A Wave of Action to Demilitarise Newcastle
| Margie at Wage Peace , 14 Dec 25 |
We are so proud of the Muloobinba/Newcastle Crew who organised 7 actions last week to draw attention to their town supporting the genocide in Palestine. Newcastle is key to the transport of F35 parts. Folx travelled from all across the country to support Demilitarise Newcastle to say no to the community’s transition from coal to weapons.
A Week of Actions: Earth Care Not Warfare
Lockheed Martin in Williamtown is the logistics hub for the supply of ‘just-in-time’ F35 consumable parts for Israel. From here the F35 parts & components are sent direct to Sydney, then via commercial Thai Airways flights to TelAviv. We say NO! The F35=Genocide!
During the Weapons Outta Newy Week a SLOW bike tour was organised through all the weapons sites at the airport via BAE, LOCKHEED, BOEING, KONGSBERG, and a new greenfield development, ASTRO AEROLAB.
On Tuesday we attended the office of the Council, which owns the AEROLAB site.
And on Wednesday we walked from the old coal infrastructure down to Varley Engineering to symbolise the shift from coal to weapons. Varley are increasing the weapons side of their business. Varley could stick with ambulances and move into renewables, but instead are taking Newcastle into the dangerous arena of weapons exports.
During the Weapons Outta Newy Week a SLOW bike tour was organised through all the weapons sites at the airport via BAE, LOCKHEED, BOEING, KONGSBERG, and a new greenfield development, ASTRO AEROLAB.
On Tuesday we attended the office of the Council, which owns the AEROLAB site.
And on Wednesday we walked from the old coal infrastructure down to Varley Engineering to symbolise the shift from coal to weapons. Varley are increasing the weapons side of their business. Varley could stick with ambulances and move into renewables, but instead are taking Newcastle into the dangerous arena of weapons exports. https://linktr.ee/disruptwars
How long will the American Moronocracy last in the New Year?
Noel Wauchope, 15 Dec 25, https://theaimn.net/how-long-will-the-american-moronocracy-last-in-the-new-year/It’s hard to grab hold of the idea – of which of the morons in the USA administration will crack first?
I think that it has to be Pete Hegseth, the Minister for War. Perhaps “crack” is not the appropriate word. “Be thrown under the bus” might be more accurate.
The immediate problem is the rather gripping thought – of the vision of injured fishermen hanging desperately onto the debris, the wreckage, of their bombed boat. And then getting bombed again, and killled. Now, apparently, there exists a video of this wretched event.
CBS reported on December 4th, that U.S. lawmakers met behind closed doors, and viewed a video of a second strike on the boat. Well we, the public, are not allowed to see this video. Democrat Rep. Jim Himes said:
“what I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I’ve seen in my time in public service.“
“You have two individuals in clear distress without any means of locomotion, with a destroyed vessel, who are killed by the United States.”
Even without seeing the video, our imaginations are struck with the horror of this event. And if it was not so terrible, why the need to cover it up?
And it’s not just that picture which is covered up. There’s also the trail of denials, blames, contradictory statements about that attack, – an incident that clearly breached international law, in the Geneva Conventions , The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and also the Defense Department’s Law of War Manual .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np1dG7qjzZM
The Washington Post reported that Pete Hegseth had given the order to “kill everybody,” but this was later denied by Admiral Bradley, who was in charge of the operation, and also by Hegseth and the White house.
The family of Colombian fisherman Alejandro Carranza Medina, believed killed by the US military in a boat bombing in the Caribbean Sea on Sept. 15, has filed a formal complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights accusing US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth of murder over the unlawful attack. The complaint also notes that President Donald Trump the commander in chief of the US military, “ratified the conduct of Secretary Hegseth described herein”.
That legal initiative mightn’t get anywhere, but the entire chain of command could be held liable for killing the survivors of the boat strike. The United States clearly imposes a duty to refuse unlawful orders.
That thought must be striking a bit of terror in the minds of the military officers involved, – and indeed in any U.S. military officer who might one day be given a similar order.
Anyway, wriggle around as he might, Pete Hegseth is at the top of decision-making on the whole illegal bombing of civilian boats in international orders. Unless you count Donald Trump as the top decision-maker. Trump would like this issue to just fade away. But if it doesn’t – well, then, perhaps a head should roll.
In his first presidency, Trump made a record number of his associates’ heads roll. But here’s the difference – some of them were quite skilful, and capable.
Not these days. Some examples :
Notably RFK Jr, is totally unsuited for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Tulsi Gabbard , with no strong background in Intelligence, is Director of National Intelligence, Attorney General, Pam Bondi has a background in criminal law, but is most notable for unflinching dedication to Donald Trump, no matter what. Director of DOGE, Elon Musk – well, he had to go in the inevitable clash between two grandiose egos. Steve Witkoff’s background as real estate developer, gave him no expertise to qualify him as Special Envoy to the Middle East. Marco Rubio as Secretary of State does have experience in politics, but is notable for having a fanatical war-hawk’s hatred of Cuba and China,
What all Trump appointees do have in common is unswerving devotion to Donald Trump. And that’s not going to be enough to sort out the Trump administration’s messes, with more surely to come.
But now, to come back to Pete Hegseth. Yes, he does have university degrees in politics. But even with university degrees you can still behave moronically. And Pete Hegseth sure does. He has a history of alcoholism, and an accusation against him of sexual assault. Even his mother accused him of being an abuser of women (though she later retracted this).
Hegseth was forced out of two veterans groups, due to his alcoholism, and accusations of financial mismanagement. Colleagues at his former employment at Fox News reported his drinking problem there.
Apparently Hegseth promised to stop drinking if confirmed in the job as Defense Secretary. There are rumours that he hasn’t stopped. But anyway that’s not his only problem. There was his careless use of commercial messaging app Signal to talk about an impending operation in Yemen.
All this has got Republican law-makers worried. And the mid-term elections will be coming up. Trump might just have to start the head-rolling, if this boat-bombing issue doesn’t go away.
And Pete Hegseth is the obvious first candidate.
By the way, the Internet is awash with stuff about Trump being not only a deranged narcissistic megalomaniac (which we all knew anyway), but on top of that, claims that dementia is setting in on him. (How long will the moron-in-chief last, anyway)
Israel Apologists Hasten To Use Bondi Shooting To Attack Anti-Genocide Activists
Caitlin Johnstone, Dec 15, 2025, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/israel-apologists-hasten-to-use-bondi?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=181641440&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
Two shooters attacked a Jewish Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach on Sunday, killing fifteen people and injuring dozens of others. Police report that the shooters were a father and his son; the father was killed by police, and the son was captured.
The shooters appear to have been Muslim, but, much to the inconvenience of those who would like to use this incident to fan the flames of western Islamophobic hysteria, the man who selflessly risked his life to disarm one of them was also a Muslim father of two named Ahmed al-Ahmed.
As usual we’re seeing a lot of speculation about false flags and psyops regarding this incident, but I prefer to hang back from such commentary until I’ve seen some solid evidence.
I do have some thoughts about the public discourse we are seeing about the shooting right now, though.
Point 1: Obviously it is evil to massacre civilians for being Jewish.
Point 2: Obviously Israel’s massacring of civilians must continue to be opposed, and will continue to be opposed.
Today the worst people in the world are trying to pretend Point 1 and Point 2 are contradictory.
It’s so gross watching the tail-wagging excitement of Israel supporters in response to this shooting. They’re so happy they have another rhetorical weapon with which to bludgeon pro-Palestine voices into silence. They can barely contain their glee.
Benjamin Netanyahu immediately scrambled to hold a press conference proclaiming that the attack was the result of Australia taking some steps toward the recognition of a Palestinian state.
New York Times warmonger Bret Stephens penned an article titled “Bondi Beach Is What ‘Globalize the Intifada’ Looks Like,” arguing that the shooters “were taking to heart slogans like ‘resistance is justified,’ and ‘by any means necessary,’ which have become ubiquitous at anti-Israel rallies the world over.”
Iraq-raping war propagandist David Frum wrote a similar article for The Atlantic titled “The Intifada Comes to Bondi Beach,” saying the beach “has been repeatedly targeted by pro-Palestinian demonstrators” and denouncing the fact that “Many in the western world have interpreted post-October 7 anti-Israel actions within the framework of free speech.”
The virulently Islamophobic Australian senator Pauline Hanson swiftly slapped together a statement claiming that “the weekly anti-semitic protests across our nation” and “our obnoxious universities” were “warning signs” that such an attack was coming.
Sky News hastened to give a platform to Israeli Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Sharren Haskel in an interview where she declared that “this is what it means” to allow protesters to chant “globalize the intifada”, saying that “if you let that continue and run in your streets” you are inviting further terrorist attacks. Haskel has previously called pro-Palestine protesters in Australia “useful idiots” for Hamas.
Political dynasty princeling Chris Cuomo took to Twitter to assert that people who’ve been accusing Israel of genocide helped “fuel the hatred on bondi beach.”
The Jewish Chronicle’s Stephen Pollard tweeted a video of pro-Palestine protesters in Birmingham with the caption “It you deny the connection between this and what happened at Bondi Beach you are part of the problem.”
A viral tweet from Australian right wing social media personality Kobie Thatcher features a video of a pro-Palestine protest with the caption “This was Sydney, Australia just 6 months ago. These scenes should have been an urgent warning.”
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has used the attack to demand that Prime Minister Albanese shove through the authoritarian speech suppression plan put forward by Australia’s “antisemitism envoy” Jillian Segal earlier this year, arguing that “We have seen public landmarks turned into symbols of antisemitic hate. We have seen campuses occupied and Jewish students made to feel afraid.”
From the earliest moments after this attack Israel apologists have taken it as a given that it was an act of terrorism in response to Israel’s genocidal atrocities in Gaza, but then framing the people peacefully protesting those atrocities as the problem.
They’re openly acknowledging that the genocide is violently radicalizing people, but instead of coming to the obvious conclusion that Israel should therefore not commit genocide, they’re citing it as evidence that people should stop protesting the genocide.
The Shadow Cabinet: How Encrypted Lobbying and the Erosion of Record-Keeping Are Undermining Australian Democracy
14 December 2025 Andrew Klein AIM , https://theaimn.net/the-shadow-cabinet-how-encrypted-lobbying-and-the-erosion-of-record-keeping-are-undermining-australian-democracy/
This article examines a developing crisis in Australian public integrity: the systematic use of encrypted and unminuted communications between lobbyists and the highest levels of government to evade transparency laws. Drawing on recent investigative reporting and parliamentary analysis, it argues that this practice, occurring alongside legislative efforts to weaken the Freedom of Information (FOI) framework and a failure to implement robust anti-corruption measures, represents a calculated retreat from ethical transparency. This creates a “dark space” in policymaking, fundamentally at odds with the stated mission of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) and the basic democratic contract of public trust. The article concludes that this constitutes a form of institutionalised obscurity that protects political interests at the expense of democratic accountability.
Introduction: The Promise and the Practice
The election of the Albanese government was heralded with a promise to restore trust and integrity after a decade of scandals. The establishment of the NACC was its cornerstone. However, a parallel track of conduct suggests a different priority: the management of political risk through the control of information. This article synthesises evidence revealing a pattern where commitments to transparency are actively undermined by operational secrecy, creating a profound dissonance between public rhetoric and private practice.
The Architecture of Evasion: “Going Non-Traceable”
At the heart of this issue is a reported, routine practice within the Prime Minister’s office. Lobbyists and stakeholders are advised to use encrypted messaging applications (such as Signal) and direct phone calls for substantive policy discussions, explicitly to avoid creating a discoverable record under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth). This guidance creates a two-tiered communication system: a formal, sanitised record for public consumption, and a shadow, substantive dialogue where real influence and negotiation occur. The justification – protecting “fluid thoughts” – is a stark departure from the principle that the formation of public policy should be a matter of public interest, not private conjecture.
Weakening the Scaffolding: Legislative and Systemic Failures
This operational evasion is not occurring in a vacuum. It is reinforced by systemic and legislative actions that degrade the infrastructure of transparency:
- The FOI Amendment Bill: The government is pursuing amendments that experts from the Australian Law Council and the Grattan Institute describe as “the most significant retrenchment” of transparency in decades. Key changes include a strict 40-hour processing cap – a logistical impossibility for complex requests – and the introduction of new, subjective grounds for refusal. This legally enshrines the difficulty of access.
- Chronic Record-Keeping Failure: A 2023 National Archives of Australia report found systemic failure across the Commonwealth in managing digital records. In 90% of recent audits, agencies received negative comments. Only one agency had a clear policy on capturing ministerial and departmental messaging for the official record. This is not negligence; it is a pervasive institutional disregard for the archival compact.
- Rejecting Anti-Cronyism Reforms: The government sat for two years on a review into “jobs for mates” in public appointments. When released, it rejected core recommendations to depoliticise the process, such as banning last-minute appointments before elections. This demonstrates a preference for preserving patronage networks over implementing substantive integrity reform.
The NACC in the Dark: An Integrity Watchdog Without a Trail
The establishment of the NACC was meant to be a circuit-breaker. However, its efficacy is premised on the existence of evidence – a paper trail, a digital record, a minute of a meeting. The practices detailed above are designed to eliminate that trail. The NACC’s own definition of “serious or systemic corrupt conduct” includes breaches of public trust and any conduct perverting the impartial exercise of official functions. Influencing policy through hidden channels, deliberately shielded from public and archival scrutiny, aligns precisely with this definition. The NACC’s first major survey, finding 15% of public officials were aware of corrupt conduct in their area, hints at the scale of the challenge it faces in a culture of obscurity.
Analysis: The “Trust Gap” and the Corruption of Process
The outcome is a critical “trust gap.” The public is asked to trust in institutions that are architecturally designed to avoid being held to account. This goes beyond traditional corruption (bribes for favours). It represents a corruption of process, where the very mechanisms for democratic oversight – FOI, archives, parliamentary scrutiny – are rendered inert. The government controls not only policy but the narrative of how that policy was formed, presenting a fait accompli to the public while hiding the machinery of influence. This creates a space where the lines between lobbying, policy development, and undisclosed conflicts of interest dangerously blur.
Conclusion: Gestures Versus Substance in the Democratic Contract
Australia is at an integrity crossroads. It has the gesture – the NACC – but is dismantling the substance required for that gesture to be meaningful. A democracy cannot function on a “need-to-know” basis where the government decides the public does not need to know how it is governed. The use of encrypted lobbying and the erosion of record-keeping are not administrative quirks; they are political strategies that sacrifice long-term public trust for short-term political convenience. Rebuilding trust requires not just new institutions, but a radical recommitment to transparency as the default, not the exception. Until the “dark space” of policymaking is illuminated, the promise of integrity will remain, like the lost records themselves, unfulfilled.
References……………………..
Grief is not a licence for hate
15 December 2025 AIMN Editorial, By Helen Reynolds https://theaimn.net/grief-is-not-a-licence-for-hate/
Australia is grieving.
The mass killing at Bondi has shaken Sydney and stunned the nation. In the immediate aftermath, there should have been space for mourning, solidarity, and quiet reflection. Instead, the noise arrived almost instantly – loud, cruel, and deeply familiar.
Within hours, social media filled with demands that Muslims be deported, that whole communities be treated as suspects, that fear be repackaged as policy. As if a tragedy can be explained by pointing at a faith followed peacefully by more than a billion people worldwide, including hundreds of thousands of Australians who are our neighbours, colleagues, doctors, teachers, and friends.
This reflex is not about safety. It never is.
It is about finding someone convenient to blame before the bodies are even buried.
Australia has walked this road before. We know where it leads. Collective punishment does not prevent violence – it multiplies it. Bigotry does not heal trauma – it extends it. And scapegoating minorities in moments of national shock is not strength; it is moral cowardice.
As if this wasn’t enough, a second chorus joined in from overseas. Americans – many of them – took it upon themselves to lecture Australia about gun laws. According to them, our strict firearms regulations “don’t work”.
This claim is not just wrong. It is offensive.
Australia reformed its gun laws after Port Arthur. The result was not theoretical, ideological, or symbolic. It was measurable and human: mass shootings largely disappeared. Gun deaths fell. Families were spared the kind of routine horror that now barely registers as news in the United States.
To be told, in the wake of fresh Australian bloodshed, that these laws “failed” is grotesque. What the critics really mean is that such laws would never survive the political system they are trapped in – a system paralysed by gun lobbies, identity politics, and a mythology that mistakes firepower for freedom.
Australia chose fewer coffins.Australia reformed its gun laws after Port Arthur. The result was not theoretical, ideological, or symbolic. It was measurable and human: mass shootings largely disappeared. Gun deaths fell. Families were spared the kind of routine horror that now barely registers as news in the United States.
To be told, in the wake of fresh Australian bloodshed, that these laws “failed” is grotesque. What the critics really mean is that such laws would never survive the political system they are trapped in – a system paralysed by gun lobbies, identity politics, and a mythology that mistakes firepower for freedom.
Australia chose fewer coffins.
America chose excuses.
There is a deeper sickness at work here, one that connects the Islamophobia at home with the gun evangelism abroad. It is the refusal to accept evidence when it conflicts with ideology. The refusal to sit with complexity. The demand that every tragedy confirm a pre-existing narrative.
Violence is not a religion.
Grief is not a policy platform.
And shock is not permission to abandon our values.
If there is anything to be defended in moments like this, it is not borders, weapons, or slogans. It is the fragile idea that a decent society responds to horror with humanity – not hate, not smugness, and not lies dressed up as certainty.
Australia can grieve without turning on itself.
We have done it before.
We must do it again.
AUKUS Caucus
The AUKUS agreement allows any party to withdraw with one year’s notice. But here’s the lethal asymmetry: Australia’s payments are subsidies, not deposits; they are not refundable, and there is no guarantee that the submarines will ever be delivered.
How the AUKUS Caucus built a cargo cult and called it strategy.
14 December 2025 David Tyler Australian Independent Media
There’s a certain kind of Australian politician who never quite grew out of childhood. You know the type: Richard Marles, Tony Abbott, Christopher Pyne. Peter Pan to a man. Their eyes light up whenever a Pentagon staffer remembers their name. They sit bolt upright like kelpie pups on the back of the ute, ears pricked for master’s return. They mistake condescension for intimacy, patronage for partnership, obedience for relevance.
Marles, Pat Conroy (Defence Industry), and Brendan O’Connor (Veterans’ Affairs) along with “Rear Admiral-Albo” and Wayfinder Penny Wong make up the AUKUS Caucus: a dream team. Not bound by evidence, timelines, or arithmetic; only by faith. Faith that if Australia sends enough money, bases and deference across the Pacific, the Great Mate in the Sky will someday descend bearing nuclear submarines and strategic salvation.
Australia’s $368 billion imaginary friend.
The Cargo Cult Playbook
Cargo cults arise when isolated societies witness advanced powers arrive with miraculous technology. Locals build imitation runways; light signal fires hoping the planes will return. The AUKUS Caucus has updated the ritual for the modern age. Our runways are ports. The offerings are our sovereignty. The signal fires are AUSMIN pressers. And the planes, as ever, do not land.
Richard Marles, Labor’s embattled Defence Minister, is the cult’s high priest. Asked about implementation delays, he smiles wanly and intones the sacred words: “Full steam ahead.” Full steam ahead to where is never explained.
AUKUS is sold as strategic realism. In practice, it operates as faith: belief substituted for capacity, ritual for delivery, loyalty for leverage.
The Hegseth Problem
This week Marles and Wong flew to Washington for the annual, ceremonial abasement known as AUSMIN. Their opposite number is Pete Hegseth. Former Fox News shouter, veterans’ charity mismanager, and a chap once carried from a strip club by mates after trying to storm the stage. Now improbably directing US defence as Secretary of War.
Hegseth’s character matters because AUKUS asks us to entrust our strategic future to decision-makers whose judgment, attention span and institutional grip are already demonstrably strained. His own mother calls him as an “abuser of women” who “belittles, lies and cheats,” urging him to “get some help and take an honest look at yourself.”
When a nation stakes $368 billion on the judgment of a man disqualified by his own mother from trust, it has crossed from strategy into pathology.
8 December, Marles and Wong are pictured nodding earnestly as Hegseth endorses a $368 billion submarine fantasy he cannot possibly deliver. He barks approval of AUKUS as “pragmatic hard power.” Wong, cryptic as ever, merely echoes Trump’s mantra: “full steam ahead.” The boats are not coming, so who cares what fuels the boiler?
The Pragmatic Hard Power Con
Pragmatic hard power? It could be a new brand of laundry detergent. The absurdity runs deeper than performance.
Australia is trading real sovereignty for imaginary submarines.
AUKUS legislation effectively transfers operational priority and access over key Australian military bases to the US. The terminology is pure institutional dissemblance: “expanded US rotational presence” and “integrated command arrangements.” In plain English: we concede control over our own strategic assets. We slip a few lazy billion to US and British shipyards to “expedite” production; meaning we subsidise their accumulated backlogs. We bind our “defence posture” so thoroughly into US command that when Washington sneezes, Canberra catches cold.
But we do get to wave flags. Hum anthems. Pay invoices.
Each concession merits national debate. Yet, the AUKUS Caucus has sealed the deal without meaningful parliamentary inquiry, without detailed public costings, only an “oversight” committee denied subpoena power, denied independent costing, and so carefully neutered it might as well be chaired by a shredder.
The Legal Trap
And yes, the legal architecture is exactly what critics feared. Under the agreement, Australia provides $4.7 billion (with more coming) to US and UK submarine builders, and according to questioning in Senate Estimates, there is no clawback provision; Australia does not get its money back if the US fails to transfer nuclear submarines.
The AUKUS agreement allows any party to withdraw with one year’s notice. But here’s the lethal asymmetry: Australia’s payments are subsidies, not deposits; they are not refundable, and there is no guarantee that the submarines will ever be delivered.
The US and UK can walk away at any time. They keep the cash, the upgrades, the expanded industrial bases and the sovereign right to prioritise their own needs. Which, as serious countries, they will do.
Australia, meanwhile, is padlocked like a rental fridge in a share-house. Jiggle the handle all you like, but the thing won’t open unless the bloke with the key decides you’ve paid up.
A Big Perhaps
At some point, the more unsettling explanation has to be entertained. Perhaps the submarines are not delayed. Perhaps they are not even expected. Perhaps AUKUS is not failing at all, but performing exactly as intended. The money flows early and without clawback. The bases open. Command structures integrate. Strategic dependency is formalised. The submarines remain permanently over the horizon, always promised, never required. If this were a ruse designed to secure American basing access and regional posture while outsourcing the political pain to future governments, it would be hard to design it differently. Whether Australia’s political class believes its own story, or merely finds it convenient, becomes almost beside the point. The outcome is the same.
And whatever the truth of the submarines, Defence needs a bit of a rescue.
Defence’s House of Horrors
Marles’ predicament worsens when you look at Defence itself: a moral, administrative and institutional nightmare he inherited and, like his predecessors, Linda Reynolds and Peter Dutton, has failed to master. Could anyone? Australia’s predicament worsens also.
The Brereton inquiry exposed 39 unlawful killings in Afghanistan. The stain remains. Atop this moral wreckage sits administrative farce: a Defence official leaked confidential information before walking straight into a job with a private weapons contractor.
The Hunter class frigates tell the broader story. What began life as a $45 million per ship concept has metastasised into $2.6 billion per ship, with hundreds of millions in variations already locked in, and the program at least 18 months late due to design immaturity.
When Labor took office, 28 major Defence projects were running a combined 97 years behind schedule, with roughly a quarter of procurement unfunded. Over it all looms $368 billion we’ve agreed to throw at AUKUS, as a $60 billion annual defence budget swells toward $100 billion by 2034, absorbing failure without correcting it. (AUKUS costs are a guess, announced without consulting Treasury, Parliament or any other authority.)
What Do We Actually Get?
And what does Australia receive for this tithe?
- Not submarines.
- Not even capability.
- A promise.
Five SSN AUKUS boats to be built in Adelaide at some conveniently indeterminate date. Early 2040s if all goes well. If Britain remembers how to build submarines at scale. If the US has spare industrial capacity. If history pauses politely to accommodate our fantasy.
The BAE Systems Track Record
BAE Systems, cast as AUKUS’s industrial saviour, spent two decades struggling to deliver the UK’s Astute class submarines……………………………………………………..
The Pillar Two Mirage
When reality intrudes, the faithful point to Pillar Two, the sideshow of defence tech collaboration; AI, cyber and hypersonics; meant to suggest strategic depth where there is only debt. Scott Morrison dubbed it “AUKUS in Space,” as if adding a preposition and some stars transformed a lopsided submarine purchase into visionary strategy.
But the real achievement is rhetorical: substituting buzz-words for credible policy. In this sense, AUKUS is Scott Morrison’s most enduring legacy.
The Question Marles Won’t Answer
No-one likes a smart-arse but the pitiful Richard Marles still cannot explain why nuclear submarines are worth this ruinous spend when modern diesel-electric boats exist.
Modern diesel-electric submarines provide maximum range, endurance and stealth, operating underwater before having to resurface to snorkel and recharge batteries. Australia’s own Collins-class diesel submarines demonstrated during 2003 multinational exercises that they were comparable in underwater warfare to US Los Angeles-class nuclear-powered attack submarines, trading roles and achieving , successful attacks despite being smaller and less powerful……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The Runway at Dusk
For $368 billion, AUKUS is not a procurement program. It is a wager on dependency.
Australia is paying staggering sums for submarines that do not yet exist, to be built by industries in chronic difficulty, on timelines that belong to fantasy, while ceding real autonomy over real assets in the present. In return, we receive reassurance. Access. Attention. The comforting sense that someone larger, louder and more heavily armed is standing somewhere behind us………………………………………………………………………………
History will not ask whether the submarines eventually arrived. It will ask why a nation willingly surrendered so much, so early, for so little certainty in return. And it will judge us not by the promises we believed, but by the choices we made when the risks were already plain. https://theaimn.net/aukus-caucus/
The Israel Lobby’s War on Aussie Doctors
Since recording this video, the Victor Change Cardiac Research Institute has finally allowed Professor Macdonald to return to work. Thank you to everyone who helped achieve this important victory for free speech and our healthcare system.
The non-corporate nuclear news – week to 13 December
Some bits of good news –
What Happened When Tennessee Unleashed Its River.
Giving Away Money Is Good for You.
1 Million Turtle Nests Counted on India’s Coast– ‘Crazy High’ Number is 10x More Than Decades Ago
TOP STORIES.
Nuclear power will never be “beneficial”.
Britain’s nuclear submarine fleet ‘no longer fit for purpose’-ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/12/09/1-a-britains-nuclear-submarine-fleet-no-longer-fit-for-purpose/
When it all comes crashing down: The aftermath of the AI boom.
Israel’s biggest con trick: Hiding the true numbers it has killed in Gaza. U.S. Military Budget Bill Would Ramp Up Israel Aid to Fill In ‘Gaps’ When Other Countries Impose Embargoes Over Genocide.
The Moral Urgency of Compromise in Ukraine.
Climate. Climateflation: the food system in crisis.
Environment. UN environment report ‘hijacked’ by US and others over fossil fuels, top scientist says.
AUSTRALIA.
- Marles’ new Defence agency – rearranging deck chairs on the HMAS Titanic.
- The people and environment of South Australia must be protected from Federal imposed storage of AUKUS High-Level nuclear waste.
- The Colby Review, AUKUS and Lopsided Commitments.
- Segal Secrets: docs reveal Antisemitism Envoy’s big pay day.
- Will the lights go out if we don’t have baseload? – “No, absolutely not,” say those whose job it is to keep them on.
NUCLEAR-RELATED TOPICS
ECONOMICS.
- Cashing in on war: Why stealing Russia’s assets actually makes things worse for the EU.
- Reeves’ £150 cut in UK’s energy bills will be nuked by Sizewell costs, ex-Labour donor claims.
- Japan pulls out of Vietnam nuclear project, complicating Hanoi’s power plans.
- American-owned consortium assumes control of Canada’s premier nuclear research facility.
- Why this nuclear energy stock could face a meltdown in 2026. South Carolina’s abandoned nuclear plants could be revived as company offers $2.7 billion.
- Oil and gas industries join with nuclear to fight renewable energy.
- Nuclear power?- Its account is (almost) OK.
- Schemes of Bankruptcy: The United Nations, Funding Dues and Human Rights.
| EMPLOYMENT. Fears raised that specialist Vulcan MoD work could shift to Sellafield |
| ENERGY.Nuclear (in)flexibility, nearly 100% electricity from solar PV and offshore wind surge! Claims that we can go back to some of old tech for a better future! Report: Small Modular Distractors: Why a European SMR strategy hinders the energy transition. Britain’s AI boom is running straight into an energy wall. Renewables deliver nearly two thirds of power fed to grid in Germany, not including self-consumption. Building energy resilience in an uncertain world. |
| ENVIRONMENT. As the UK looks to invest in nuclear, here’s what it could mean for Britain’s environment. |
| HEALTH. Nuclear Kills Kids. |
| HISTORY. Manufactured Narratives: A Century of Distortion and Dispossession in Palestine |
| INDIGENOUS ISSUES. The ‘Nuclearity’ of the Marshall Islands, and the Threat of US Testing |
| LEGAL. Sizewell C sea defences at centre of High Court challenge. Activists fight plans for nuclear power station over threat to rare bird- ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/12/11/1-b1-activists-fight-plans-for-nuclear-power-station-over-threat-to-rare-bird/ |
| MEDIA. New York Times Wants The US Military Built Up For War With China. |
| OPPOSITION to NUCLEAR . Delays in constructing Hinkley C nuclear power station highlighted by protestors. Campaigners call for absolute protection for Welsh national parks from nuclear plants. Nuclear Free Local Authorities Policy Briefing 330: NFLA Progress Report, October – December 2025. |
| POLITICS. Nuclear Notebook: The changing nuclear landscape in Europe.Ontario’sNuclear Folly. Tony Blair’s digital ID dream, brought to you by Keir Starmer. The UK wants to unlock a ‘golden age of nuclear’ but faces key challenges in reviving historic lead. U.S. Nuclear Fusion Industry Asks for Federal Help. Zelensky’s rush to elections is an effort to cling to power and keep the money flowing. |
| POLITICS INTERNATIONAL and DIPLOMACY. A New UN Secretary-General Needs the Blessings of the US–or Get Vetoed. The Authoritarian Stack –How Tech Billionaires Are Building a Post-Democratic America — And Why Europe Is Next. Russia says it awaits an answer from the US on New START as nuclear treaty ticks down. THE NEXT WARS WERE ALWAYS HERE: How Post 9/11 Law and the Monroe Doctrine Converged in the Caribbean. Trump’s Monroe Doctrine 2.0 Outlines Imperial Intentions for Latin America. Venezuela and the colonial enterprise. Trump gives Zelensky ‘days’ to respond to peace plan – Financial Times. Zelensky resists ceding Donbas, after abandoning it years ago. US House passes $800mn aid package for Ukraine. Trump says Ukraine should hold elections . Trump scores an own goal for FIFA. Perfectly Appropriate: Trump, Infantino and the FIFA Peace Prize .Across the world we are marking 5 years since the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons became international law. |
| RADIATION. All French nuclear power plants are releasing tritium, according to Criirad. |
| SAFETY. Japan inspects nuclear sites as seismologists warn of another large quake.Iran says bombed nuclear sites present radiation risk. |
| SECRETS and LIES.The Story They Forgot to Tell: Ten Years of Ukraine’s Corruption and the Media’s Convenient Timeline. Zelensky ‘systematically sabotaged’ Ukraine anti-corruption efforts: Report. FBI Labels Antifa a Major Terror Threat, but Lawmakers Say Evidence Is Lacking as Trump’s Obsession Distracts From Far-Right Extremism. |
| TECHNOLOGY. Search for UK fusion plant engineering partner to restart in 1-2 years after failed first attempt. |
| WASTES. Further delay in Finnish repository licence review. |
| WAR and CONFLICT. Mayors for Peace Briefing . Venezuela charges Washington with ‘theft, piracy’ after seizure of oil tanker. War Crimes Prosecutor Reed Brody on Trump’s Boat Strikes – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uswKsQ4q2g US should exit lost Ukraine war, obsolete NATO – ALSO AT https://nuclear-news.net/2025/12/13/1-b1-us-should-exit-lost-ukraine-war-obsolete-nato/ THE EUROPEANS: BLIND TO REALITY, DEAF TO ALL WARNINGS & HEADED FOR DISASTER |
| WEAPONS and WEAPONS SALES. Britain’s “borrowed bombs”. Rosyth earmarked as temporary repair base for new fleet of UK submarines. Submarines in for repairs at Rosyth could contain nuclear weapons. China’s New Underwater Drones Could Blindside the U.S. Navy.Danger of letting AI into the nuclear weapons chain of command. The War Department Unleashes AI on New GenAI.mil Platform. Israel firm Elbit to help build Trump’s Golden Dome. ‘Genocide is not an Oakland value:’ inside Oakland’s grassroots campaign to end military shipments to Israel. Making Sense of The Après-Ukraine. |
Will the lights go out if we don’t have baseload? “No, absolutely not,” say those whose job it is to keep them on
Giles Parkinson, ReNewEconomy, Dec 12, 2025
Australia’s green energy transition is continuing apace – not as quickly as many would hope, and possibly not as fast as we could. But it is certainly happening more quickly than nearly everyone imagined a decade ago, and at a speed some still find hard to digest.
The release of the Australian Energy Market Operator’s latest multi-decade blueprint, the draft 2026 Integrated System Plan, underlines what nearly everyone now accepts to be true – that the lowest cost option to replace Australia’s ageing fleet of coal generators is with wind, solar, battery storage, a bit more gas capacity and some transmission.
It’s been the case since the first ISP was produced in 2018, at the instigation of the then Coalition government, and the main thrust of the ISP has varied little since then (three were produced under the Coalition and this is the second under Labor).
Nicola Falcon, now the executive general manager of system design at AEMO, has been working on the ISP since the first was finalised in 2018, and points to its remarkable consistency, despite – or even perhaps because of – the technology changes that have occurred in that time.
“Even with those changes that are going on around us, it continues to be that that least cost mix is renewable generation, connected with networks firmed by storage and backed by gas,” Falcon tells Renew Economy in the latest episode of its weekly Energy Insiders podcast.
See: Energy Insiders Podcast: A blueprint to quit coal, and go green
Yet the biggest hurdle to the ISP’s success remains political – whether it be the political rhetoric and misinformation from the Coalition at the federal level that proves a lightning road for local opposition, or the destructive acts of new conservative state governments such as the LNP in Queensland.
The basis of this is almost entirely dependent on a red herring – that the future of Australia’s economy and the reliability of its electricity supplies can only be guaranteed by what they call “baseload”, by which they mean existing coal and future nuclear.
That’s not what the energy industry says, unless they have a particular vested interest in perpetuating that myth. The future is now focused on bulk renewables – wind and solar – supported by storage, mostly batteries but also some pumped hydro and other technologies – and some peaking gas as the last fall-back.
The big energy players, and the market operator itself, have been consistent with this line, but on Energy Insiders we wanted to hear it again, and asked Falcon if the absence of “baseload” means the lights will go out.
“No, absolutely not,” Falcon replied.
………………………………………………………………………………….. the plunging cost of battery storage has had profound implications – both for its ability to store excess power and send it into the grid in the evening peaks, create demand in the middle of the day, and provide lower cost “virtual transmission” instead of new power lines.
The latest ISP models more battery storage, more solar and battery hybrids, more household PV (backed by more batteries), and less wind, less gas, and fewer new transmission lines.
But the fundamental story remains the same.
“There’s still going to be in a five fold increase in solar and wind that we need from now, where we’ve got about 23 gigawatts on the system to 120 gigawatts by 2050,” Falcon says……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Then, of course, are the customers themselves, with households expected to host some 87 gigawatts of capacity.
“By 2050 the consumer energy resources that we call them, which is your rooftop PV, your batteries and your electric vehicles, combined, will be providing half of the capacity supplied for the entire NEM, so, you know, a huge role,” Falcon says.
“They’re really at the heart of the transition. And to be fair, they’re setting the pace at the moment. As Australians, we’ve got 4 million households with rooftop PV on them.
We’ve seen with their household home batteries, huge uptake in the amount of CzeR storage and so forth. We’ve got, from a power system perspective, there’s opportunity through those investments, opting in to really provide value, not just for themselves, but also for all Australians……………….. https://reneweconomy.com.au/will-the-lights-go-out-if-we-dont-have-baseload-no-absolutely-not-say-those-whose-job-it-is-to-keep-them-on/
Venezuela and the colonial enterprise
When Captain Cook arrived in Australia, there were around one million blackfullas. This number was swiftly and efficiently reduced to a far more manageable size. In Tasmania, the number of full-blood blackfullas was reduced to zero. In Victoria, it was reduced to three. Yet it still took nearly 200 years before the interlopers felt safe enough to grant the last indigenous remnants their democratic rights.
By Ben Laycock | 11 December 2025, https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/venezuela-and-the-colonial-enterprise,20471
When small nations resist the United States, democracy becomes a game of pressure, writes Ben Laycock.
U.S. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP claims his belligerence towards Nicolás Maduro is in the noble cause of restoring democracy to Venezuela, but history shows us that the U.S. is no friend of democracy in Latin America.
The U.S. is renowned for interfering in the democratic process in every single country south of the border of America. It is common knowledge that it is nigh on impossible to maintain power in any Latin American democracy if the U.S. decides it is time for you to go.
The way the world economy works like this rich countries make products that poor countries need, like technology. To afford those products, poor countries must offer something the rich folks need. This is usually minerals or fossil fuels. If the rich folks don’t like the way you run your country, basically, if you don’t run your country the way they tell you to, they use their immense economic power to cripple your economy by cutting off the most vital thing you need, finance. The rich folks control the money supply. They turn off the tap. Your country goes broke, the people get angry and throw you out. The U.S.-backed mob get in, the tap is turned on again. The anger of the masses subsides, the status quo returns, without a shot being fired, all perfectly democratic.
A nation cannot maintain its independence via democratic means if the powers-that-be object to that independence, as they so often do.
The only way to maintain your independence is to suspend normal democratic rights and be prepared to defend your country via military means. If you take this drastic course of action, you will face the approbation of the entire “democratic” world. You will no longer be seen as a legitimate state. That is when they really turn the screws, imposing an economic blockade on your struggling little country. This forces you to turn to less popular regimes for life support, thus placing you firmly in the enemy camp, ripe for full-scale military invasion.
The U.S. imposed an extremely strict economic blockade on Cuba in 1962. That blockade is ongoing, the longest economic blockade in history. No company that trades with Cuba can trade with the U.S., full stop.
But only a fool would think these actions have anything to do with democracy. Here in the rich world, democracy is a game we play. If we are losing the game, that’s when things get serious. The USA is going through the painful process of shedding long-held notions of democracy at this very moment.
Donald Trump’s best friends are not leaders of democracies: Mohamed Bin Salman, his present best friend, is a Prince. Saudi Arabia and all the other Gulf states are monarchies, ruled by kings. His other bosom buddy is Benjamin Netanyahu, a man who runs a brutal military dictatorship over many of his subjects, divided along racial lines. Israel reserves democratic rights for Jews only, plus a small minority of arabs that they neglected to exterminate long ago (something they have come to regret). The rest of their subjects are subject to military dictatorship. All Jewish people are allowed to vote, no matter where they live in Palestine. Arabs citizens are allowed to vote unless they live in Gaza or the West Bank. There are 9.5 million citizens in Israel (this includes Jewish settlers in the West Bank), two million of them are Arabs. Until recently, there were over two million people living in Gaza. (The I.D.F. is going to extraordinary lengths to reduce that number). There are 2.5 million people living in the West Bank. That makes a total population under Israeli control of 14 million, 9.5 million of whom have the right to vote, the other 4.5 million are living in an extremely brutal military dictatorship, and have been for generations.
So we can say that the land of Israel is 63 per cent democracy and 37 per cent military dictatorship.
This is not so different to how Australia was run until quite recently.
Our nation began as a military dictatorship. Eventually, the invaders and settlers were allowed to vote, while the indigenous population continued to be ruled by a brutal military dictatorship right up until 1967. The “blackfullas” were seen as the enemy, to be shot on sight. The last recorded massacre was the Conniston Massacre in 1928. It is a rule of thumb for any self-respecting colonising power to keep the local indigenous population out of the democratic process until you have reduced their numbers to the point where they no longer pose a threat to your idea of “civilisation.”
A colonial enterprise must reduce the ratio of locals to interlopers. This is achieved by two simultaneous methods: Reducing the population of locals via extermination, whilst flooding the place with immigrants from “the home country.”
When Captain Cook arrived in Australia, there were around one million blackfullas. This number was swiftly and efficiently reduced to a far more manageable size. In Tasmania, the number of full-blood blackfullas was reduced to zero. In Victoria, it was reduced to three. Yet it still took nearly 200 years before the interlopers felt safe enough to grant the last indigenous remnants their democratic rights.
To return to Palestine. The interlopers arrived en masse around 1947-8. They immediately set about adjusting the ratio of locals to invaders (following the colonial textbook to the letter) via a campaign of mass terror. The Zionists expelled over one million Palestinians from their homes, at gunpoint, with nothing more than they could carry on their backs. They then blew up their homes and planted booby traps so they could never return. This is how the state of Israel was founded, on ethnic cleansing. Since that time, some 80 years ago, the Palestinians have lived under brutal military rule, but until now, there has been little attempt to get rid of them altogether. That policy has changed. The Arab Palestinian cohort is growing faster than the Jews. Partly because the Arabs are outbreeding the Jews about 3-1, well done team! But also because Israel is no longer such a popular place to come and live, for obvious reasons. The Israeli regime is aware that it cannot maintain a Jewish state once the Arab population approaches parity. So they are now talking about expelling the Arabs from the Israeli enclave, as well as from Gaza and the West Bank. In their eyes, this would reduce the threat of violence that is putting off potential immigrants, whilst freeing up new lands to give them, problem solved!
Marles’ new Defence agency – rearranging deck chairs on the HMAS Titanic
Look how much taxpayers’ money is gobbled up by weaponry, compared to all other services
Earlier this week Defence Minister Richard Marles announced a big reform in Defence Procurement. Except it wasn’t a big reform, rather a rearranging of deck chairs. Former senator Rex Patrick reports.
by Rex Patrick | Dec 7, 2025 https://michaelwest.com.au/marles-new-defence-agency-rearranging-deck-chairs/
And the needle returns to the start of the song …
On 22 June 2000, then Minister for Defence John Moore approved the establishment of the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO), a single organisation that was to be charged with the responsibility of acquisition and through life support of equipment and systems used by the Australian Defence Force.
But the DMO didn’t work.
On 01 April 2015, then Minister for Defence Kevin Andrews announced that he had accepted the recommendations of a Defence First Principles Review and that the DMO would be disbanded – it wasn’t working – and that its functions would be transferred to a new Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group (CASG).
But the CASG didn’t work.
On 01 December the Defence Minister, Richard Marles, announced he was merging CASG, Defence’s Guided Weapons and Explosives Ordinance Group and the Naval Shipbuilding & Sustainment Group into a single organisation to be called the Defence Delivery Agency (DDA).
DDA won’t work
Rearranging deck chairs
During the week Marles sought to assure that there would be no job losses as a result of his reforms and, in an absolute admission that all he was doing was rearranging the deck chairs, he advised that existing public servants who worked for Defence would simply be transferred over to the new agency.
The biggest problem that Defence has, and which Marles doesn’t have the ability to solve, is the fact that the very senior uniformed people who are running Defence acquisition, while undoubtedly being good war-fighters, don’t have the experience in project management to understand that it is risk that brings down projects.
You would not take an experienced project manager and assigned them command responsibility of a warship, and you should not take a warship captain and assign them responsibility for a large project. But the latter is exactly what happens inside Defence.
Political risk (political change), economic risk (pressure on budgets), management risk (inexperience) and technical risk (novelty, uncertainty and complexity) – that’s what causes projects to go off the rails.
Changing the label on the front door of the equipment procurement office won’t do a thing to get better value-for-money or reliable capable equipment for our defence force.
E.G. AUKUS
AUKUS is classical Defence risk taking.
It’s not a hidden fact that the United States is not building enough Virginia class submarines to meet US Navy needs, let alone supply the Royal Australian Navy with some. The US Government’s AUKUS review report is now with the Australian Government. The Minister is talking up the contents, albeit in very general detail.
“If the US were honest, they’d tell us to do something different.”
But with $1.6 billion already paid to the US Department of War and another billion dollars set to be gifted to the US in the next couple of weeks, the temptation would be difficult.
Senate Estimates this week was instructive. When Senator David Shoebridge read from the evidence given by Lord Case, the Chair of ‘Team Barrow’ (the organisation entrusted with ensuring the town of Barrow is able to support the UK’s and AUKUS submarine build needs) telling the UK Parliament he was not happy with his team’s progress, Vice Admiral Jonathon Mead indicated he did not know about it.
Experienced project managers spend their time looking for bad news – looking for risk that is materialising. That doesn’t seem to be happening. ‘Talking’ AUKUS is the order of the day, not ‘walking’.
Real change
If Marles knew what he was doing he would look to the culture in Defence procurements.
“No more ‘special’ or ‘expensive monolithic’ projects.“
Defence needs to develop a force optimised first for Defence-of-Australia and second for near regional security (and conduct other work from that order-of-battle). It needs to focus on proven designs/capabilities when fulfilling Defence Force needs.
This is something that has been recommended to Defence in the past, in the 2003 Kinnaird Review and the 2008 Mortimer Review. They are not new ideas; they are old ideas ignored.
Even those not currently interested in Defence need to be a little bit interested. Putting national security imperatives to one side, so much public money is spent on Defence.
One of the most telling signals that nothing substantive will come from Minister Marles’ announced changes came when Senator Shoebridge asked the question of Defence Secretary Greg Moriarty will the new ‘National Armament Director’ come from outside the current organisations?
There was no way Moriarty was going to answer that question. He employed bureaucratic doublespeak and avoided a direct answer. The secretary is an experienced public service hand, and will want someone in the seat that he can ‘guide’.
Marles needn’t worry too much though. He has what he needs – a dodge over failing projects for the rest of the parliamentary term, and possibly the next as well. “All those problems were caused by the old system,” Marles will say.
Segal Secrets: docs reveal Antisemitism Envoy’s big pay day
by Stephanie Tran | Dec 9, 2025, https://michaelwest.com.au/segal-secrets-docs-reveal-antisemitism-envoys-big-pay-day/
Jillian Segal, Australia’s controversial Antisemitism Czar and Israel lobbyist, procured an extra $12.9m funding from PM Anthony Albanese, heavily redacted FOI documents show. Stephanie Tran reports.
The Albanese government has blocked key details about the appointment of Jillian Segal as Australia’s special envoy for antisemitism, with freedom of information documents (FOI) revealing a process almost entirely obscured by redactions.
The documents, released by the Department of Home Affairs in response to an FOI request, show the government relied on wide-ranging secrecy exemptions to withhold internal briefings, candidate assessments, deliberative advice to ministers, and all correspondence between Segal and the Prime Minister’s Office.
Beyond a set of boilerplate terms of reference, the documents shed little light on why Segal was chosen. What’s deliberately missing, however, is the real story.
Selection process almost entirely redacted
One of the key questions the FOI sought to answer was how Segal came to be selected. In correspondence to staff in March 2024, Home Affairs officials described an intention to provide the Prime Minister with “up to 6 candidates” reflecting “the demography of Australia”, diverse identities and gender, and “trusted relationships” in their communities.
But every document detailing assessments or the rationale for selection was either heavily redacted or withheld in full, primarily under the FOI Act’s deliberative processes exemption under s47C.
The Information Officer’s decision letter notes that Home Affairs undertook “extremely thorough” searches, but still located no resume, no risk assessments and no evaluation criteria.
The Department’s claim that it could not locate a copy of Jillian Segal’s CV appears to be at odds with the government’s own records. In a June 2024 letter to the Prime Minister, Immigration Minister Andrew Giles explicitly stated that Segal’s “Curriculum Vitae, Private Interest Declaration and Appointments Details pro-forma are at Attachment D.”
(Original article copiously shows the government documents)
Urgency and budget blowouts
What survives the redactions paints a picture of a high-speed, politically sensitive process.
The documents reveal the existence of an “Israel Hamas Social Cohesion Taskforce” within Home Affairs, headed by Giles.
In February 2024, Giles wrote to Anthony Albanese seeking “urgent agreement” to appoint envoys to combat Antisemitism and Islamophobia, citing the “immediate and significant rise in Antisemitism and Islamophobia … exacerbated by the 7 October 2023 Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel [and] the ongoing conflict and the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza.”
On 21 June 2024, Giles personally recommended Segal as the preferred candidate for the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism.
In a letter dated 25 June 2024, Albanese agreed to Segal’s appointment. Albanese also approved an additional $12.9 million of funding for the two envoy roles.
“The 2024-25 Budget provided $4.0 million over two years from 2023-24 for the appointment of the Special Envoys, as a decision taken but not yet announced. Noting the appointments will now be for three years instead of one and additional support staff may be required, I agree to provide up to an additional $12.9 million in total over three years from 2024-25 for up to 12 staff, with offsets to be agreed in the 2024-25 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) context, subject to agreement with the Department of Finance.”
Public interest outweighed by need for secrecy
In its decision, Home Affairs argued that releasing deliberative material would hinder officials’ ability to provide “full and frank advice” on future appointments, and that releasing names or details of candidates would be an unreasonable breach of personal privacy.
The Department explicitly acknowledged that disclosure would “promote the objects of the FOI Act” and “inform debate on a matter of public importance” but still maintained the public interest favoured secrecy, particularly to avoid “prejudicing” internal government processes.
The information officer stated the following:
“I consider that the public interest in protecting the process of the provision of free and honest confidential advice by a Department to its Minister has, on balance, more weight, than the public interest that might exist in disclosing the deliberative matter. Endangering the proper working relationship that a Department has with its Minster and its ability to provide its Minister with honest advice confidentially would be contrary to the public interest.”
The Colby Review, AUKUS and Lopsided Commitments
9 December 2025 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/the-colby-review-aukus-and-lopsided-commitments/
In one of his many cutting observations about the fallibility of politicians, H. L. Mencken had this to say about the practical sort: “It is his business to convince the mob (a) that it is confronted by some grave danger, some dreadful menace to its peace and security, and (b) that he can save it.” Regarding Australia’s often provincial politicians, that grave danger remains the Yellow Peril, albeit it one garbed in communist party colours, while the quackery they continue to practise involves the notion the United States will act as shield bearer and saviour in any future conflict.
The AUKUS trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States has turned the first of these countries into an expectant vassal state, mindful of security guarantees it does not need from a power that can, and would at a moment’s notice, abandon it. But more dangerously, the expectation here is that Canberra, awaiting Virginia Class (SSN-774) nuclear-powered submarines from the US, will offer unconditional succour, resources and promises to the projection of Washington’s power in the Indo-Pacific. Without any guarantee of such submarines, Australian money is underwriting US submarine production, which remains consistently tardy. (Currently, 1.3 boats are being produced annually, when 2.3 are needed.)
The 2023 National Defense Authorization Act makes it irrefutably clear that Congress shall be notified that any transfer of boats “will not degrade the United States underseas capabilities.” Pursuing AUKUS still entailed “sufficient submarine production and maintenance investments” on the part of the US to meet undersea capabilities, with Australia advancing “appropriate funds and support for the additional capacity required to meet the requirements” along with Canberra’s “capability to host and fully operate the vessels authorized to be transferred.”
This true steal for US diplomacy, and sad tribute to Homo boobiens on the part of the Australians, has continued with the review of AUKUS conducted by Undersecretary of Defense Policy Eldridge Colby. The review is not available for public eyes, but Colby had previously released smoke signals that the AUKUS pact would only “lead to more submarines collectively in 10, 15, 20 years, which is way beyond the window of maximum danger, which is really this decade.”
The Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles told reporters on December 4 that the review had been received. “We’re working through the AUKUS review, and we very much thank the United States for providing it to us.” (Surely that’s the least they could have done.) He had identified unwavering support for the pact. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell also released a statement to the media expressing enthusiasm. “Consistent with President Trump’s guidance that AUKUS should move ‘full steam ahead,’ the review identified opportunities to put AUKUS on the strongest possible footing.” No doubt opportunities have been identified, but these are likely to be consistent with the lopsided arrangements Australia has had with the US to date.
Australia has so far provided A$1.6 billion in funding to the US submarine base, with the promise of more. What remains unclear is how much of this is also going into training Australian personnel to operate and maintain the vessels. “There’s a schedule of payments to be made,” explained Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in July. “We have an agreement with the United States as well as with the United Kingdom. It is about increasing their capacity, their industrial capacity.” As part of such arrangements, “we have Australians on the ground, learning those skills.”
The joint fact sheet on the 2025 Australia-US Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN), held between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and their Australian counterparts Penny Wong and Marles in Washington, makes one reference to AUKUS and nothing in terms of substance to Colby’s recommendations. There is, however, this bit of unpardonable gibberish: “In line with President Trump and Prime Minister Albanese’s direction to move ‘full steam ahead’ on AUKUS, the [ministers] recognised the work underway to deliver priority infrastructure works and workforce uplift plan in support of an enhanced trilateral submarine industrial base.”
Given such statements, it is hard to see what opportunities identified in the Colby report could possibly be advantageous to Australia, a mere annexure of the US imperium. There is bound to be continued pressure on Australia to increase its defence spending. There are also unaddressed concerns about how sovereign the SSNs in Australian hands are going to be when and if they ever make it across the Pacific. In a conflict involving the United States, notably in the Indo-Pacific, Canberra will be expected to rush in with that mindless enthusiasm that has seen Australian soldiers die in theatres they would struggle to name for causes they could barely articulate.
Even the confident opinion of Joe Courtney, a Democrat member of the House Armed Services Committee and representative of Groton, Connecticut (the “Submarine Capital of the World”), should be viewed warily. “The statutory authority enacted by Congress in 2023 will remain intact, including the sale of three Virginia-class submarines starting in 2032,”comes his beaming assessment. The Colby review “correctly determined that there are critical deadlines that all three countries have to meet. Therefore, maintaining disciplined adherence to schedule is paramount.” That degree of discipline and adherence to schedules is unlikely to be an equal one. It is bound to favour, first and foremost, Washington’s own single perspective.
Nuclear Kills Kids
most significant of all there is now solid evidence of increased rates of leukaemia in children living close to nuclear power plants.
Tony Webb | April 28, 2025, https://www.fabians.org.au/nuclear_kills_kids
One moment from my work in the USA in the early 1980s stands out in my memory. I’d driven from Chicago to Cleveland at the invitation of the Health and Safety Officer of the US Boilermakers Union. The purpose was to speak to the members meeting held on the night ahead of the recruitment of members for work on the annual ‘clean-up’ of the local Nuclear Power plant. The hired workers would be ‘radiation sponges’ – short-term casuals recruited for the ‘dirty jobs’ that would result in significant radiation exposures sometimes up to the permitted annual exposure limit and ‘let go’ if they reached that limit. The practice offered some protection to the company’s full -time employees whose skills would be needed on an ongoing basis and whose exposures needed to be kept below the limit. The meeting was well attended , rowdy, with a lot of questions and discussion which spilled over into the carpark after the meeting closed. I noticed one man hanging back from the circle and invited him to join and share his thoughts. As I recall them the essence was:
“I will be going in to apply for work tomorrow. I understand what you shared about the risks . . . no safe level of exposure and chance of getting cancer perhaps 20 years from now . . . It will put a roof over my family’s heads and food on the table . . . BUT my wife and I have had all the family we want. If we hadn’t, what you shared about the genetic risks, the damage to our children and future generations . . . no I wouldn’t be going . . . “
It is a sad fact that workers, both men and women will choose, often from necessity, to put their health at risk from the work environment. What is however consistent in my experience of working on radiation and other occupational health and safety issues is that they are far more concerned, cautious and likely to prioritise safety when it comes to risks to their children.
We now have solid evidence(1) that workers in nuclear power plants routinely exposed to radiation face significantly increased cancer risks, risks of cardiovascular disease including heart attacks and strokes, dementia and potentially other health effects. There is also an increased risk of genetic damage that can be passed on to their children and future generations. But perhaps most significant of all there is now solid evidence of increased rates of leukaemia in children living close to nuclear power plants.
To put it simply and in language that will resonate with workers and their families in the communities around the seven nuclear power plant sites the federal Liberal-National Coalition proposes to build if elected to government, nuclear kills kids. It matters little whether or not these nuclear plants can be built on time, within budget, make a contribution to climate change, reduce electricity prices, or secure a long-term energy future; these nuclear power plants will likely kill kids who live close by. They cannot operate without routine releases of radioactive material into the environment and our young will be exposed and are particularly susceptible to any exposure that results.
Now add to that if you care that women are more susceptible than men; that workers in these plants face greater exposure and health risks than adults in the community; that nuclear plants have and will continue to have both major accidents and less major ‘incidents’ resulting in radiation releases, community exposures and health damage. Add also that quite apart from the workers and others exposed when these plants need to be decommissioned, the radioactive wastes resulting from perhaps 30-50 years life will need to be safely stored and kept isolated from human contact for many thousands of years longer than our recorded human history. And, again if you care, also add in the concerns around proliferation of nuclear weapons which historically has occurred on the back of, enabled by and sometimes concealed by countries’ developing so called peaceful nuclear power.
All these arguments add weight to the absurdity of Australia starting and the world continuing down this nuclear power path. But if we want a single issue that strikes at the heart of human concerns it is this – and forgive me saying it again, it needs to be repeated many times until the electorate in Australia hears it loud and clear – Nuclear Kills Kids.
SOURCES……………………………………………………………………………………………………
The people and environment of South Australia must be protected from Federal imposed storage of AUKUS High-Level nuclear waste:
by David Noonan Independent Environment Campaigner 10 Nov 2025.
South Australians have a Right to Say No to undemocratic Federal imposed storage of AUKUS
High Level nuclear waste in our State. All Federal MPs & Senators from SA, Members of the SA
Parliament and candidates for the SA State Election on 21st March should declare their position:
Q: Will you accept or reject Federal imposed storage of AUKUS nuclear waste in SA?
The Federal Government quietly took up new AUKUS Regulations (2 Oct) as powers to impose
AUKUS wastes by override of State laws that prohibit nuclear waste storage in SA, NT and WA.
AUKUS Regulation 111 “State and Territory laws that do not apply in relation to a regulated
activity” names and prescribes our SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000. The
Objects of this key SA Law set out what is at stake: “To protect the health, safety and welfare
of the people of SA, and the environment in which they live” from nuclear waste storage.
Federal Labor’s draconian powers to compromise public health, safety and welfare protections
in SA Law, lacks social licence, are an affront to civil society, and damages trust in governance.
This is also a threat to Indigenous People with a cultural responsibility to protect their country.
Community expects our State Labor Government to give a clear State Election commitment to
protect SA from the risks and impacts of untenable and illegal AUKUS High Level nuclear waste
storage, see “The lethal legacy of Aukus nuclear submarines will remain for millennia – and
there’s no plan to deal with it” (The Guardian, 10 August 2025, interview with Prof Ian Lowe).
Labor has a further key leadership test ahead of our Election: to commit to support Indigenous
People’s human rights, set out in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples Article 29 (UNDRIP 2007), to “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” over storage of
hazardous materials on their lands. AUKUS wastes absolutely are hazardous materials!
a Question for Premier Peter Malinauskas: Will you respect and support Indigenous Peoples
Rights to Say No to Federal siting of AUKUS nuclear waste storage on their country in SA?
Call for full disclosure on a N-waste siting process after Labor breaks its commitment:
The public has a Right to Know what regions are being targeted for storage of High-Level
nuclear wastes. A secretive ongoing Defence review “to identify potential nuclear waste
disposal sites” (ABC News March 2023) must be made public ahead of the SA State Election.
AUKUS Minister Marles has broken his commitment to announce a process by early 2024 to
identify a site to dispose of AUKUS High-Level nuclear wastes. The failure by Defence to set out
any process – other than to take up powers to impose nuclear wastes – is unacceptable.
REPORTER: Is a high-level nuclear waste dump the price that South Australia will have to pay
for the jobs that go to the state? (Minister Marles Press Conference 14 March 2023)
MARLES: Well, as I indicated there will be a process that we will determine within the next 12
months for how the site will be identified. You’ve made a leap there, which we’re not going to
make for some time. It will be a while before a site is ultimately identified. But we will within the
next 12 months establish a process for how we walk down that path.
It is now over 4 years since Federal Labor agreed with Morrison’s AUKUS nuclear sub agenda.
SA Labor to let ‘national security interests’ decide siting for AUKUS nuclear waste?
National press reported the Woomera Area to be a ‘favoured location’ for storage and disposal
of nuclear sub wastes back in August 2023 (“Woomera looms as national nuclear waste dump
site including for AUKUS submarine high-level waste afr.com). WA, Qld and Vic political leaders
have rejected a High-Level nuclear waste disposal site in their States, with WA suggesting the
Woomera Prohibited Area in SA: “would be one obvious location within the Defence estate,
however, we will await the outcomes of the federal review” (SMH 15 March 2023).
Premier Malinauskas has so far only said AUKUS nuclear waste should go to a ‘remote’ location
in the “national security interest” (see “Site for high-level nuclear waste dump under AUKUS
deal must be in national interest, SA premier says” ABC News 15 March 2023).
The Premier’s “Office for AUKUS” (Letter, 7 Oct 2025) accepts “safe and secure disposal” of
High-Level nuclear waste, including spent fuel, produced when subs are decommissioned. The
Office says no decision has been made on a location but declines to reveal what is underway,
expresses no concerns over unprecedented nuclear waste storage or ‘social license’, and
expects “community acceptance” (in SA?) for a nuclear ‘disposal solution’:
“I can confirm that no decision has been made on a location within Australia for the
disposal of intermediate, or high-level radioactive waste from nuclear-powered
submarines. Determining suitable locations and methods for safe and secure disposal
will take time, but Australia will do so in a manner that sets the highest standards … and
which builds community acceptance for a disposal solution.”
SA is left in the dark, without a say, as an ongoing target for an AUKUS nuclear waste dump.
AUKUS is to store US origin nuclear wastes from 2nd hand Virginia Class subs in Australia:
AUKUS aims Australia take on second-hand US Virginia Class nuclear powered subs in the early
2030’s loaded with up to a dozen years of US origin military High-Level nuclear waste and fissile
Atomic-Bomb fuel accrued in operations of US Navy High Enriched Uranium nuclear reactors.
Swapping an Australian flag onto this US military nuclear reactor waste places an untenable ‘for
ever’ burden on all future generations to have to cope these US nuclear wastes.
Scenario: an AUKUS nuclear dump imposed on SA, High-Level military waste shipped into
Whyalla Port to go north, nuclear subs to be ‘decommissioned’ at Osborne Port Adelaide.
Whyalla Port is back on a nuclear waste target range. How else could AUKUS nuclear waste get
to a storage site in north SA? The Woomera Area is expected to be on a regional short list for an
AUKUS dump, requiring nuclear waste transport routes across SA. Port Adelaide community has
a Right to Say No to nuclear decommissioning plans for expanded Osborne submarine yards.
SA politicians must protect SA and rule out both an untenable AUKUS nuclear dump and
decommissioning nuclear subs and nuclear reactors at Osborne or else-where in SA.
SA must respect Traditional Owners Human Rights to Say No to imposition of nuclear wastes.
The SA public have Rights to full disclosure and for politicians to have to declare their positions,
We need an informed public debate ahead of our State Election. Silence by our political leaders, while a path is paved toward nuclear decisions, makes a nuclear waste dump future more likely.
Info: see Rex Patrick & “AUKUS waste in perpetuity”, and David Noonan in Pearls and Irritations
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 