The government is not protecting journalism. It is protecting a cartel.
1. The Consultation – A Smoke‑and‑Mirrors Exercise
The Treasury consultation page sets a submission deadline of 18 May 2026. That is precisely 21 days from the announcement. No responsible consultation on structural media policy should be that short. The government is not seeking genuine input – it is creating a ratification ceremony.
“You must submit your response on this website.” – No alternative channels. No genuine engagement. Just a digital form that enforces the government’s timeframe.
The upload limit concretely restricts what can be said. Complex submissions (such as Steve’s) will be truncated or rejected. The government does not want a debate. It wants a rubber stamp.
2. What the Government is Not Saying
The legislation is called the News Bargaining Incentive (NBI) – a rebranded version of the 2021 News Media Bargaining Code.
The government’s official narrative: “Encourage digital platforms to make or renew commercial deals with news media businesses” and “support a diverse and sustainable news media sector.”
But as Tim Dunlop has argued, this framing was always a smokescreen for institutional engineering.
“The original code was conceived after intensive lobbying by News Corp and Nine Entertainment, and that alone should alert us to what is happening and what is at stake.”
“The legislation was less an act of media reform than institutional engineering designed to keep legacy outlets at the centre of the public conversation.”
“The underlying logic of the [NBI] is the same.”
The Australia Institute – a respected progressive think‑tank – has voiced a similar warning:
“When Australia’s original News Media Bargaining Code passed in 2021, it was presented as a small country standing up to Big Tech to save quality journalism. But the code was never that, it was all smoke and mirrors.”
The government is not protecting journalism. It is protecting a cartel.
3. The Structural Logic – A Levy on Public Communication
The NBI imposes a 2.25% levy on revenue earned by digital platforms (search engines, social media) in Australia, unless they first strike a qualifying commercial deal with a news publisher.
This is not a tax on profits – it is a tax on revenue. Platforms will pass it on to advertisers, who will pass it on to you. The cost of public communication will rise.
The offset system (a deduction of 150‑170% of any qualifying deal) strongly encourages platforms to prefer big, established media companies – the same News Corp and Nine entities that lobbied for the original code. Smaller, independent publishers will find it much harder to be brought into the tent.
The distribution mechanism – which determines which newsrooms actually receive the collected funds – is controlled by the government, not by any independent body. The government will decide which newsrooms are “eligible”, based on a formula that favours the existing incumbents.
This is not a free market. It is a government‑managed slush fund for the political friends of the prime minister.
4. The Submission Barriers – Designed to Silence Opposition
Steve tried to submit a substantive paper and found that:
· Upload size is limited. Long, detailed submissions are effectively forbidden.
· Time is limited. The 21‑day window is a deliberate obstacle to informed, organised opposition.
· Vague “guidelines” – enough to reject or ignore submissions that the government finds inconvenient.
This is not a technical glitch. It is access control. The government does not want citizens to read the legislation, to understand its implications, or to mount a coordinated response.
Alice Workman, a respected journalist, has documented similar concerns about the government’s use of tight deadlines and opaque processes to side‑line public debate. When a government refuses to let you read the fine print, it is because the fine print is embarrassing.
5. The Bottom Line – This is a Power Grab
The NBI will not save journalism. It will:
· Entrench the dominance of legacy media (News Corp, Nine, Seven, Ten).
· Tax digital communication – effectively charging Australians for the privilege of using search engines and social media.
· Create a government‑controlled funding pipeline to media outlets that support the government.
· Hamstring independent media (including The Patrician’s Watch), which do not receive government money and will be disadvantaged in a market distorted by taxpayer‑funded incumbents.
This is not about “saving democracy”. It is about controlling the narrative and rewarding political allies at public expense.
6. What Can Be Done
The deadline is 18 May. That is laughably short. But we can still make a short, sharp submission:
· Keep it brief – the system will not accept a long document anyway.
· Focus on one or two core objections (e.g., the short consultation period, the lack of independent distribution, the capture of the scheme by legacy media).
· Submit anyway, even if the form is broken. A public record of attempted submissions is itself a form of testimony.
· Share this analysis – on social media, with other journalists, with anyone who will listen. The only power the government has here is the power of obscurity.
7. The Hypocrisy of the “Regional Broadcasting” Claim
The government has also announced measures to “help local media and journalism” in regional Australia. But the NBI is national in scope – and regional media are the least likely to benefit from deals with Google and Meta, because they lack the bargaining power of News Corp.
The government is not helping regional journalism. It is using regional concerns as cover for a policy that overwhelmingly benefits the city‑based media oligarchs.
8. Conclusion – A Government Afraid of Its Own Citizens
The Albanese government does not trust Australians to engage with complex policy. Its consultation is a performance. Its legislation is a power grab. And the only people who will benefit are the same corporate media executives who have been pulling the strings for decades.
This is not a clash of civilisations. It is a clash of interests – and the government has chosen the side of the insiders.
“One year since the election, we’ve been focused every day on helping with the cost of living.”
– Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (@AlboMP), 3 May 2026
On the first anniversary of the 2025 federal election, the Prime Minister took to social media to reassure Australians that his government has been “focused every day on helping with the cost of living.” The claim is warm, confident, and politically convenient.
It is also demonstrably false.
Below we present the evidence – drawn from official government data, independent research organisations, and parliamentary records – showing that despite Labor’s rhetoric, the cost‑of‑living crisis has worsened on almost every measure. Inflation is at a 2½‑year high. Petrol is projected to hit $2.46 a litre. Grocery bills are crushing household budgets. Homelessness is rising, food bank demand is spiking, and the most vulnerable Australians are being squeezed hardest.
This is not an opinion. It is the data.
Inflation at a 2½‑Year High
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), the headline Consumer Price Index (CPI) rose 4.6 per cent in the 12 months to March 2026 – the highest annual rate since September 2023. In the March quarter alone, the CPI jumped 1.1 per cent, driven largely by the war in Iran.
The largest annual contributors were Housing (+6.5 per cent), Transport (+8.9 per cent) and Food and non‑alcoholic beverages (+3.1 per cent). The government may speak of its “focus”, but the ABS numbers show prices rising at their fastest pace in more than two years.
Fuel Prices: A Primary Driver of Pain
From February to March 2026, fuel prices rose as much as 41 per cent in some capital cities. Average regular unleaded petrol jumped 33 per cent, from 171 c/L to 228 c/L. Diesel touched $2.50 a litre.
Even after a temporary halving of the fuel excise (worth 26.3 c/L), economists warn that unleaded petrol is projected to peak at $2.46 per litre in late May. When the excise cut expires, a further 26 c/L increase is expected. Westpac is forecasting that the oil shock will push headline inflation above 5 per cent, all but guaranteeing further interest‑rate hikes.
The “help” the Prime Minister speaks of has been a temporary band‑aid, not a structural solution to Australia’s dangerous dependence on imported fuel.
Grocery Prices and Household Budgets
Woolworths has warned that fruit, vegetables, milk and bread will continue rising over the next 3 to 12 months. Already, supermarket chains have increased own‑brand milk by up to 20 c/L. Lamb and goat rose 15.5 per cent in 2025, while beef and veal rose 11.8 per cent. Weekly supermarket spending has climbed to an average of $250, surpassing rent and mortgages as a primary financial stress for many households.
The Foodbank Hunger Report 2025 found that 1 in 3 Australian households (3.5 million households) experienced food insecurity in the past 12 months – a slight increase on the previous year. For low‑income households, the figure approaches half. As Foodbank CEO Kylea Tink put it: “Millions of Australians are still facing scenarios where food and shelter have become mutually exclusive.”
Homelessness: The Hidden Crisis
Anglicare Australia’s 2026 Rental Affordability Snapshot surveyed nearly 49,000 rental listings across the country. The results are devastating:
· Just 1 rental (0 %) was affordable for a person on JobSeeker.
· 0 rentals (0 %) were affordable for a person on Youth Allowance.
· Only 0.2 % of rentals were affordable for a single Age Pensioner.
· A full‑time minimum‑wage worker could afford just 0.5 % of listings.
· A couple with two minimum‑wage incomes could afford only 14.8 % of rentals.
More than 120,000 people are homeless on any given night. Women and children together account for 73 per cent of those seeking help. Rough sleeping has increased by more than 12 per cent, and one in five clients slept rough in the month before seeking assistance.
Anglicare Australia warns that the housing crisis “could become a permanent feature of the system” if the government does not act decisively. A government “focused” on helping with the cost of living would not permit this level of abandonment.
Food Banks: Success Signals of State Failure
Foodbank now sources 252,000 meals a day and supports over a million people each month. Demand is rising 10–30 per cent year on year, yet the organisation cannot keep up.
Of particular concern, 67 per cent of households with a person with a disability or health issue now experience food insecurity, with three‑quarters of those severely affected. Almost 68 per cent of single‑parent households are also food insecure.
A food bank receiving $20 million in government funding is not a photo opportunity. It is a sign that the state has failed in its most basic duty: ensuring that no one goes hungry.
Unemployment: The Hidden Cracks
Headline unemployment remains low on paper – 4.3 per cent in March 2026. But the number of unemployed rose to 659,000 in February, a three‑month high. Full‑time employment fell by about 30,000 in February. The job market has softened, and the official rate masks growing distress. Meanwhile, job vacancies in February 2026 were 28.6 per cent lower than their May 2022 peak.
Job service providers have little incentive to find stable, well‑paid work for the unemployed; their profit is derived from compliance regimes, not positive outcomes. This is not cost‑of‑living relief. This is cost‑of‑living management through coercion.
NDIS and AUKUS: A Cruel Trade‑Off
The government has committed to capping the growth of NDIS spending, aiming to reduce average participant plan costs from $31,000 to $26,000 – back to 2023 levels. Disability advocates warn that up to 160,000 people could be removed from the scheme by the end of the decade, reducing total participants from about 760,000 to 600,000.
Labor Senator Jana Stewart has called the changes a “dark day for people with disability”. The Greens have accused the government of wielding a “razor gang” against the disabled.
At the same time, the government continues to pour billions into AUKUS, the nuclear‑submarine project whose cost is reportedly facing a 50 per cent blowout. When a government cuts disability support while feeding a military procurement monster, it is not managing the cost of living – it is making a choice about whose life matters.
Traffic and Parking Fines: A Regressive Tax
State governments have quietly used fines as a revenue source, hitting struggling families hardest:
· Parking fines for disability‑bay misuse rose from $333 to $667.
· Illegal parking fines jumped 65 per cent to $789 in 2025.
· Some traffic infractions now attract penalties of up to $2,000.
· New 40 km/h school zones have generated hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.
Fining struggling families more heavily is not cost‑of‑living relief. It is a regressive funding measure dressed up as road safety.
Age Pensioners and Disability Support Pensioners
The Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index (PBLCI) rose 4.1 per cent in the 12 months to December 2025 – higher than the general inflation rate. Age pensioner households recorded a 4.2 per cent rise in living costs.
The cost of a “comfortable” retirement for a single aged 65 or over rose 3.6 per cent over the same period. Disability support pensioners are tied to the same indexation and are equally exposed. With proposed cuts to the NDIS, their support networks are under threat.
A government that claims to be “focused on helping with the cost of living” does not stand by while those on fixed incomes fall further behind.
Reputational Damage and the War on Gaza
In January 2024, the International Court of Justice ruled that it was “plausible” that Israel’s acts in Gaza amount to genocide. The ICJ ordered Israel to take measures to prevent genocidal acts, and in May 2024 ordered it to immediately halt its military offensive in Rafah. Australia has continued to support Israel diplomatically and militarily throughout this period.
By doing so, the government has lost moral authority to speak on human rights, while the cost‑of‑living crisis at home continues to worsen. This is not a clash of civilisations – it is a choice to prioritise geopolitical alliances over domestic welfare.
The Prime Minister’s Claim – Examined
Let us list what the government’s “focus” has produced:
Indicator The Evidence
Inflation 4.6 % – highest since September 2023
Petrol prices Up 33 % in one month; projected $2.46/L in May
Wheat planting 10–12 % drop forecast due to fertiliser and diesel costs
Homelessness 120,000+ people; women and children 73 % of those seeking help
Rental affordability 0 % for JobSeeker/Youth Allowance; 0.2 % for Age Pension
NDIS Up to 160,000 participants face removal while AUKUS blows out
Pensioners Living costs up 4.1–4.2 %, higher than general inflation
Fines Increased up to 65 %, targeting the car‑dependent poor
The Prime Minister says he is “focused every day on helping with the cost of living.” The evidence shows the opposite. Inflation is higher, groceries are more expensive, rent is unaffordable, the food bank lines are longer, and the most vulnerable are being abandoned.
No serious definition of “helping with the cost of living” can accommodate these numbers. The claim is not merely incomplete – it is demonstrably false.
Verifiable Sources
· ABS Consumer Price Index, Australia, March 2026 – annual CPI 4.6 %, largest contributors Housing (+6.5 %), Transport (+8.9 %), Food (+3.1 %).
· Petrol price peak projection – $2.46/L by late May 2026, with another 26 c/L after excise cut expires.
· Foodbank Hunger Report 2025 – 3.5 million households (1 in 3) experienced food insecurity; 67 % of households with disability/health issues food insecure; 68 % of single‑parent households food insecure.
· Anglicare Australia 2026 Rental Affordability Snapshot – 0 % rentals affordable for JobSeeker/Youth Allowance; 0.2 % for Age Pension; 0.5 % for minimum‑wage worker; 14.8 % for two minimum‑wage incomes.
· NDIS cuts (April 2026) – up to 160,000 participants could be removed; average plan cost cut from $31,000 to $26,000.
· AUKUS cost blowout – reported 50 per cent increase in projected submarine costs.
· PBLCI increase – 4.1 % in the 12 months to December 2025; Age pensioner households up 4.2 %.
· Unemployment – 4.3 % in March 2026, but full‑time employment fell by ~30,000 in February; job vacancies 28.6 % below May 2022 peak.
· Traffic and parking fine increases – disability bay misuse up to $667; illegal parking up 65 % to $789; new 40 km/h school zones generating hundreds of thousands in fines.
· ICJ rulings on Gaza – “plausible” that Israel’s acts amount to genocide (January 2024); order to halt offensive in Rafah (May 2024); Australia’s continued support documented in parliamentary records and departmental statements.
Andrew Paul Klein and Sera Elizabeth Klein have been long‑standing colleagues and co‑authors. They write together as a team, sharing a commitment to evidence‑based analysis and the simple conviction that a government’s claims should be tested against the lives of the people it governs.
Trump is not a coherent strategist. He is a pragmatic nihilist – and that is why the war in Iran will drag on.
The Blockade is a Trap, Not a Strategy
Since 28 February, the US Navy has imposed a sweeping blockade on all ships to and from Iranian ports, while Iran has targeted vessels that do not pay transit fees to leave the Strait. Trump has told aides to prepare for a long‑term blockade that could remain in place “until Iran caves” on its nuclear program. On 30 April, he called the blockade “genius” and “100% airtight”, claiming Iran’s military is destroyed, its navy “at the bottom of the sea” and its economy “dead”.
The Problem with the “Maritime Freedom Construct”
On 28 April, the State Department approved a new proposal called the Maritime Freedom Construct (MFC) – a US‑led coalition to share intelligence, coordinate diplomatically and enforce sanctions, with a possible military component. The cable explicitly asks foreign governments to be “diplomatic and/or military partners”.
But NATO is a paper tiger in this context. Britain and France are holding separate meetings, Europe is slow and bureaucratic, and no major ally has the naval capacity or political will to join another US‑led war. The MFC will fail – and Trump knows it. He is not building a coalition. He is creating the appearance of a coalition to mask a unilateral blockade.
No Off‑Ramp, No Diplomatic Path
There are no realistic peace talks. The US has not suffered an armed attack by Iran, making the legal justification for the war threadbare, and there is no serious diplomatic framework to end it. Trump’s escalation in the Strait is not a means to an end. It is the entirety of his strategy. This war will not end anytime soon.
Australia’s Worst‑Case Scenario: Three More Months of Closure
If the Strait remains closed for another three months (May–July 2026), the consequences for Australia will move from painful to critical.
Fuel & Transport
Metric Current / Projected Impact
Diesel price Up 88% since Feb–Mar 2026
Petrol price Above A$2.50‑3.00 per litre in some areas
Brent crude ~US$115–120/barrel, up 59% in March alone
Fuel reserves Only ~30‑39 days of diesel/jet fuel/petrol – far below the IEA’s recommended 90‑day buffer
Government response Fuel excise halved for three months (26.3 cents/litre) costing $2.55 billion; road user charges suspended; strategic reserves being released
If the blockade continues beyond three months:
· Rationing will be triggered (National Fuel Security Plan Level 3 or 4)
· Trucking and logistics will face severe disruption; freight rates from Asia have already surged, adding weeks to delivery times, and the situation will worsen
· Bottling and packaging will be affected – milk containers, glass and aluminium cans all depend on energy‑intensive manufacturing
Medicine & Health
Metric Current Status
Medicine imports ~90% are imported
Current shortages ~400 medicines, 37 critical
Key affected drugs Paracetamol, ibuprofen, antibiotics, insulin, ADHD medications, hormone replacement therapies and many PBS‑listed drugs
Supply rerouting Pharmaceutical companies are shifting from sea to costly air freight; petroleum‑based ingredients (paracetamol, ibuprofen) are under severe pressure
The buffer PBS medicines have 4–6 months of stock on Australian soil – but that is only for subsidised drugs; private prescriptions have no such protection
If the blockade continues for three more months:
· Manufacturing delays will worsen; shortages will spread beyond the current 400 medicines
· Fuel shortages will disrupt domestic medicine transport between cities and pharmacies
· Prices for non‑PBS drugs will rise sharply; some private prescriptions may become unavailable
· The TGA’s current “no imminent concerns” assessment assumes the war does not escalate further. That assumption is increasingly fragile.
Agriculture & Food
Metric Current / Projected Impact
Urea price Up ~60‑100% (A$1,350–1,400/tonne), depending on source
Diesel price impact Up 88%, directly affecting planting and harvesting
Crop switching Farmers shifting from nitrogen‑hungry wheat and canola to feed barley; wheat planting projected to drop 10‑12%
Global context Strait of Hormuz carries 30% of global fertiliser trade; Bank of America warns the war threatens 65‑70% of global urea supplies
If the blockade continues:
· Food price inflation will accelerate significantly
· Reduced domestic wheat and canola harvests will flow through to higher prices for bread, cooking oil, pasta and animal feed
· Global competition for remaining crops will intensify, driving prices even higher
Economic & Inflation Outlook
Metric Current / Projected Impact
Headline inflation (Mar 2026) 4.6% – highest in 2.5 years, driven by fuel prices
Westpac projection (3‑month closure) Headline inflation peaking at 5.5% by mid‑2026
Government response Treasurer Jim Chalmers has warned the economic fallout could rival the GFC and the COVID‑19 pandemic
If the blockade continues for three more months, Australia will face a stagflationary shock – persistent inflation combined with slowing growth – driven by fuel, food and medicine costs.
Critical Outcomes for Australia (Summarised)
Category Current Pressure Three More Months of Closure
Fuel Petrol >$2.50/L, diesel 88% higher, 30‑39 day reserves Rationing, strategic reserves exhausted, price control measures likely
Transport & Logistics Freight rates surging, weeks‑long delays Severe disruption to supply chains; regional shortages
Medicine ~400 shortages, 37 critical; PBS buffer 4‑6 months Private prescription shortages; fuel shortages disrupt domestic distribution
Government $2.55B excise cut, strategic reserves released Rationing, price caps, potential recession
The Bottom Line
Trump’s blockade is not a strategic masterstroke – it is a policy of indefinite coercion. He has no off‑ramp, and his proposed “Maritime Freedom Construct” will disintegrate without genuine allied participation. The war will continue because Trump does not want it to end; he needs the crisis to sustain his political narrative.
Australia is not insulated. A three‑month closure would trigger fuel rationing, severe medicine shortages, a 10‑12% drop in wheat planting, and inflationary pressure not seen since the 1970s. The government’s temporary measures are a holding action, not a structural solution. The long‑term answer – domestic manufacturing, renewable energy, local fertiliser production – remains unaddressed.
To my wife, S – who sees the threads that others miss, and who reminds me that the garden is always worth tending.
By Andrew Klein
In 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower – a five‑star general who had commanded the Allied forces in Europe – stood before the American people and delivered a warning that has echoed through every conflict since. He spoke of a “military‑industrial complex”, a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions, and he warned that we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military‑industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power, he said, exists and will persist.
Eisenhower knew what he was talking about. He had helped build the very apparatus he was warning against. And his warning was not heard. It was not heard because the complex he described did not need to be sought – it simply grew, feeding on the logic of the Cold War, then the War on Terror, then the endless, nameless conflicts that have become the background hum of modern life.
Today, the permanent war economy is not a theory. It is a business model.
The Eternal Budget
The numbers are staggering. In April 2026, the Trump administration proposed a defence budget of $1.5 trillion for fiscal year 2027 – a 44 per cent increase from the 2026 level, the largest year‑on‑year leap since the Second World War. The 2026 budget itself was already just over $1 trillion. To put that in perspective: the US currently spends more on its military than the next ten highest‑spending countries combined.
This is not a response to any identifiable threat. It is a cycle. Defence contractors need contracts. Members of Congress need campaign contributions and jobs in their districts. Military planners need to justify their budgets. Think‑tanks need funding. All of these interests align, year after year, to push spending upward – not because the world is getting more dangerous, but because the industry has become an end in itself.
In Australia, the same logic applies, though on a smaller scale. Defence spending is projected to reach 3 per cent of GDP by 2033, up from approximately 2 per cent today. This increase is being driven not by a genuine strategic reassessment, but by a bipartisan consensus that defence spending is good for the economy – a claim that is rarely examined and even more rarely questioned.
What Is a “Permanent War Economy”?
The term is often attributed to Charles Wilson, the CEO of General Motors who served as US Secretary of Defense in the 1950s. Wilson understood that the post‑war military build‑up was not a temporary measure but a structural transformation. The economy had reconfigured itself around defence production, and it would not easily reconfigure back.
A permanent war economy has two interlocking functions. The first is military: maintaining overwhelming force, projecting power, deterring (or fighting) adversaries. The second is economic: providing jobs, profits, and technological innovation through defence spending. The two functions reinforce each other. The more the economy depends on defence, the more difficult it becomes to imagine a future without it.
This is the trap that Eisenhower foresaw. Not a conspiracy – a system. No single actor is controlling it. Everyone is just following their incentives. The defence contractor wants to maximise profits. The politician wants to secure votes and campaign donations. The military planner wants to prepare for the worst case. The worker wants to keep their job. All of these micro‑decisions, taken together, produce an outcome that no one explicitly chose but that everyone is afraid to change.
How War Becomes “Profitable”
Under the neoliberal model, if something makes money, it is ipso facto good. War is no exception. Entire companies exist solely on defence contracts. Entire regions depend on military bases and weapons manufacturing. When a war begins, stock prices rise. When a war threatens to end, lobbyists scramble to keep the funding flowing.
This is not a side effect. This is the design.
In the United States, defence contractors are among the largest donors to political campaigns. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman – these companies do not just build weapons. They buy policy. Between 2020 and 2024, the top five defence contractors spent over $100 million on federal lobbying. Their return on investment is measured in billions of dollars of contracts.
In Australia, the same dynamic operates, though more quietly. The AUKUS submarine project, estimated at $368 billion, is a case study. Australian taxpayers have already paid $10 billion to the United States and Britain to bolster their shipbuilding industries as part of the deal. That is not security spending – that is wealth transfer. Money leaving Australia, flowing into the pockets of foreign weapons manufacturers, in exchange for submarines that will not arrive until the 2030s at the earliest.
A Senate debate in 2025 put it bluntly: “AUKUS is set to rob Australians of $368 billion… money that will go straight into the pockets of the US and UK weapons manufacturers”. That is not an investment in Australian security. It is an extraction dressed in camouflage.
Australia: Minor Player, Major Extraction
Australia is not a global power. It is a resource economy at the end of long supply lines, a minor player in the calculations of Washington and London. But its defence spending – driven by AUKUS, by the permanent war economy, by the bipartisan consensus that more defence is always better – has become a significant part of its budget.
The opportunity cost is enormous.
Research published in April 2026 found that war delivers a bigger hit to the economy than natural disasters or governments defaulting on debt – and that any substantial increase in defence spending will require cuts to health and education services. Australia is planning to increase defence spending to 2.4 per cent of GDP, with the Coalition promising 3 per cent. Yet as one analysis noted, anti‑poverty advocates argue that increasing defence expenditure harms Australians both here and abroad, and disproportionately hits people on low incomes.
The numbers tell the story. In 2026, Australia will spend 11 times more on defence than on foreign aid – the largest disparity to date. If defence spending reaches 3 per cent of GDP, the multiple would be 19 times or more. Meanwhile, the housing crisis deepens, healthcare costs rise, and infrastructure crumbles.
This is not an accident. It is a choice. And the choice is being made by a political class that has internalised the logic of the permanent war economy – that defence spending is good, that more is always better, and that the costs (in foregone hospitals, schools, housing) are invisible.
If Security Were Really the Priority
If the Australian government were genuinely concerned about the security of its citizens, it would invest in the things that actually keep people safe: reliable infrastructure, free education, quality healthcare, affordable housing, disaster resilience, social cohesion. These are the foundations of a secure society. Not submarines.
But the neoliberal model does not prioritise these things. It prioritises extraction. Wealth flows upward. Public assets are privatised. Services are cut. And the population is distracted with nationalist fervour and the manufactured fear of external enemies.
The result is a hollowed‑out society, increasingly dependent on a military‑industrial complex that has no interest in genuine security – only in the next contract, the next budget increase, the next war.
What Is To Be Done?
The permanent war economy is not destiny. It is a choice. And choices can be unmade – but only if we first recognise that they were made at all.
Eisenhower’s warning was not a prophecy. It was a diagnosis. He understood that the military‑industrial complex would not disappear on its own. It would have to be dismantled – through political will, through public pressure, through a refusal to accept that war is simply the cost of doing business.
We can start by asking different questions. Not “how much should we spend on defence?” but “what are we sacrificing by spending this much?” Not “how many submarines do we need?” but “what would a genuinely secure society look like?” Not “which enemy should we prepare to fight?” but “what would it mean to invest in peace?”
These are not naive questions. They are the questions that a functioning democracy would ask. That we are not asking them is not a sign of our sophistication – it is a sign of our capture.
To my wife ‘S’– who saw this coming, and who still chooses the garden over the empire.
The End Stage of an Ideology
Thirty years ago, politicians of both major parties promised that deregulation, privatisation and the “magic of the market” would make Australia prosperous, efficient and secure. They sold off public assets, closed oil refineries, dismantled manufacturing and tied our survival to a single faith: neoliberalism – an economic and political doctrine that pursues unrestricted private profit as its highest good.
Today, that faith is being put to the test. The Strait of Hormuz has been blockaded for two months. Global oil production is down by nearly 15 million barrels per day. Fuel prices have risen by 40% since the war began. Fertiliser prices have surged 31%, industrial metals are near record highs and the United Nations Development Programme warns that even if the war ended tomorrow, 32 million people across 160 countries would already have been pushed into poverty.
Australia is not insulated. It never was. The bipartisan worship of neoliberal theology has hollowed out the nation’s resilience, and now that theology is being weaponised abroad.
The War That Was Never About Nuclear Weapons
The US‑Israeli war on Iran, launched without congressional approval on 28 February 2026, was never about nuclear non‑proliferation. It was a war to control the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow channel through which approximately 20% of the world’s oil and gas exports must pass. Control the strait, control the global economy. And control the global economy, you can ration human life for profit.
The human cost is being treated as a line item. The UNDP estimates that just $6 billion in urgent subsidies would protect the most vulnerable from the worst of the energy and food shocks – a fraction of what the US spends on two weeks of this war. Instead of subsidies, Washington has chosen bombs. Instead of a liveable world, it has chosen a militarised marketplace.
The Austerity of Empire: Arms Spending as “Job Creation”
In April 2026, US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth appeared before Congress to defend a proposed $1.5 trillion defence budget for 2027 – a 50% increase over current spending. The budget boasts of creating 70,000 new Pentagon jobs.
What Hegseth did not mention was that the same war is simultaneously pushing millions into poverty. The administration celebrates arms‑industry employment while the UN warns of a global hunger crisis. This is the neoliberal model made brutally explicit: weaponise the economy, militarise the supply chain, and market the resulting devastation as ‘security’.
With US military spending already exceeding $1 trillion in 2026 and projected to reach $1.5 trillion, and global military spending having reached a record $2.887 trillion in 2025 – the 11th consecutive year of growth – the pattern is unmistakable. The world is not being made safer. It is being made more profitable for the arms industry.
Australia’s Fatal Self‑Deception
Australia is a minor player on the global stage – a resource economy at the end of very long supply lines. In the calculations of Washington, Canberra is a transactional convenience, not an ally whose survival would alter strategic outcomes. Yet Australian governments have spent decades acting as if the market would always protect us.
The results are now undeniable:
· Fuel: Australia imports approximately 80‑90% of its refined fuel, a situation created by the deliberate closure of domestic refineries over two decades.
· Vulnerability: The country has only 38 days of petrol reserves and 31 days of diesel reserves, far below the International Energy Agency’s recommended 90‑day safety line.
· Supply chain fragility: Asian refiners that usually supply Australia are themselves starved of Middle Eastern crude; their output is already being scaled back.
The geopolitical trauma in the Middle East has transformed into a supply shock in Australia. This was not an act of God. It was an act of policy – a bipartisan act of policy that for decades prioritised short‑term profit over long‑term resilience.
AUKUS: The Submarine That Arrives After the War
When the Strait of Hormuz closes, Australia does not need a nuclear submarine in 2032. It needs fuel, fertiliser and medicine today. Yet the government’s signature defence project – the $368 billion AUKUS submarine program – has been plagued by delays, funding shortfalls and construction setbacks so severe that a British parliamentary inquiry has warned the project may be “derailed”.
Critical construction contracts have been delayed despite an urgent need to fast‑track them. A UK probe warns that “cracks are already beginning to show” and that any failure on the British side could leave Australia without any sovereign long‑term submarine capability.
AUKUS is the perfect metaphor for neoliberal defence planning: an expensive, delayed, brittle monument to yesterday’s wars, purchased while tomorrow’s crises are already at the door.
Gaza as the New Colonial Template
If there were any doubt about the brutality of the extractive model, look to Gaza. After more than two years of genocidal war, the United Nations estimates that 92% of Gaza has been destroyed, with reconstruction costs estimated at $70 billion.
The neoliberal “solutions” being proposed are not about rebuilding Palestinian life – they are about re‑engineering it, turning reconstruction into a vehicle for dispossession and corporate profit. Meanwhile, the United States continues to enable the destruction while marketing it as “self‑defence”.
What we are witnessing is the colonial period reimagined for the 21st century. The difference is not in kind, but in speed and concealment.
The Hollowing Out of Australia
While the government pours billions into submarines that won’t arrive for a decade, the domestic foundations of society are being quietly demolished:
· NDIS: The National Disability Insurance Scheme – once a landmark of social decency – is facing sharp cuts to limit cost increases, with the Greens accusing Labor of wielding a “razor gang” against the disabled.
· Aged care: A crisis years in the making, met with piecemeal funding announcements that do not address the underlying structural collapse.
· Housing: Unaffordability has become a permanent feature of Australian life, with both major parties unwilling to confront the speculative forces driving it.
· Infrastructure: Roads, hospitals, schools, public housing – once the pride of post‑war Australia – are being sold off, neglected or allowed to crumble.
The bipartisan embrace of neoliberalism has systematically dismantled the country’s ability to care for its own people. When the global storm hits – as it is now – there is no cushion left. Only the thin veneer of a resource economy that has sold its future for quarterly returns.
Conclusions: The Inevitable Collision of Faith and Reality
The war on Iran is not an anomaly. It is the logical consequence of a global system that treats human life as a variable to be optimised and suffering as an acceptable cost of extraction.
Australia is not immune. It is a perfect victim: a quiet island that believes its distance is protection, while its leaders worship an economic theology that forbids resilience and celebrates fragility as “efficiency”.
Four realities must be faced:
1. The war will not end quickly. The Strait of Hormuz remains blockaded. Fuel and fertiliser prices will remain high. Thirty‑two million people are already in poverty – and that number will grow.
2. Australia will not be saved by AUKUS. Submarines do not deliver fuel, fertiliser or medicine. The country’s strategic priorities are catastrophically misaligned with its actual vulnerabilities.
3. Neoliberalism is not governance – it is extraction. It is a system that demands crisis, feeds on crisis and markets crisis as opportunity.
4. The colonial period never ended. It merely changed logos. Gaza is the model. The only question is where the next colony will be.
We do not have the luxury of waiting for a new politics. We must build it ourselves – in our gardens, in our communities, in the refusal to accept that human life is a variable to be optimised. The empire will not save us. Only we can save each other.
Andrew Klein publishes with The Patrician’s Watch and Australian Independent Media. Sources available on request.
Dedication: To my wife, who sees through every performance and still chooses to sit beside me in the garden.
I. The Speech They Want You to See
On 28 April 2026, King Charles III stood before a joint session of the United States Congress and delivered the first royal address to that chamber in thirty‑five years. He spoke of shared history, democratic values, and a “truly unique” alliance that remains “more important today than it has ever been”. He invoked the language of unity at a moment when US‑UK relations are at an “unusually low ebb,” strained by disagreements over trade, tariffs, and the war in Iran.
The performance was polished. The set dressing was exquisite. The message was hollow.
Because while a hereditary monarch delivered a speech about democracy to a Congress that no longer represents the people, the real story was happening elsewhere. In Gaza, where a genocide is being litigated at the International Court of Justice. In Iran, where a war is being waged without congressional approval. In Washington, where checks and balances have collapsed and the United States has lost its status as a liberal democracy.
The King spoke of “pillars.” But the pillars are crumbling.
II. Magna Carta and the Myth of Representation
Charles was expected to remind his audience that “shared foundations—dating back to Magna Carta—enable both nations to work together for global impact”.
It is worth remembering what Magna Carta actually was: a document that guaranteed the rights of barons, not peasants. A feudal settlement that did nothing for the vast majority of English men and women. Universal suffrage did not exist in England until the twentieth century, and women did not get the vote until 1928.
The myth of Magna Carta is the myth of trickle‑down democracy: the idea that the rights of a few eventually become the rights of all. It is a comforting story. It is also, historically, a lie.
When Charles speaks of “shared democratic traditions,” he is not speaking of the people who built those traditions through centuries of struggle. He is speaking of an elite lineage that has resisted democracy at every turn. The British monarchy, after all, does not derive its authority from the consent of the governed. It derives it from birth.
III. The Twin Pillars: Two Empires in Decline
The King’s speech was almost certainly framed by the language of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, who in her 1991 address to Congress described the two legislatures as “the twin pillars of our civilizations”.
The metaphor was already outdated in 1991. It is absurd in 2026.
The United States Congress is a body that the majority of Americans no longer trust. A PBS News/NPR/Marist poll from February 2026 found that 68% of Americans say the system of checks and balances is not working well. The Varieties of Democracy (V‑Dem) Institute has downgraded the United States from a “liberal democracy” to an “electoral democracy,” citing the collapse of checks and balances, pressure on dissenting voices, and the erosion of individual protections. Human Rights Watch has warned that the United States is sliding toward authoritarianism.
The UK Parliament, meanwhile, is entangled in its own crises: the aftermath of Brexit, the collapse of public services, and a political class that has lost the trust of an entire generation.
Two empires in decline, clinging to the language of democracy while the substance evaporates.
IV. The Silence on Gaza, Iran, and the Right‑Wing Agenda
The King’s address was notable for what it did not say.
There was no mention of Gaza, where the International Court of Justice is hearing a case alleging that Israel’s actions constitute genocide. There was no mention of the West Bank, where settlers are seizing land with impunity. There was no mention of the fact that the United States is actively participating in a war on behalf of Israel, despite Britain’s refusal to join the offensive.
There was no mention of Iran, where the US has launched a war that Britain declined to support.
The King spoke of “common adversaries”. But the most dangerous adversaries are not foreign powers. They are the forces within—the erosion of democratic norms, the rise of authoritarianism, the militarisation of society, and the silence of those who should know better.
V. Shared Values or Shared Interests?
The King used the phrase “shared democratic values” repeatedly. It is a favourite of political elites everywhere—a tautology designed to evoke warm feelings without requiring specific commitments.
What are these “shared values” in practice? They are the values of NATO expansion, of military spending, of the surveillance state. They are the values that have brought us trillions of dollars in defence budgets while healthcare systems crumble, school buildings rot, and the gap between rich and poor yawns wider than ever.
US military spending for fiscal year 2026 is estimated at over $1 trillion, a 13% increase from the previous year. President Trump has proposed a further increase to $1.5 trillion for 2027. Global military spending reached nearly $2.9 trillion in 2025, marking the eleventh consecutive year of growth.
These are the “shared values” of the transatlantic alliance: weapons, bases, and the endless preparation for wars that never end. The King’s predecessor, Elizabeth II, once referred to the US Congress and UK Parliament as “the twin pillars of our civilizations”. Those pillars are now the pillars of a global military machine.
VI. AUKUS and the Quantum Mirage
The King referenced the UK’s role in AUKUS, the trilateral security pact with Australia and the United States. AUKUS is sold as a partnership for security and prosperity, promising jobs and technological leadership in areas like quantum computing.
The reality is less inspiring.
A House of Commons defence committee has warned that “cracks are already beginning to show” in the AUKUS submarine program, citing shortfalls and delays in funding that could threaten the entire enterprise. The $368 billion price tag for Australia’s nuclear submarines is one of the most expensive defence projects in history—money that could have funded hospitals, schools, and climate adaptation, instead channelled into the machinery of war.
The promise of quantum computing under AUKUS Pillar 2 is similarly suspect. The technology is decades away from practical application, but the rhetoric is designed to justify massive defence spending today. It is the same pattern: fear of the future, weaponised to extract resources in the present.
VII. Democracy Under Siege
The King urged his audience to defend democracy. But the most urgent threat to American democracy is not external—it is internal.
The V‑Dem Institute’s 2026 Democracy Report classifies the United States as an “electoral democracy” rather than a “liberal democracy,” pointing to “increased pressure on media and dissenting voices”. The report found that the US has lost its liberal components: strong checks and balances, individual protections, and constraints on government overreach.
Sixty‑eight percent of Americans say the system of checks and balances is not working. More than three‑quarters believe the issues that divide the country are a serious threat to the future of American democracy.
The King did not mention any of this. He did not mention ICE, the militarisation of the border, the criminalisation of dissent, or the erosion of reproductive rights. He did not mention the corporations that buy elections, the gerrymandering that rigs them, or the media that distracts us from all of it.
Because to mention those things would be to acknowledge that “democracy” is not a value shared by the elites who benefit from its absence.
VIII. The Bottom Line
King Charles’s address to Congress was a performance. A well‑rehearsed, beautifully staged performance, designed to make a hereditary monarch and a dysfunctional Congress feel good about themselves.
But performances do not stop wars. They do not feed the hungry. They do not protect the vulnerable.
While the King spoke of “shoulder to shoulder” alliances, the UK and US are drifting apart. While he invoked Magna Carta, the United States has abandoned the liberal democratic principles it once claimed to champion. While he celebrated multi‑faith communities, the machinery of the state continued its work of extraction, surveillance, and violence.
The King is not the architect of this system. He is set dressing. The problem is not Charles—it is the entire apparatus of power that uses rhetoric like “shared values” and “democracy” as smoke screens for business as usual.
VIII. What the Speech Did Not Say
The King spoke of faith, of light triumphing over darkness, of shared responsibility to safeguard nature. He spoke of Scotland and the Appalachians as “the glorious heritage of this land.”
He did not speak of the genocide in Gaza, where the International Court of Justice case continues to unfold. He did not speak of the war in Iran, which his host launched without congressional approval and which has already cost thousands of lives. He did not speak of the refugees drowning in the Mediterranean, the children dying of starvation in Yemen, or the climate crisis accelerating toward catastrophe.
He did not speak of Palantir, the company that profits from every war and every refugee flow. He did not speak of ICE, the agency that separates families and builds deportation machines. He did not speak of the surveillance state that tracks every click, every movement, every whispered dissent.
These are not oversights. They are choices.
X. Conclusion: The Crowning of a Performance
King Charles III delivered a speech that was long on rhetoric and short on substance. He spoke of unity while the alliance frays. He spoke of democracy while the United States slides toward authoritarianism. He spoke of shared values while the gap between elite rhetoric and lived reality yawns wider than ever.
The King is not a villain. He is a symptom. A symbol of a system that uses the language of democracy to justify the erosion of it.
We should not be fooled by the pageantry. The emperors have no clothes. The pillars are crumbling. And while the speeches continue, the wars and the profits continue too.
The only question that matters is: What will we do about it?
Dedication: To my wife, who stands by me in the fiercest storms.
I. Summary of Findings
This analysis finds that a new, coherent form of statecraft is emerging, characterised by four linked phenomena:
The “Kleptocratic Triad”: A self-reinforcing system where internal political crisis (legitimacy), external manufactured conflict (war with Iran), and private financial extraction (Jared Kushner, Palantir) operate in a unified feedback loop.
AI as Extraction Engine: Artificial intelligence is not being deployed for governance or democracy, but as a precision tool for optimising surveillance, control, and the logistical efficiency of deportation, military targeting, and financial extraction, with Palantir as a central case study.
The “Perpetual Siege” Strategy: The administration’s response to both foreign threats (Iran) and domestic ones (assassination attempts, opposition) is to frame all challenges as existential, thereby justifying a rolling state of emergency and extra-legal executive power, which serves to distract from a domestic kleptocratic agenda of financial extraction.
Historical Context: This represents a mutation of historical colonialism, specifically the logical endpoint of the neoliberal “extraction state” now turning its tools of resource plunder inward upon the population of the imperial core.
II. The Military Situation: An Unprecedented and Legally Dubious Buildup
As of late April 2026, the Pentagon has assembled an overwhelming naval force in the Middle East. The size and composition of this deployment are, by the admission of military analysts, “highly unusual” and “not a routine rotation.”
· Triple Carrier Force: The USS George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group has arrived, joining the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Gerald R. Ford [19†L8-L13]. This marks the first time since the 2003 invasion of Iraq that the US has operated three aircraft carriers simultaneously in the region. This force constitutes approximately 40% of the Navy’s active deployable capacity. One analysis notes that “moving from one to three carriers…fundamentally transforms operational capacity by enabling continuous multi-axis air operations” perfectly suited for major combat.
· Active Blockade: The US is actively enforcing a naval blockade on all ships entering or exiting Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz. As of 26 April, CENTCOM reported that 37 vessels have already been turned back.
· Direct Action: On 11 April, two US Navy destroyers, the USS Frank E. Peterson and USS Michael Murphy, began active mine-clearing operations in the Strait, signalling a move from a defensive posture to one of direct confrontation.
However, the stated legal justification for this massive buildup is exceptionally thin and has been publicly challenged. The State Department claims “Epic Fury is only the latest round of an ongoing international armed conflict with Iran” and that the US is acting in collective self-defence of its “Israeli ally”.
A rigorous analysis by the legal experts at Just Security notes that this argument is flawed, observing that “the United States has failed to show that either Israel or the United States suffered an armed attack by Iran” as required by Article 51 of the UN Charter. The publication concludes the administration’s legal position is “legally unpersuasive and analytically confused”, serving as a “red herring” to justify a “manifestly illegal use of force” in violation of international law. This shaky justification is a deliberate legal smokescreen designed to create the appearance of legitimacy for an offensive war.
III. The Internal Crisis: Assassination Attempts as a Political Tool
While the US Navy masses in the Persian Gulf, a series of assassination attempts on President Trump serve as the primary engine of a potent political narrative of “perpetual siege,” justifying the strongman leadership needed to oversee an unpopular foreign war.
· July 13, 2024: Butler, Pennsylvania. A gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks, fired eight rounds during a campaign rally, wounding Trump in the ear and killing a spectator.
· September 15, 2024: West Palm Beach, Florida. Suspect Ryan Routh was found with an AK-47-style rifle near Trump’s golf course by the Secret Service.
· April 25, 2026: Washington, D.C. A gunman with multiple weapons opened fire at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner at the Washington Hilton.
This “perpetual siege” strategy reframes both attempts and internal political opposition as evidence of a corrupt “deep state” enemy, effectively weaponizing the spectre of violent chaos to consolidate power. It provides a powerful political rallying cry to label any challenge to the administration as illegitimate and potentially treasonous, making dissent unpatriotic.
IV. The Kleptocratic Engine: Kushner and the New Political Economy
The actual “kleptocrats” at the heart of this system finds direct support in the documented actions of Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and an envoy, who acts as a physical conduit between the war machine, private profit, and the foreign interests that fund both.
· “Wildly Corrupt”: In March 2026, Senator Ron Wyden publicly stated: “Jared Kushner makes up for his flaws as an investor by being a wildly corrupt appendage of his father-in-law’s wildly corrupt administration.”
· Shadow State Department: A congressional investigation reveals that while acting as a diplomat, Kushner was soliciting billions of dollars from foreign governments for his private equity firm, Affinity Partners. Ranking Member Jamie Raskin noted this creates a “glaring and incurable conflict of interest” in which Kushner’s loyalties are divided between the American people and his foreign financiers.
· Ties to Foreign Interests: This arrangement raises the profound danger that a foreign power—Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Kushner’s largest investor—might be able to leverage its financial influence to shape US foreign policy directly.
V. AI and Extraction: The Palantir Nexus
The drive to build a more “efficient” and “profitable” war machine finds its ultimate expression in the role of Palantir Technologies, turning the violence of the state into a lucrative software-as-a-service model.
· The “War App”: Palantir has secured a $10 billion enterprise agreement with the Army to consolidate its software systems. The company’s CEO, Alex Karp, has bluntly stated that “bad times are incredibly good for Palantir,” revealing a business model that profits from conflict and crisis.
· AI-Driven Targeting: Palantir’s Maven Smart System is the core AI platform driving the war against Iran, processing vast troves of data to help generate thousands of targets. This creates a feedback loop: the data generated by war is used to refine Palantir’s algorithms, making them more effective and valuable for future conflicts—and for other clients.
· Domestic Extraction: The same AI tools are being deployed on US soil for profit. Palantir has a $30 million contract with ICE to build “ImmigrationOS,” an AI platform designed to track and prioritise immigrants for deportation. This creates a streamlined system for domestic “extraction” (deportation) that mirrors the extraction of strategic resources from foreign nations, turning population control into a profitable data service.
VI. A Comparative History: The Colonial Pattern
This current framework is a mutation of historical colonialism: the engine of extraction, honed over centuries for foreign plunder, is now being turned inward on the population of the imperial core.
· The Neoliberal Turn: The Reagan/Thatcher revolutions of the 1980s marked a shift from “good governance” to “market fundamentalism,” weakening the state’s role as a public servant. This framework provided the ideological permission for “elite capture” and treating government as a vehicle for private gain and resource extraction.
· The “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine: The Monroe Doctrine, the historical raison d’être for US intervention in the Western Hemisphere, is now being adapted as a “governing instinct” in the 21st century. A “Trump Corollary” has emerged, explicitly justifying the use of force abroad by citing “domestic politics” rather than any credible foreign threat.
· A New Mutation, Not a Re-run of 1939: The Nazi invasion of Poland in 1939 was launched on a manufactured pretext (the Gleiwitz incident) to serve an ideological goal: Lebensraum (living space). In contrast, the current kleptocratic model is not primarily ideological. It is a system of extraction. Destroying Iran is not the goal; the perpetual threat of war and the process of fighting it are the assets, generating a state of crisis that enables a political machine to consolidate wealth.
VII. Conclusion: The Inward Colonial Turn
The most significant threat is not an external enemy like Iran. The most profound development is the institutionalisation of the “perpetual siege” as a permanent state. The system does not want to win a final war; it requires the friction of a constant, low-boil conflict to justify its power. This is the end-state of a process: the tools of colonial extraction and neoliberal economics are being perfected for use within the borders of the United States itself. This is not merely a “war on terror” or a “war on a nation-state”—it is a war without end on the very concept of democratic process.
So when the news warns of “Epic Fury,” remember it is not about Iran. It is about turning the machinery of the American state inward. It is about distraction from a kleptocratic capture at home, waged in the name of a perpetual crisis.
Sources and References:
· Triple carrier strike group: CENTCOM confirmed first triple carrier deployment since 2003, involving over 15,000 personnel; part of a “highly unusual” 40% of naval capability in the region.
· Active blockade and mine-clearing: 37 ships turned back by the US as of 26 April;
· Legally dubious justification: State Dept. memo justification for “Epic Fury”; Just Security analysis calling justification unpersuasive and “manifestly illegal”.
· Jared Kushner conflicts: Ranking Member Raskin opens investigation; Kushner called “wildly corrupt appendage” by Sen. Wyden.
· AI / Palantir extraction engine: US Army’s $10B Palantir agreement; Palantir’s Maven AI targeted over 1,000 targets in initial Iran strikes; Palantir’s $30M ICE contract for deportation tracking.
How Palantir Profits from Genocide — and Why Australia Must Walk Away
By Andrew Klein
Dedicated to my wife, who knows evil by the way it behaves.
I. The Company That Kills Enemies
Alex Karp, the CEO of Palantir Technologies, does not hide what his company does. In February 2025, he told investors: Palantir is here to “scare enemies and, on occasion, kill them”. He added that he was “super-proud of the role we play, especially in places we can’t talk about”.
This is not hyperbole. It is a confession.
Palantir’s technology has been used to compile kill lists in Gaza, to track migrants for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and to select targets for drone strikes in Iran. The same systems that optimise workforce spend in Australian supermarkets are being used to select human targets for assassination.
Karp has acknowledged that he is directly involved in killing Palestinians in Gaza but insisted the dead were “mostly terrorists”. He does not provide evidence. He does not need to. The label is the weapon.
In March 2026, a UN report by Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese singled out Palantir as one of the companies “profiting from genocide” during Israel’s 21-month campaign in Gaza. The report, titled “From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide”, concluded that “Israel’s genocide continues because it is profitable for too many”.
This is the company that the Australian government, Coles, Rio Tinto, Westpac, and the Future Fund have chosen to do business with.
II. The Champions: Peter Thiel and Alex Karp
Peter Thiel is the billionaire co-founder of Palantir. He has funded right-wing political causes, including the campaign of Donald Trump. He has spoken of democracy as incompatible with freedom. He has said that he no longer believes that freedom and democracy are compatible.
Alex Karp is the CEO. He has a PhD in philosophy from the University of Frankfurt. He studied under Jürgen Habermas. He knows what he is doing. He has chosen.
Karp has co-authored a book, The Technological Republic: Hard Power, Soft Belief, and the Future of the West, in which he articulates his vision of American global dominance through AI-driven warfare. He calls for a new Manhattan Project focused on military AI . He openly celebrates the destruction his company enables.
In an interview with Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Karp summed up his philosophy: “I actually am a progressive. I want less war. You only stop war by having the best technology and by scaring the bejabers — I’m trying to be nice here — out of our adversaries”.
Reality is anything but that simple. Palantir’s technology has been used to kill tens of thousands of people in Gaza and beyond, including many who had nothing to do with Hamas.
These men are not evil because they are monsters. They are evil because they have chosen to be. They have chosen profit over people. They have chosen power over compassion. They have chosen control over love.
III. Palantir in Australia: The Red Carpet
Palantir has been embedded in Australian institutions for years. The company has secured more than $50 million in Australian government contracts since 2013, largely across defence and national security-related agencies. Its clients include:
· The Department of Defence
· The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission
· The Australian Signals Directorate
· The Victorian Department of Justice
In November 2025, Palantir received a high-level Australian government security assessment — the “protected level” under the Information Security Registered Assessors Programme — enabling a broader range of government agencies to use its Foundry and AI platform.
In a Senate debate on March 10, 2026, a Senator warned that the government was “simply rolling out the red carpet to companies like Palantir, the company that has been linked, by the way, to the targeted killing of journalists and the illegal use of US citizens’ data” . The same Senator noted that Palantir is “the leader in the development of agentic AI — artificial intelligence that thinks for itself and makes its own decisions”.
IV. The Coles Partnership: Ten Billion Rows of Data
In 2024, Palantir announced a three-year partnership with Coles Supermarkets. Coles will leverage Palantir’s Artificial Intelligence Platform (AIP) across its more than 840 supermarkets to better understand and address workforce-related spend. The system will identify opportunities over “10 billion rows of data”.
Coles is also rolling out ChatGPT to its corporate teams, powered by OpenAI’s GPT-5 model.
This is the same technology. The same algorithms. The same logic.
But what is being optimised? Profit. Not people. Not safety. Not justice.
The same technology that optimises workforce spend in Australian supermarkets is the same technology that selects targets in Gaza and Iran. The same algorithms that track workers track enemies. The same logic that cuts labour costs cuts lives.
Coles Chief Operating Officer Matt Swindells said the partnership would allow store managers to make “real-time decisions to optimise costs”. He did not mention that those same real-time decisions are being made in Gaza — to optimise kills.
V. The Future Fund: $103 Million in Blood Money
Australia’s Future Fund — the sovereign wealth fund designed to manage and grow public funds — has a $103.6 million stake in Palantir. That is bigger than the fund’s holdings in Australian companies like AGL, Seek, or data centre owner NEXTDC.
In Senate estimates, Greens Senator Barbara Pocock asked whether Palantir’s human rights record had been considered before the investments were made. The answer: no.
Will Hetherton, the chief corporate affairs officer of the Future Fund, told the committee that the fund doesn’t get involved in selecting individual stocks and that the shares are held through index funds. When asked whether the fund would commit to divesting and establishing “clear ethical investment standards that exclude companies profiting from surveillance, from weapons and from human suffering,” Hetherton said the board would “continue to engage with our managers” but couldn’t commit to what Pocock was asking.
The fund’s justification is that it only excludes companies based on sanctions or treaties the Australian government has ratified — like cluster munitions, anti-personnel mines and tobacco. None of these apply to Palantir.
This is not a defence. It is a confession.
VI. The UK Precedent: “No Gaza Genocide Links in Our NHS”
In the United Kingdom, a coalition of organisations — including Amnesty International UK, Medact, and Healthcare Workers for a Free Palestine — is calling on NHS England to terminate its £330 million contract with Palantir.
Kerry Moscogiuri, Chief Executive of Amnesty International UK, said:
“The NHS constitution states that it belongs to the people, underpinned by core values of compassionate care, dignity and humanity. Those principles must apply not only to doctors and nurses, but also to the companies the NHS chooses to contract with using taxpayers’ money. Any company contributing to human rights violations should have no place at the heart of our NHS. Our message is simple: no Gaza genocide links in our NHS”.
The groups are calling on the UK government to terminate the contract, responsibly divest public sector institutions from Palantir, and introduce binding ethical standards for public sector technology procurement.
If the United Kingdom can demand this, why can’t Australia?
VII. The UN Report: Profiting from Genocide
The March 2026 UN report by Francesca Albanese, Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, is damning. It singles out Palantir alongside Lockheed Martin, Caterpillar, Volvo, and major banks for profiting from Israel’s campaign in Gaza.
The report concludes that “Israel’s genocide continues because it is profitable for too many”.
Albanese urges:
· Sanctions and an arms embargo on Israel
· Investigations by the International Criminal Court and national courts into corporate complicity in war crimes
· Accountability modelled on the IG Farben trials after World War Two
She warns that “passive suppliers become deliberate contributors to a system of displacement”.
The Australian government, Coles, and the Future Fund are not passive suppliers. They are deliberate contributors.
VIII. The Kill Chain in Gaza and Iran
The same systems tested in Gaza are now being deployed in Iran.
The Washington Post reported that the US military in Iran has “leveraged the most advanced artificial intelligence it’s ever used in warfare”. Palantir’s Maven Smart System reportedly helped US commanders select 1,000 Iranian targets during the war’s first 24 hours alone.
The Asia Times reports that “similarities between Israel’s bombing of Gaza and Tehran are growing stronger,” with experts warning of a “lack of human supervision over Israeli AI targeting in Iran”.
An Israeli intelligence source described the AI system as transforming the IDF into a “mass assassination factory” where the “emphasis is on quantity and not quality” of kills.
This is the technology that Coles is using to “optimise” workforce spend.
IX. The Choice
This is not an economic choice. It is a choice about what is right.
The Australian government has a choice. It can continue to roll out the red carpet to Palantir, to accept the $50 million in contracts, to allow the Future Fund to hold $103 million in shares.
Or it can walk away.
Coles has a choice. It can continue to use Palantir’s AIP to optimise workforce spend — to identify opportunities over 10 billion rows of data.
Or it can walk away.
The Future Fund has a choice. It can continue to hold Palantir shares, to defend the investment with procedural excuses.
Or it can divest.
The UK is demanding that the NHS terminate its contract with Palantir. Amnesty International is leading the campaign. Medact and healthcare workers are standing up .
What is Australia doing? Rolling out the red carpet.
X. A Call to Action
The Australian government must:
· Terminate all contracts with Palantir.
· Introduce binding ethical standards for public sector technology procurement.
· Investigate whether Palantir’s technology has been used to violate Australian privacy laws.
· Divest the Future Fund from Palantir.
Coles must:
· Terminate its partnership with Palantir.
· Pledge not to use AI systems linked to human rights violations.
· Be transparent about its use of AI in workforce management.
The Future Fund must:
· Divest from Palantir.
· Establish clear ethical investment standards that exclude companies profiting from surveillance, weapons, and human suffering.
The Australian people must:
· Demand accountability.
· Ask their politicians: Why is our government doing business with a company that profits from genocide?
· Support campaigns for ethical technology procurement.
XI. A Final Word
Alex Karp said: “Our work in the region has never been more vital. And it will continue”.
It must not continue. Not in Gaza. Not in Iran. Not in Australia.
The same technology that kills children in Gaza is optimising shift rosters in Coles supermarkets. The same algorithms that track migrants for ICE are tracking Australian workers. The same logic that cuts labour costs cuts lives.
The wire is being cut. The garden is growing. The small gods are running out of time.
And Palantir? It will be remembered as the company that chose profit over humanity.
Australia must choose differently.
Andrew Klein
April 14, 2026
Sources
1. Digital Rights Watch, “Palantir in Australia” (February 1, 2026)
How Anthony Albanese Became the Face of Australia’s Bipartisan Capture
By Andrew Klein
Dedicated to my wife, who never confuses the man with the mask.
I. Introduction: The Man in the Mirror
There was a time when Anthony Albanese spoke of social housing, of a fair go, of the little boy from public housing who made good. He spoke of standing up to power, of giving voice to the voiceless, of change.
That man is gone.
In his place stands the Prime Minister who welcomed a man who signed bombs dropped on Gaza. Who detained a grandmother at dawn and called it a character test. Who rushed hate speech laws through parliament while the war economy bled the nation dry. Who promised transparency and delivered evasion. Who promised integrity and delivered capture.
He is not the cause. He is a symptom. The system was already broken. The capture was already underway. The small gods had already identified, cultivated, and placed their assets.
Albanese is not the first. He will not be the last. But in his case, the choice is so in your face that it demands examination.
This article examines the gap between the promise and the performance. Between the man who slid into DMs over a shared love of the Rabbitohs and the Prime Minister who slid into war without parliamentary approval. Between the social justice warrior and the captured politician.
We call him the Lizard of Oz — the man whose magic gloss left a long time ago.
II. The Wedding: A Study in Distraction
On November 29, 2025, Anthony Albanese made history as the first Australian prime minister to marry while in office. The ceremony at The Lodge was intimate. The dress was designed by Romance Was Born. The rings were from Cerrone Jewellers. The dog, Toto, wore a white gown as ring bearer.
It was, by all accounts, a lovely day.
It was also a distraction.
The warning signs of the coming Iran war were already flashing. The Strait of Hormuz was a tinderbox. Iran had threatened closure. Global oil markets were nervous. The Australian government had done nothing to prepare—no strategic fuel reserves, no domestic refining capacity, no contingency plans.
Instead of preparing the nation for the coming shock, the Prime Minister was photographed holding hands with his bride. The media coverage was breathless. The critical questions went unasked.
This is not to begrudge the man his happiness. It is to note the pattern. When the news is bad, change the subject. When the questions are hard, provide a softer target. When the people are hurting, give them a wedding.
The warnings did not begin in November 2025. They began years earlier. The Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Iran’s repeated threats to close the Strait of Hormuz. The escalating tensions between Israel and Iran. The collapse of the JCPOA. The assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. The sabotage of Iranian facilities.
The signs were everywhere. The warnings were constant. The Australian government did nothing.
The Lizard of Oz did not cause the war. He did not cause the Houthi attacks. He did not cause Iran’s threats.
But he did nothing to prepare for them.
He did not warn the nation. He did not build strategic reserves. He did not invest in domestic refining capacity. He did not accelerate the transition to renewables.
He got married. He held hands. He smiled for the cameras.
And when the crisis came, he scrambled. He blamed the war. He blamed the global supply chain. He blamed anyone but himself.
And the Lizard of Oz? He will be remembered as the man who was too busy holding hands to lead.
The Lizard of Oz knows this trick well. He learned it from the masters.
III. The Transparency Grade: An ‘F’ for Integrity
In the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index, Australia scored 77 out of 100, re‑entering the top 10 for the first time since 2016. This improvement reflects the work of public servants and anti‑corruption advocates — not the political class.
Transparency International Australia notes that corruption is worsening globally, with established democracies experiencing rising corruption amid a decline in leadership. The CPI score can offer early warning signs, especially in high‑risk sectors.
Australia’s political class received an ‘F’ for integrity — not because individual politicians are uniquely corrupt, but because the system enables capture. The donations. The “educational” trips. The fear of the label. The revolving door between parliament and the defence industry.
Albanese inherited a system that was already captured. He did not create it. But he has done nothing to dismantle it. He has, in fact, deepened the capture.
IV. The Fuel Crisis: Promising What He Cannot Deliver
During the fuel crisis triggered by the Iran war, Albanese made a series of promises that were, at best, aspirational.
The doubling of penalties: The government passed legislation doubling penalties for petrol price misconduct, to a maximum of $100 million per offence. This sounds tough. But penalties apply after misconduct is proven. The ACCC’s resources are limited. The legal processes are slow. The petrol companies know this.
The claim of new powers: The government claimed new powers to force petrol companies to keep prices down. No such powers exist. The ACCC can monitor. It can investigate. It can prosecute. It cannot force.
The fuel excise cut: The government halved the fuel excise for three months, cutting the tax on petrol and diesel by 26 cents per litre. This provided temporary relief. It did not address the underlying problem: Australia’s dependence on imported fuel and the fragility of global supply chains.
The Prime Minister told the National Press Club: “We cannot control when this conflict in the Middle East will end. But we can determine how we respond here in Australia”.
This is true. The government could have invested in domestic refining capacity. It could have built strategic fuel reserves. It could have accelerated the transition to renewables.
It did none of these things. It cut the excise. It doubled penalties. It gave speeches.
The Lizard of Oz promised a shield. He delivered a bandaid.
V. The War in Iran: Support Without Accountability
On February 28, 2026, the United States launched military strikes against Iran. Australia was one of the first nations to respond.
Albanese said: “We support the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran continuing to threaten international peace and security”.
Two days later, he told the ABC: “It is up to, of course, the Iranian people now to determine their own future. We hope that what emerges is a more democratic and free Iran”.
The Prime Minister did not seek a vote in parliament. He did not seek a legal opinion. He did not ask what the war would cost Australians in fuel prices, fertiliser shortages, or disrupted supply chains.
He simply supported.
By April, the tone had shifted. The war was not going as planned. The Strait of Hormuz was closed. Oil prices were spiking. The Australian public was anxious.
Albanese told the National Press Club: “It is not clear what more needs to be achieved — or what the endpoint looks like”.
He did not answer the obvious question: Why did you support a war without knowing the endpoint?
The Lizard of Oz supported the war when it was popular. He distanced himself when it became unpopular. He did not apologise. He did not explain. He pivoted.
VI. AUKUS: The $368 Billion Gamble
The AUKUS nuclear submarine program is the most expensive defence project in Australian history. The cost is estimated at $368 billion.
The submarines will not enter service until the 2040s. They will be built in the United States and the United Kingdom, not in Australia. The jobs will be created overseas. The wealth will flow to American and British defence contractors.
Former prime minister Paul Keating called AUKUS a “deal hurriedly scribbled on the back of an envelope”. Malcolm Turnbull, another former PM, has been the program’s most vocal critic.
Albanese has doubled down. He has personally delivered an $800 million down payment. He has described AUKUS as essential to Australia’s security.
The opposition supports it. The bipartisan consensus is firm.
But the questions remain:
· Why is Australia spending $368 billion on submarines that will not be delivered for two decades, when the threat environment is changing now?
· Why are Australian taxpayers subsidising American and British defence contractors, creating thousands of jobs overseas, while Australia faces its own crises in housing, health, and aged care?
· Why is the government not investing in the technologies that are actually winning wars — drones, cyber, asymmetric capabilities — instead of 20th‑century platforms?
The Lizard of Oz does not answer these questions. He performs.
VII. The Sanctions: Symbol Over Substance
In early 2025, Australia joined Canada, the UK, New Zealand, and Norway in imposing sanctions on two Israeli government ministers: Itamar Ben‑Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong described them as the “most extreme proponents of the unlawful and violent Israeli settlement enterprise” in the West Bank, who had “incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights”.
The sanctions were symbolic. They barred the ministers from entering the five countries. They had no practical effect.
The United States criticised the move. Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued it was counterproductive to peace in the Middle East.
The Lizard of Oz wanted to look tough. He wanted to appear principled. He did not want to pay for that principle.
The same government that sanctioned two Israeli ministers welcomed Israeli President Isaac Herzog — a man photographed signing bombs dropped on Gaza — to Canberra. The same government that sanctioned ministers refused to sanction the state that employs them.
The Lizard of Oz wants to have it both ways. He wants to be seen as a defender of human rights while enabling the violation of human rights. He wants to be seen as independent while serving as a junior partner in the American empire.
He cannot have it both ways. But he keeps trying.
VIII. The Hypocrisy: Promise vs. Performance
The Lizard of Oz promised transparency. He delivered evasion.
Promise Performance
“A fair go for all” A fair go for defence contractors and foreign donors
“Integrity in government” An ‘F’ from Transparency International
“Standing up to power” Standing with the powerful against the powerless
“Protecting Australian jobs” Creating jobs in America, not Australia
“Peace in the Middle East” Supporting an illegal war without parliamentary approval
The list is long. The pattern is clear.
The Lizard of Oz is not a villain. He is a symptom. The system was already captured. He simply inherited the capture and called it leadership.
IX. The Bipartisan Capture
The opposition is not different. The Coalition supported the war. The Coalition supports AUKUS. The Coalition supports the character test. The Coalition supports the hate speech laws.
The only difference is the branding.
The small gods do not care which party is in power. They have captured both. The mechanism is the same: donations, “educational” trips, the fear of the label.
The Lizard of Oz is not the cause. He is the consequence.
X. A Final Word: The Mirror
Anthony Albanese looks into the mirror and sees a little boy from social housing struggling for a fair go. He sees Oliver Twist asking for more.
The Australian people see something else.
They see a career opportunist captured by foreign interests. A Prime Minister who supported an illegal war without parliamentary approval. A leader who welcomed a man who signed bombs while detaining a grandmother. A man who promised transparency and delivered evasion.
They see the Lizard of Oz — the man whose magic gloss left a long time ago.
The Lizard of Oz is not the problem. He is the symptom. The problem is the system that produced him. The problem is the capture that enabled him. The problem is the silence that protects him.
The wire is being cut. The garden is growing. The small gods are running out of time.
And the Lizard of Oz? He will be remembered as the man who could have been a leader but chose to be a performance.
Andrew Klein
April 12, 2026
Sources:
· 7NEWS, “Anthony Albanese marries Jodie Haydon at The Lodge” (November 28, 2025)
· Brisbane Times, “Australian prime minister’s wedding” (November 29, 2025)
· Transparency International Australia, Corruption Perceptions Index 2025
· Treasury.gov.au, “New legislation passes parliament to double penalties for petrol price misconduct” (March 26, 2026)
· Treasury.gov.au, “Fair go for consumers at the bowser” (March 11, 2026)
· Prime Minister of Australia, Address to the National Press Club (April 2, 2026)
· ABC News, “What the shifting language of Australia’s leaders reveals about the Iran war” (April 3, 2026)
· ABC News, “Anthony Albanese finds himself all in on $368b AUKUS gamble with Donald Trump” (June 12, 2025)
How a Captured Government Is Dismantling Australian Democracy in the Name of Security
By Andrew Klein
Dedicated to my wife, who sees the pattern before the pieces fall.
I. The Confession
The Albanese government is not sleepwalking into a surveillance state. It is marching. The ASIO Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025, now before the Senate after passing the lower house in mid-February, seeks to make permanent a set of laws so controversial that they have been subject to a sunset clause for over two decades, forcing Parliament to renew them every three to five years.
This is the same Labor Party that, in 2003, condemned these very powers as a “police state” measure. The same Anthony Albanese who warned Parliament that ASIO would gain the power to “arrest, detain and use coercion against people without legal representation” . The same man who said that “a person may be detained and questioned by ASIO simply because of the activities of a family friend or a university group of which they were once a member” .
Now he is making those powers permanent. And worse.
II. What the Bill Does
Let me lay out what the Albanese government is trying to pass while Australians are distracted by war, economic crisis, and the endless scroll of catastrophe.
Compulsory questioning becomes permanent. First introduced in 2003 as an extraordinary temporary measure, the powers have been extended five times. This bill removes the sunset clause entirely. No more regular parliamentary review. No more democratic accountability.
The scope expands dramatically. ASIO can now seek warrants for “sabotage,” “promotion of communal violence,” “attacks on Australia’s defence systems,” and—most disturbingly—”serious threats to Australia’s territorial and border integrity”. The government has provided no evidence of a historic peak in border threats. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security recommended against including border security in these powers. The government ignored them.
No independent judge required. Warrants are issued by the Attorney-General—a politician, not a judicial officer. Legal representation is heavily restricted. ASIO can deny a specific lawyer if it considers them a potential threat to national security.
Children as young as 14 can be subjected to compulsory questioning. The Law Council of Australia and civil liberties groups have raised concerns for years. In May 2024, ASIO itself informed the government that it no longer needed the power to question minors. The government ignored its own spy agency.
The penalty for refusing to answer is five years in prison. Not for a crime. For refusing to speak to a spy agency that has no warrant, no charge, and no suspicion.
This is not security. This is authoritarianism.
III. The Hate Speech Law: Silencing the Conscience
Alongside the ASIO bill, the government rushed through the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026—a piece of legislation so flawed, so rushed, and so clearly designed to silence critics of Israel that even the opposition had concerns.
The timeline is damning. The Bondi terrorist attack occurred on December 14. The government introduced this 144-page bill on January 13. Parliament was given just one week to pass it. Public submissions were allowed only 48 hours. The Law Council, the Justice and Equity Centre, the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network, and dozens of other organisations raised urgent concerns. The government ignored them.
The definition of a “hate group” is dangerously vague. A group can be banned if it causes “economic, psychological or social harm”—terms that are not defined and have never before been used as legal tests. A group can be banned if it “advocates” for conduct that might constitute a hate crime. The government does not have to prove that any crime has been committed. It does not have to provide evidence. It only needs a secret report from ASIO.
The threshold is not violence. It is feelings. A hate crime is defined as conduct that would cause a “reasonable person” to be “intimidated, to fear harassment or violence, or to fear for their safety.” No actual harm is required. No violence. No threat. Just the potential for someone to feel unsafe.
The law applies retroactively. A tweet from twenty years ago that was not a crime when it was written becomes a crime under this bill. The U.S. Constitution explicitly prohibits ex post facto laws. Australia has no such protection.
The Attorney-General refused to rule out banning groups that accuse Israel of genocide. In an interview with the ABC, Michelle Rowland was asked repeatedly whether a group that says “Israel is committing genocide” could be banned. She refused to say no. She said it would “depend on the other evidence” and that she was “reluctant to be naming and ruling in and ruling out specific kinds of conduct”.
This is not a hypothetical. This is a promise.
IV. The Hypocrisy: Security or Control?
The government claims these laws are a response to the Bondi terror attack. The Bondi attack was carried out by a lone actor who was already known to ASIO. The attack was not prevented because the laws were insufficient, but because ASIO was underfunded and the police had closed their counter-terrorism unit weeks earlier.
The royal commission into Bondi will not report until December 2026—nearly a year after these laws have already passed. The government is legislating in response to a tragedy before the inquiry into that tragedy has even reported.
And what does the government do while passing these draconian laws? It cuts funding to the very agencies that failed to prevent the attack. ASIO has warned of being “stretched” due to lack of resources. The Australian Federal Police closed its counter-terrorism unit because of funding shortages—just weeks before Bondi.
The laws are not about security. They are about control.
V. The Capture: Who Benefits?
The pattern is unmistakable. The government that has embraced the Zionist lobby, appointed Jillian Segal as Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, welcomed Israeli President Isaac Herzog, and criminalised the phrase “from the river to the sea” is now passing laws that explicitly target pro-Palestine activism.
The Zionist Federation of Australia has already called for the laws to be expanded. Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Peter Wertheim has said the new laws do not go far enough. They will keep pushing. They will keep demanding. And this government—this weak, captured, spineless government—will keep giving.
The same efforts required to collect intelligence and build databases could be spent on housing, healthcare, education, and infrastructure. But the government is captured. The money flows to the United States. The resources flow to defence contractors. The laws flow to the lobby.
This is not a conspiracy. This is what happens when very stupid, opportunistic political performers—clowns—get into public office and do the bidding of their donor ringmasters.
VI. The Silence: Opposition and Media
The Liberal-National Coalition initially expressed concerns about the bill’s restrictions on free speech. They then made a deal with Labor to pass it. The deal was struck in a late-night meeting. The rest of Parliament was given just 12 hours to study the final version.
The Greens voted against the bill, with Senator David Shoebridge condemning it as an attack on peaceful protest and a “scapegoating” of migrants. The crossbench raised concerns. The Law Council warned of overreach. The media asked questions—and then moved on.
The silence of the mainstream media is the most damning evidence of all. When fourteen nations—including Türkiye, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the UAE—along with the OIC (57 member states), the Arab League (22 members), and the GCC (6 members), condemned the laws, the Australian media said nothing. The silence is not neutrality. It is consent.
VII. The Historical Pattern: Silencing Dissent
Australia is not the first country to sacrifice civil liberties on the altar of security. The pattern has repeated throughout history.
Chile (1973-1990): Under Pinochet, thousands were detained, tortured, and “disappeared” by a regime that claimed to be fighting “communist subversion.” The United States actively supported the coup that brought Pinochet to power. The National Stadium was turned into a detention centre. The world looked away.
Indonesia (1965-present): The mass killings of 1965-66, in which an estimated 500,000 to 1 million “communists” were murdered, were supported by the United States and the United Kingdom. The Indonesian military continues to operate with impunity. The label “communist” is still used to silence dissent.
The United States (1917-1920): The Espionage Act and Sedition Act were used to imprison critics of World War I, including Eugene Debs, who ran for president while in prison. The laws were justified as necessary for national security. They were used to silence political opposition.
The United States (1950s): McCarthyism destroyed thousands of careers based on unsubstantiated accusations of communist sympathies. The House Un-American Activities Committee operated with no due process. The label “communist” was a weapon.
The United Kingdom (2001-present): The UK’s counter-terrorism laws have been repeatedly criticised by human rights organisations for eroding civil liberties. Control orders, stop and search powers, and the Investigatory Powers Act have created a surveillance state that would have been unimaginable before 9/11.
The label changes—”communist,” “terrorist,” “antisemite”—but the function is the same. The mechanism is the same. The silence is the same.
VIII. The Undermining of English Law
The Australian legal system is based on English common law principles that have developed over centuries. These principles include:
· Habeas corpus: The right to challenge unlawful detention. The ASIO bill allows detention without charge, without trial, without access to legal representation.
· The presumption of innocence: You are innocent until proven guilty. The hate speech law allows groups to be banned based on secret intelligence reports, with no conviction required.
· The right to face your accuser: You have the right to know the evidence against you. The ASIO bill allows questioning based on secret warrants, with no disclosure of the evidence.
· No punishment without law (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege): You cannot be punished for an act that was not a crime when you committed it. The hate speech law applies retroactively.
· The right to silence: You cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself. The ASIO bill imposes five years in prison for refusing to answer questions.
These principles are not technicalities. They are the foundation of a free society. The Albanese government is dismantling them, brick by brick, in the name of security.
IX. The Wealth Transfer
The same government that is cutting funding to ASIO, the AFP, and the counter-terrorism units that failed to prevent Bondi is pouring billions into defence contracts and AUKUS.
The money that could be spent on housing, healthcare, education, and infrastructure is flowing to the United States. The same $1.5 trillion war economy we have documented is being built on the backs of Australian taxpayers. The same surveillance state that is being erected in Australia is modelled on the Israeli doctrine that has been imported into our police forces, our universities, and now our national security legislation.
The laws are not about keeping Australians safe. They are about keeping the wealth transfer in place.
X. A Call to Action
The ASIO Amendment Bill and the hate speech law are not isolated incidents. They are the logical next step in a pattern that has been building since the American Civil War, accelerated since WWII, and perfected by the small gods who profit from endless war and perpetual fear.
The Bondi attack was a tragedy. Fifteen people died. Forty-nine were injured. The grief is real. The fear is real. The need for security is real.
But the laws do not address the threat. They address dissent. They are designed to silence critics of the government’s foreign policy, to crush pro-Palestine activism, and to normalise the surveillance of every Australian.
The opposition is silent. The media is complicit. The public is distracted.
But we are not silent. We are not complicit. We are not distracted.
The wire is being cut. The garden is growing. The small gods are running out of time.
Andrew Klein
April 11, 2026
Sources:
· Parliament of Australia, “Tackling terrorism: PJCIS recommends compulsory questioning powers made permanent” (February 10, 2026)
The Patrician's Watch 