government US$4000 ($6000) a day for his consulting services, according to US Navy documents first reported by The Washington Post.
Hilarides has won naval consulting contracts from the federal government worth up to $1.6 million ($2.4 million) since 2016, according to figures from the Department of Defence.
Hilarides serves as chair of the Australian naval shipbuilding expert advisory panel and advised the government over the past 18 months while it finalised the deal with the United States and Britain to build a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.
Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy defended Hilarides’ appointment to the new navy fleet review this week, saying he had “a long association with Australia” and would do a good job.
In an investigation published last year The Post described Hilarides, a career submariner, as part of a large group of former senior US officials that Australia had relied upon heavily to guide its naval policies.
“To an extraordinary degree in recent years, Australia has relied on high-priced American consultants to decide which ships and submarines to buy and how to manage strategic acquisition projects,” The Post said.
Retired admiral John Richardson, who headed the United States Navy from 2015 to 2019, has received US$5000 ($7570) a day as a part-time consultant to the federal, according to documents released by the Pentagon to the US Congress.
Richardson was hired by the Department of Defence last November to provide advice on the best pathway for Australia to acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines.
According to the documents, Richardson receives travel and lodging expenses to complete his work in Australia.
Richardson, the former US navy chief, told The Post: “I spent most of my life helping to keep America and our allies and partners safe and secure.
It’s a privilege to be invited to be able to use my experience, and help where I can to continue that work.”
Defence Minister Richard Marles on Thursday said outside advice was crucial to ensuring the government makes the correct decisions about significant defence policies.
“When we seek expert advice in relation to critical issues and challenges that we face, we have a global perspective in terms of where we seek that advice from and that’s really important because we want the very best advice,” he said.
“We make no apology for that because the kinds of challenges and decisions we’re making are profoundly important for the future of our country and where we have sought advice from those former officials in the US Navy that has been on issues of profound importance for our nation’s future.”
Greens defence spokesman David Shoebridge said he was shocked that Australia could seemingly not find local experts available to do these jobs.
“If that is true then it’s a pretty extraordinary failure on the part of the government and the ADF,” he said.
“You can only really explain this by Defence’s ongoing dependence on, and deference to, the US.”
He said it was remarkable that the US government had been more transparent than Australian government contracts than the federal government.
CIA’s surveillance methods on Assange revealed
https://www.rt.com/news/574018-cia-spies-assange-firm/ 2 Apr 23, A private contractor installed microphones inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London where the WikiLeaks co-founder lived, an El Pais investigation has found.
The CIA used private Spanish security company UC Global to secretly install microphones inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to monitor WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange, El Pais reported on Wednesday, citing the company’s internal communications.
UC Global was hired to provide security for the embassy. Assange, who was granted asylum by Ecuador at the time, resided in the diplomatic compound from 2012 to 2019, before he was forcibly removed by British police. The Spanish company’s alleged links to US intelligence agencies were first reported by El Pais in 2019.
According to the newspaper, UC Global founder and head David Morales first came into contact with the CIA in 2017. Around that time, Morales informed his employees that the company would have to provide a new American client named ‘X’ with remote access to the server that collected the data from the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, which was referred to as the ‘Hotel’.
“Regarding the Hotel work, I would like to offer our information collection and analysis capability to the American client,” Morales wrote in a September 2017 email. “We must… try to make it attractive and easy to interpret.”
The information shared reportedly included profiles of Assange’s visitors, including lawyers and diplomats, as well as cell phone data. Morales was quoted as saying in a chat message that “the people in control are our friends in the USA.”
One of microphones that Morales’ team secretly planted inside the embassy was hidden in the base of a fire extinguisher in order to listen in despite Assange’s habit of using a white noise machine to prevent surveillance, El Pais said. Stickers were attached to window corners to avoid vibrations and allow sound to be recorded through laser microphones. “I know it is of the utmost interest and that the USA wants to do it,” Morales reportedly wrote to his employees.
According to El Pais, UC Global’s work helped Washington foil a plan to sneak Assange out of the embassy in December 2017. Lenin Moreno, Ecuador’s president at the time, allegedly wanted to grant the WikiLeaks co-founder Ecuadorian citizenship and get him out of Britain in a diplomatic car.
Morales’ team reportedly recorded a conversation between Assange and Ecuadorian officials and then quickly sent it to the US. Washington responded by issuing an arrest warrant for Assange to Britain, which apparently prompted organizers to abort the plan.
In 2019, the Spanish authorities launched an investigation into Morales’ company and briefly detained him. He has since been released on bail.
Australian government always knew that Australia would end up with AUKUS nuclear wastes – they just didn’t let on to the public.
“…………………………………… our ALP federal gov says they will within 12 months make an announcement of a process to dispose of High Level nuclear waste (a feat no other country has achieved) from AUKUS nuclear powered submarines on existing or future defence lands,
this will involve a site study across ‘remote’ areas and likely be by imposition, with compulsory land acquisition and override of State / Territory laws and may be without recognising a right of affected traditional owners to Say No…
Deputy Leader Hon Richard Marles MP has said ‘keeping the waste was always a pre-condition to AUKUS nuclear subs’ – the ALP gov just didn’t let on to the public till after they’d sought to lock in an ‘pathway’ https://cosmosmagazine.com/…/explainer-radioactive…/…
Inside the AUKUS machine: scrutinising the political links to defence contracts
there has not been nearly enough scepticism about the AUKUS deal from Australia’s major media players
Led by a prime minister with a penchant for fudging reality, the $368 billion AUKUS submarine deal leaves much unexamined.
DAVID HARDAKER, MAR 28, 2023 https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/03/28/inside-aukus-submarine-deal-political-links/
This is part one in a series. For the full series, go here.
There is much about the AUKUS deal that is surprising — if not shocking.
There is the astronomical cost of $368 billion, double the most extravagant guesstimates made by experts before Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s announcement in San Diego earlier this month.
There are the hurried circumstances in the run-up to the federal election — all done within 24 hours — in which the ALP opposition committed itself to the deal proposed by then prime minister Scott Morrison.
And there is the extreme secrecy that has surrounded AUKUS from its inception, with Morrison having orchestrated events on a need-to-know basis, only ever consulting those who had a direct interest in expanding Australia’s defence budget.
The AUKUS arrangement emerged from the final desperate days of one of Australia’s worst governments. It was led by a prime minister who had a habit of fudging reality and who secretly sought to accumulate the powers of five of his ministerial colleagues, without having a coherent rationale.
At the same time, there has not been nearly enough scepticism about the AUKUS deal from Australia’s major media players. Some have even been offended that former prime minister Paul Keating would raise serious questions, focusing more on the manner than the substance of what he said.
For these reasons, Crikey will be introducing a bit of sunlight — the best disinfectant — into the fetid corners of the AUKUS machine.
You don’t have to be a China stooge to question AUKUS, yet that is how much of the public debate has been conducted so far.
To begin our coverage, this week we report on the activities of two of the biggest political names from the Coalition’s decade in office. They are former treasurer Joe Hockey and former defence minister (and before that minister for defence industry) Christopher Pyne.
The two have one thing in common: they both leapt from public office directly into the lucrative world of defence industry and investment. In Hockey’s case, he ceased his role as Australia’s ambassador to the US on January 30 2020. ASIC records show that his consultancy, Bondi Partners (which relies on Washington contacts), was registered on January 29 2020.
In Pyne’s case, he ceased as defence minister and retired from federal Parliament in April 2019. Within a month, the Pyne & Partners business name was registered. The record shows that predecessor entities had been set up by a former Pyne staffer before Pyne retired. These moves are separate from Pyne’s work with consulting firm EY, which he began within weeks of leaving Parliament. Pyne’s work with EY, where the former defence minister advised on defence matters, led to a Senate inquiry into whether or not he had breached ministerial standards.
Pyne and Hockey aren’t the first from the political class to turn to the defence industries after leaving office. The political revolving door is well known.
Continue readingPorky pies and half-truths from our USA- captured Prime Minister Albanese.
Today’s significant AUKUS announcement about Australia’s acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines provides significant, long-term strategic benefits for all three countries……..a transformational moment for our nation [Ed. it sure does! – transformed to a colony of USA’s military-industrial-complex]
…. provides significant, long-term strategic benefits [?] for all three countries……… our ability to be sovereign [?] ready.
……creating around 20,000 direct jobs [a very dubious claim – ?jobs for Americans and British military experts]
……… Businesses right across the country in every state and territory will have the opportunity to contribute to and benefit from these opportunities. [ a totally unlikely unrealistic claim, backed by no data]
…….. Importantly, the SSNs will be an Australian sovereign capability [is he joking or is he stupid?] … https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/13/aukus-australian-submarine-nuclear-loophole-proliferation-fears
The US Can Secretly Rotate Nuclear Warheads Through Australia
And the clear message coming from Moriarty, with the consensus of foreign affairs minister Penny Wong, is that for all Australia knows, the US could run nuclear warheads through the country, without informing anyone, and that’s what governments going back decades have agreed to.
Washington’s proposed rotating of B-52s through the north is understood to be a threat to Beijing, and coupled with the broad US access to our military sites, as well as the joint facilities at Pine Gap and North West Cape, these arrangements likely hardwire us into any US war on China.
22/02/2023 BY PAUL GREGOIRE, https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/the-us-can-secretly-rotate-nuclear-warheads-through-australia/
After a midmorning break on budget estimate proceedings, defence secretary Greg Moriarty delivered a response to a question put by Greens Senator Jordan Steele-John earlier in the day, which has since escalated the current debate over Australia relinquishing sovereignty to the US.
Steele-John quizzed Moriarty, on 15 February, as to whether B-52 bombers that will be “cycling through” the country, following the US Army having built storage space for six such fighters as part of its upgrade of RAAF Base Tindal, “will be solely conventionally capable, not nuclear capable”.
“It’s clear that stationing of nuclear weapons in Australia is prohibited by the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, to which Australia is fully committed,” advised Moriarty, adding that this treaty, nor that of non-proliferation, prevent foreign aircraft visiting or transiting local airfields or airspace.
According to the defence head, “successive Australian governments have understood and respected the longstanding US policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence of nuclear weapons on particular platforms”.
And the clear message coming from Moriarty, with the consensus of foreign affairs minister Penny Wong, is that for all Australia knows, the US could run nuclear warheads through the country, without informing anyone, and that’s what governments going back decades have agreed to.
Unimpeded access
When Steel-John further queried Moriarty as to whether this could see nuclear weapons transiting, Wong intervened stating that the question involves talk of “rotational forces under an agreement with another government”, so she’d like to provide an answer after the “opportunity to consult”.
The pre-prepared response later delivered by Moriarty included the admission that “US bomber aircraft have been visiting Australia since the early 1980s and have conducted training in Australia since 2005”. And over this time, Canberra has respected Washington’s policy of warhead ambiguity.
Moriarty added that this policy is in line with the 2014 Force Posture Agreement between the two nations, which provides the US with unimpeded access to certain local military facilities, of which it gains operational control over when it’s carrying out any construction activity at such a site.
The FPA officially established that US troops rotate through the north of Australia, with their number now having grown to 2,500 marines annually, as well as having improved interoperability between the nations’ air forces. And it’s this agreement that’s led to the construction of a B-52 storage site.
Washington’s proposed rotating of B-52s through the north is understood to be a threat to Beijing, and coupled with the broad US access to our military sites, as well as the joint facilities at Pine Gap and North West Cape, these arrangements likely hardwire us into any US war on China.
Ambiguity abounds
“As I understand from that, secretary, the government’s reading of Australia’s treaty obligations does not prohibit nuclear armed B-52s from being temporarily present in Australia,” Senator David Shoebridge suggested to Moriarty following his explanation of the opaque US stance on warheads.
However, at this point, Wong cut in on what appeared to be a fairly straightforward assessment coming from the Greens senator in regard to what the defence secretary had just explained.
“There’s no suggestion,” the foreign minister countered. “No one at this table has talked about nuclear armed B-52s.”
Wong then reiterated some of the points made by the defence secretary that clearly led to Shoebridge’s assumption: Canberra has long understood and respected “the longstanding US policy of neither confirming nor denying” and this doesn’t impinge on our international obligations.
Shoebridge then framed it in a different way, as he asked whether Defence considers this nation isn’t under any obligation to prevent nuclear armed US bombers from entering if they’re not a “permanent presence”. However, the minister, again, claimed he was “reading more into it”.
Then, after further reasonable prodding from the Greens member, Wong, quite tellingly, explained that she and the defence secretary weren’t in a position to go any further than the answer that was provided, and she then implied it was unfair to the community to posit further “hypotheticals”.
Whilst initial diplomatic moves made by Wong since taking over the foreign affairs portfolio have served a modicum of hope that the mounting tensions between Beijing and Canberra might be allayed, her December visit to the US saw this dashed.
Wong and defence minister Richard Marles were in Washington to meet with US secretary of state Antony Blinken and defence secretary Lloyd Austin late last year, as part of the annual AUSMIN conference, which had a focus on countering China’s “destabilising military activities” this time.
And the conference saw Austin extend an invitation to Japan – which is a part of the QUAD security arrangement, along with this country, the US and India – to join in the US Force Posture Initiatives, which are the operational arrangements established under the FPA, on Australian soil.
The resurrected QUAD has become of increasing importance with its new focus on Beijing. In fact, Anthony Albanese’s first act as prime minister was to fly to Japan for a QUAD meeting, while the following month saw him in Madrid for a NATO conference, which had China on its agenda.
And while the Albanese administration hasn’t repeated the hawkish ravings that former PM Scott Morrison and defence minister Peter Dutton were spouting at the end of their reign, the US presence in Australia, likely guarantees involvement in a war with China prior to any official decision.
Ending at the starting line
Following Wong’s explanation that all that could be said had been, Shoebridge put it to Moriarty that he understands that Australia doesn’t challenge the US on warhead ambiguity, and he then asked whether our treaty obligations aren’t breached by B-52s potentially carrying nuclear arsenal.
In response, the minister became even more ruffled than she had been prior, and she reiterated that the various treaties aren’t being threatened.
Wong then accused Shoebridge of drumming up concerns, to which he countered that he wasn’t “fearmongering” and put the question to the defence secretary one more time.
“I think the minister has outlined Australia’s treaty obligations,” Moriarty told the Greens senator, as he brought the exchange regarding B-52s to a close.
“As I said, under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, to which we are fully committed, stationing of nuclear weapons is prohibited.”
ASIO spied on Pine Gap military base protesters in the 1980s, declassified documents reveal
ABC Alice Springs / By Lee Robinson, Sat 21 Jan 2023
Declassified ASIO files have revealed the national security agency planted spies among a group protesting against the Pine Gap military base in Alice Springs during the 1980s.
The 1987 documents, released last year by the National Archives of Australia, show intelligence about peace activists and their protest plans were being fed to ASIO’s central office by one or more covert operatives who surreptitiously attended the group’s meetings.
The peace movement had gained momentum in the political landscape during the Cold War era, as concerns ran high over the threat posed by the Soviet Union and the possibility of nuclear warfare.
Pine Gap, the top-secret defence facility that had begun operating during the previous decade on the outskirts of town, was feared to be a target due its strategic importance to the United States Department of Defense and the Australian government.
Surveillance of peace group no surprise
Russell Goldflam was a bright-eyed idealist and vocal member of the Alice Springs Peace Group (ASPG) in the late 1980s.
Now a semi-retired lawyer still living in Alice Springs, he was not surprised to learn that ASIO had been surveilling the group’s activities.
“I would have been amazed if there hadn’t been a spy amongst our ranks,” Mr Goldflam said.
“We were campaigning against the largest spy base run by the United States outside the continental US.
“It would have been absolutely extraordinary if [ASIO] — or somebody in the security establishment — didn’t go to some trouble to try and make sure that there was no threat to that base from local people who were publicly saying, ‘We want to get it closed down’.”
Protest meetings documented
There are hundreds of files, with some revealing nothing more than bland meeting minutes, while others contain heavy redactions and delve into the perceived threats posed by peace activists……
Covert operatives remain a mystery
Mr Goldflam, who was arrested several times for trespassing at the military base during demonstrations, said he was never able to confirm the identity of any covert operatives…………………………………………………………..
A ‘great privilege’
Mr Goldflam has provided legal assistance throughout his career to a number of peace activists who had broken the law at Pine Gap and faced serious charges.
“It was a great privilege to be able to work as a lawyer for those people fighting for what are pretty fundamental rights, and that’s the right to be able to express an opposing point of view,” he said.
He believed the documents also painted the national security agency as holding grave concerns about the peace movement having a “malign influence” on local Aboriginal people, which Mr Goldflam said “couldn’t be further from the truth”.
“Our concern is where opinions tip into the promotion of violence, or actual acts of violence.” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-21/asio-spies-1980-pine-gap-peace-protesters-declassified-documents/101815740
The Australian government joined enthusiastically into America’s espionage law attack on whistle blowers and journalists
Key US Allies Collaborate On Espionage Laws Considered Harmful To Whistleblowers And Journalists
Since the legislation was passed, Australian Federal Police have raided the homes and offices of journalists who reported on war crimes in Afghanistan and the monitoring of Australian citizens’ communications.
Groups, such as Reporters Without Borders and the National Union of Journalists, wrote to lawmakers and warned that the bill conflated journalism with spying, expanded the definition of classified information, and disproportionately increased the penalty of espionage to life imprisonment.
Many of these new elements align existing laws with the United States Espionage Act, an antiquated law that was adopted over a century ago.
Richard Spence, Jan 5, 2023 https://thedissenter.org/us-allies-collaborate-to-write-new-espionage-laws/
Ministers and security officials in Australia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom have coordinated with the United States to develop new espionage laws.
Each of the countries have faced criticism from news media and civil society organizations for proposing laws that will harm journalists and whistleblowers’ ability to report on abuse and corruption in their own and each other’s countries.
These states have close intelligence ties to each other and the United States, and they have played some role in the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, whose prosecution is widely recognized as a threat to global press freedom. In fact, disclosures of the kind that Assange published have been cited as what the laws aim to make illegal.
FBI Director Christopher Wray had several days of meetings with “law enforcement partners in the United Kingdom” during July 2022. After these meetings, MI5 chief Ken McCallum promoted the “National Security Bill,” the first change to UK espionage laws since 1989.
The law would purportedly address the perceived threats Wray and McCallum discussed.
McCallum and other intelligence officials’ warnings and suggestions were frequently referenced by parliament members and government ministers who supported the bill when it was debated in the UK Parliament in November 2022.
Priti Patel, when she was UK Home Secretary, said the bill “was designed in close consultation with security services.”
In Sweden, the 2022 Foreign Espionage Act, which was adopted last November, specifically criminalized disclosures that cause “substantial damage” to Sweden’s relations with other countries or organizations. That led reporters to warn that journalists revealing war crimes committed by the US government could be prosecuted.
The Australian espionage bill also defined information that “harm[s] or prejudice[s] Australia’s international relations” as illegal to disclose.
Australia Security Intelligence Organization (ASIO) Director Duncan Lewis, who advised the country’s premier on their legislation, was asked at a parliamentary committee hearing, “Is there a connection, in your view, between our diplomatic and economic relations and our national security? In other words, if someone causes harm to our diplomatic relations with a foreign country, like the United States, can that harm our national security?”
“Absolutely,” Lewis responded. “You would need [to] go no further than perhaps the case of [Edward] Snowden to think about that—the enormous damage that was done to various diplomatic relations as a result of the leaks that came out of Snowden.”
The Espionage and Foreign Interference Act of 2018 introduced a range of measures the Australia government claimed were meant to combat Chinese interference.
A collection of media outlets, including The Guardian and News Corp, opposed the law, saying that “journalists and their support staff continue to risk jail time for simply doing their jobs” due to the possibility of being prosecuted for dealing with classified information.
Since the legislation was passed, Australian Federal Police have raided the homes and offices of journalists who reported on war crimes in Afghanistan and the monitoring of Australian citizens’ communications.
The ASIO gave “extensive operational briefings” on foreign interference to Malcolm Turnbull, when he was Australia’s prime minister, and Turnbull noted their input as he introduced the legislation in Parliament.
ASIO Director Duncan Lewis explained what in part motivated the push to expand the country’s espionage law. “Our international allies and partners with whom we share threat information tell us resoundingly that Australia is not alone in confronting a new threat environment, one that’s different from what we’ve seen before. In ASIO’s view, we must now adjust to this harsh reality.”
Lewis pointed to UK Prime Minister Theresa May who had urged allied powers to do more to “clamp down on the hostile activity of foreign agents.”
During parliamentary debate in the UK, Patel referred to these discussions.
“Let me say something about the legislation we want to introduce. We are learning from other countries, such as Australia—indeed, I had a bilateral meeting just last week. This is also part of the work of Five Eyes,” Patel shared. “A lot of work is being done to look at the institutional impacts of hostile state activity, alongside issues such as foreign agent registration. We want to get this right through future legislation, and that is what we are working on.”
Groups, such as Reporters Without Borders and the National Union of Journalists, wrote to lawmakers and warned that the bill conflated journalism with spying, expanded the definition of classified information, and disproportionately increased the penalty of espionage to life imprisonment.
Many of these new elements align existing laws with the United States Espionage Act, an antiquated law that was adopted over a century ago.
During a Novembr 2021 speech for the right-wing Heritage Foundation on the US-UK alliance, Patel acknowledged this fact.
“We will modernize existing counter-espionage laws to better reflect the contemporary threat; and we will improve our ability to protect official data and strengthen the associated offenses,” Patel declared “Our strategic partnership must continue to address all this activity – which is uninhibited and growing along with all the other threats we see day in, day out.”
The UK’s proposed legislation updates the current espionage laws to now be applicable to non-UK citizens. Press organizations have complained, “The lack of geographic limits and the overly broad definition of the safety and interests of the United Kingdom can extend the reach of the bill across the globe.”
Australia’s new laws also apply outside of the country and like the UK include assisting (or benefiting in the UKs case) foreign entities, leading to criticism that officials are criminalizing those who work with foreign press outlets.
According to the Australian chair of the Five Eyes Law Enforcement Committee, the organization will arrest those who have committed espionage “no matter where those criminals are in the world.”
Swedish military and intelligence officials studied changes to espionage legislation at the behest of the Swedish government and used WikiLeaks’ release of US diplomatic cables in 2010 as an example of a kind of leak that would harm Sweden’s relationship with other countries if it happened today.
Officials also singled out the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the US as powers that were important to protect from damaging leaks.
In June 2022, Conservative Party parliamentary member Sir John Hayes asked Damian Hinds, who was the UK minister of state for prisons, parole, and probation, if “a WikiLeaks-type disclosure dressed up as being by a guardian of liberty or some such other nonsense” would be illegal.
“The defenses in part one of the bill provide law enforcement with several options for prosecuting disclosures, where the person is acting for or on behalf of a foreign power or where the disclosure would materially assist a foreign intelligence service,” Hinds responded. “That can include bulk disclosures.”
“To be clear, with this bill, the maximum sentence for an indiscriminate disclosure—a bulk data dump—will be higher than it is today if that act is done for a foreign power or the disclosure would materially assist a foreign intelligence service, even if not procured by that foreign intelligence service itself,” Hinds further stated.
Canada, which is a Five Eyes country like Australia and the United Kingdom, has also followed their lead. Canadian security officials briefed the press and politicians, claiming that China aims to influence Canadian democracy.
Security officials in Canada have submitted reports to their government requesting new security laws to prevent Canada from becoming a “weak link” amongst its allies.
How Defence chiefs committed Australian special forces to the US drug war in Afghanistan
by Stuart McCarthy | Jan 6, 2023 https://michaelwest.com.au/how-defence-chiefs-committed-australian-special-forces-to-the-us-drug-war-in-afghanistan/
What is the accountability of Australia’s military top brass in alleged war crimes in Afghanistan? Stuart McCarthy, a veteran of two tours in Afghanistan, looks at the case of former defence minister Stephen Smith who has just been appointed High Commissioner in London.
“The DEA people were having troubles getting their own country to support them, and they had these Australians saying yes. They were very appreciative.”
Special Operations Task Group Plans Officer Greg Barton, quoted in Ben McKelvey, The Commando, 2017.
The Albanese government’s appointment of former foreign affairs and defence minister Stephen Smith back into public office as the next High Commissioner to the UK is merely another example of a political mate landing this plum overseas posting.
Much in the way of Kevin Rudd’s appointment as Australia’s ambassador to the US, or the Liberal government’s appointments of Joe Hockey and Arthur Sinodinos before Rudd. That these are all “jobs for the boys” is no reflection on competence or their expertise. There would be few less qualified than Kevin Rudd or Stephen Smith for their respective positions.
Yet, if Australia’s alleged war crimes in Afghanistan are ever heard at The Hague, or even tested in a bona fide war crimes commission in Australia, there will be political ramifications.
The Wong choice
Smith’s appointment at the completion of his Defence Strategic Review early next year reflects “the eminence of Australia’s relationship with the UK,” announced foreign affairs minister Penny Wong on 30 September. Not much to see here.
Not much to see at all, until we consider Smith’s connection to the alleged war crimes by Australian special forces in Afghanistan, and the possibility that senior defence officials might have to answer charges of command responsibility in the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Australia’s military commitment to Afghanistan was at its peak in 2010 when Stephen Smith became Minister for Defence. Critical of the lack of a coherent strategy and having derided European troop contributing countries for “organising folk dancing festivals,” in 2009 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had increased our Afghanistan troop presence from 1100 to 1550.
Part of a NATO “surge,” the intention was to build the country’s fledgling democratic institutions while defeating a growing Taliban insurgency.
The Narco State
One of the wicked problems in dealing with both the insurgency and endemic Afghan government corruption at the time was the country’s decline into a nascent narco-state. So lucrative was the opium trade and so pervasive the corruption that in 2009 the estimated export value of opiates produced in Afghanistan amounted a third of the country’s GDP.
[ABC News YouTube video – Mark Willacy 21 Oct 2020 story on allegations of Afghan detainee murdered during 2 Cdo Regt/DEA counter-narcotics raid in Helmand province, mid-2012]
Coinciding with the NATO surge was a switch in the counter-narcotics component of the nation building strategy from eradicating opium poppy crops to interdicting the financial “nexus” between the drug trade and the insurgency.
Poppy eradication had proven not only unsuccessful but counter-productive. The prerequisite stable security situation, alternative livelihoods, functioning law enforcement and judicial systems, would take a decade or more to establish. Worse, destroying the only viable cash crop in most parts of the country was a surefire way to push impoverished farmers into the ranks of the rural insurgency.
In the minds of its proponents, a “counter-nexus” campaign targeted at the Taliban-aligned drug lords thus came into play as a silver bullet that could win the war. This despite the fact that no such endeavour has ever succeeded, anywhere, in the context of an ongoing war.
While the folly of fighting a drug war amid an escalating insurgency precluded most of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) armies from directly supporting this US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)-led campaign, the main question was actually one of legality.
How legal was it?
Targeting an active participant in hostilities with lethal force is perfectly legitimate under the internationally accepted laws of armed conflict (LOAC), but extra-judicial killing of crime suspects is questionable at best. Summary execution is certainly illegal under Australian law.
Concerns about rewriting the rules of engagement (ROE) to target Afghan drug producers and facilities under the legal auspices of international armed conflict had been raised at the highest levels in ISAF. In a classified letter to NATO high command leaked to Der Spiegel in 2009, ISAF commander U.S. General David McKiernan wrote that this would:
“… seriously undermine the commitment ISAF has made to the Afghan people and the international community … to restrain our use of force and avoid civilian casualties to the greatest degree predictable.”
Hence in 2010 the DEA mandarins in Kabul had a problem. To prosecute their counter-nexus drug war in the opium heartland of Helmand province they needed a willing contingent of well-trained special operators. When even the US military wouldn’t provide this, they looked further afield and found the commando component of the Australian Special Operations Task Group (SOTG) in nearby Uruzgan province.
[ABC News YouTube video – Mark Willacy 21 Sep 2022 story on allegations seven civilians were killed during 2 Cdo Regt/DEA counter-narcotics raid at Qarabagh, Oct 2012]
On a visit to Uruzgan soon after he was shuffled from Foreign Affairs to Defence in September 2010 – making way for Rudd in the new Gillard cabinet – Smith was approached by officers from the 2nd Commando Regiment. The commandos had developed a counter-nexus joint operating concept with their DEA colleagues, but encountered “every kind of obstacle” in seeking approval through the chain of command.
According to one account, when the commanding officer briefed Smith in person during his visit:
“From the beginning, [the minister] saw the logic in the proposal and was just as keen to get the idea underway as [we] were.”
With Smith’s direct approval, over the next two years the commandos undertook dozens of DEA-led drug raids in southern Afghanistan, principally in Helmand. These were tactically successful, as one of the commandos explains in Ben McKelvey’s 2017 book The Commando:
“They were instant gratification missions. You go in there at night, fuck up a bunch of shit, blow up drugs, ruin some bad dude’s week … you were basically Batman.”
A decade later, reports of exactly the civilian casualties McKiernan anticipated in 2009 are emerging in the Australian media. A US Marine Corps helicopter crewman has alleged that an Australian commando executed a detainee during a mid-2012 raid in Helmand.
In another incident in Helmand later that year, local Afghans and “Defence sources” have alleged that seven civilians were killed, including six who were “under the control” of Australian commandos.
At least two of the incidents from the DEA-led counter-nexus raids are now reportedly under criminal investigation by the Office of the Special Investigator, newly established by the federal government amid the national outcry which followed the publication of the Brereton Report in 2020.
One of the Brereton inquiry’s questionable findings was that accountability for the crimes identified in his report does not extend to higher Australian commanders “because they did not have a sufficient degree of command and control” over SOTG.
In reality, the decisions to commit the commandos to the DEA-led counter-nexus campaign, and the national rules of engagement governing the use of force and prevention of civilian casualties during those raids, were made by senior Australian officials.
Like the 2012 SAS raids in Sola and Darwan villages, the paper trail for these counter-nexus raids goes all the way up to Stephen Smith. There is arguably a potential case here for recklessness or negligence, supporting charges of higher command responsibility under Article 28 of the Rome Statute – although his story makes no imputations as to Smith’s culpability.
Nevertheless, these incidents might not have happened without Smith’s personal approval of SOTG’s participation in the DEA’s ill-fated, legally questionable, “instant gratification” campaign to “fuck up a bunch of shit” like Batman in Helmand.
Undue influence of the arms industry
Michelle Fahy, IPAN National Conference, 23 November 2022
Undue influence of the arms industry in Australia
Most stories I do end up being about two things: transparency and accountability. More accurately, the lack thereof, in this industry.
Today I’ll give you a snapshot of the intersection between the arms industry and the Australian government – the power and influence on one hand, and the secrecy and lack of accountability on the other. It’s hard to do simply and in a short space of time, so I have chosen a particular example from my work so far – as a case study which typifies how it works – to shine a spotlight on the undue influence of this industry. It’s by no means the only example, but it’s a really good one for illustrating how this industry can manipulate and control government decision-making to undermine the public interest to serve its own private interests. We know a fair bit about this one thanks to the Australian National Audit Office and its report.
This undermining of the public interest to serve private interests, when it becomes entrenched, is called state capture. The World Bank describes it like this: “State capture is the exercise of power by private actors — through control over resources, threat of violence, or other forms of influence — to shape policies or implementation in service of their narrow interest.”
First, a bit of context showing how the arms industry here fits in with the global arms industry.
You don’t need to read the chart. The simple point I’m making is the number of names in red – on both sides.
At left is a list of the top 15 global arms manufacturers. At right is a list of the top 15 contractors to Defence in Australia. The names in red are those that appear in both lists – showing a large amount of crossover. This is not surprising, but it’s useful to get a visual sense of the overlap.
The left column shows where those foreign companies rank globally. All of Australia’s 11 foreign-owned top defence contractors are global top 40-ish companies (KBR = 43rd), seven of them are in the global top 15.
I’m making this point, using the top 15 in particular, because the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) did a study in 2017 that found, on average, in the 20 years to 2015, the top 15 contractors in Australia took 91% of the revenue.
Along with this quick look at the extensive presence of the global arms industry here, I’ll mention a 2020 report from SIPRI (the respected Stockholm International Peace Research Institute which tracks global arms sales and military expenditure). The report is called Mapping the international presence of the world’s largest arms companies.
The report took the world’s top 15 arms manufacturers and systematically investigated how many subsidiaries and joint ventures they had dotted around the globe. To be included, the subsidiaries had to be involved in arms production and military services activities and they had to be selling their products or services to military clients. They couldn’t just be sales or marketing shopfronts, or shell companies: those types of entities were excluded.
SIPRI found 400 subsidiaries of these 15 companies spread across at least 49 countries. They are mostly in countries that have two features:
1. the country is a large arms importer
2. it’s trying to establish a local arms industry.
Makes sense, right? You can see why a foreign arms-maker would move in.
And – you guessed it – Australia ticks both those boxes. Australia is currently the world’s 4th largest arms importer, and we are one of America’s biggest clients. In the five years from 2016-20 Australia was the United States’ second biggest arms customer, after Saudi Arabia. Even before that, we have been a top 5 US arms industry customer for a long time. It’s worth bearing that in mind when the US calls us its very good friend.
We are also BAE Systems’ (UK) fourth largest market. After the Turnbull government announced its massive planned spend on weaponry, BAE’s director of international markets said in 2017: “We are really in … exciting times in the Australian market. The government procurement plans are hugely ambitious. There aren’t too many countries who have that scale of defence procurement ambition in the next 15 years.”
And that was before AUKUS came along!
This is the Australian summary from SIPRI’s report:
1. Australia is now the largest military manufacturing hub outside the two major hubs of North America and Western Europe.
2. Australia ranks second in the world for the number of foreign subsidiaries of the top 15: we have 38 subsidiaries of those 15 companies here. The UK has most with 56, Saudi Arabia is third with 24.
So, that sets the scene. It’s obvious there’s a significant presence in Australia of the topmost echelons of the global arms industry: a lot of power and influence.
The Thales Hawkei vehicle procurement is a strong example of undue influence. How the company came from nowhere to win this $1.3 billion contract is a complex and highly political story that beggars belief, frankly. It contains many elements of undue influence that pop up across other procurements, yet here they are all in one story, so it’s a great example.
It also shows, starkly, how industry bent both sides of politics to its will – that’s state capture……………………………………
The Thales Hawkei vehicle procurement is a strong example of undue influence. How the company came from nowhere to win this $1.3 billion contract is a complex and highly political story that beggars belief, frankly. It contains many elements of undue influence that pop up across other procurements, yet here they are all in one story, so it’s a great example.
It also shows, starkly, how industry bent both sides of politics to its will – that’s state capture.
So – there you have it – it’s a big story and a great example of the undue influence of the arms industry in Australia, bending both political parties to its will, against the public interest, which fits in with the World Bank’s definition of state capture – not as the only example of course. If you Google “Confronting State Capture” you will see the report I contributed to, which includes this story and a lot of other examples, alongside similar material from the fossil fuels industry. It was published earlier this year by the Australian Democracy Network.
Further reading: my November 2020 series (Part 1 and Part 2) contains additional disturbing details about the Thales Hawkei procurement. https://undueinfluence.substack.com/p/speech-undue-influence-of-the-arms?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=297295&post_id=89729647&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
1 This month.
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/235274195556
19 May – Webinar- Webinar: No Nuclear Weapons in Australia
Start: 2026-05-19 18:00:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
End: 2026-05-19 19:30:00 UTC Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney (GMT+10:00)
20 May – Webinar – The dangerous world of AUKUS, US, military occupation and suppression of dissent
National Webinar, 20th May, 2026, 6.30pm AEST. Confronting laws restricting/suppressing protest speech and action
Speakers: Former Sen. Rex Patrick, Lawyer Nick Hanna ,Arthur Rorris ,Jorgen Doyle, Sen David Shoebbridge,
Facilitator Kelley Tranter.
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 