Israel campaigners Ofir Birenbaum and Sophie Calland have infiltrated the Labor Party backed by far-right money. Wendy Bacon and Yaakov Aharon report.

It is shaping up as a prelude for the Federal Election; and ultra-Zionist social media influencers and Labor Party members Ofir Birenbaum and Sophie Calland are not on their first rodeo.

Calland is a key organiser of Better Australia, a new third party group that is currently being registered to play a role in the upcoming Federal Election in attacking the Greens and the Teals for threatening “Australia’s economic and social stability” and their views on Israel’s war on Gaza.

According to a draft document leaked to The Guardian, Better Australia will be pitched as an “authentic and diverse community ‘ground force’ to create a social movement.” It’s a strategy designed to hide its far-right connections.

Dark Money. Hard-right Advance targets Greens, Teals with $14m warchest

NSW Labor recruited Calland as a member in October 2023, where she is active in Alexandria branch meetings and discussions. Calland also joined Labor Friends of Israel.

Alexandria meetings are regularly attended by local state MP Ron Hoenig MP, the NSW Minister for Local government. Hoenig is a former chair and current member of NSW Parliamentary Friends of Israel.

Calland’s husband, Ofir Birenbaum, is a “close friend of the Australian Jewish Association” (AJA) which is on the far-right of Zionist politics and a strident critic of the Albanese government.

AJA President David Adler is a founder member and advisor of astroturfing lobby group Advance that has amassed $14 million to target Greens and Teals and to a lesser extent Labor in the coming Federal election.

Birenbaum is also a Labor party member. He joined the Rosebery Branch of Labor in November 2024. This is the home branch of the Minister for Environment and MP for Sydney, Tanya Plibersek.

Birenbaum came to prominence recently when he teamed up with Daily Telegraph’s Danielle Gusmaroli to document alleged antisemitic experiences in Sydney. The plan went wrong.

Following legal threats, Cairo Takeaway has since retracted its allegations that Birenbaum tried to provoke an antisemitic incident. Birenbaum has consistently denied the allegation.

Birenbaum’s links with extreme Zionist organisations have already been exposed. He is a ‘close friend’ of the Australian Jewish Association, a leader in Together with Israel and an early organiser with Christian Zionist organisation Never Again is Now.

Since last Sunday evening, Birenbaum has erased the last of his social media pages and digital footprint.

Sophie Calland was the public face of the astroturfing campaign Better Council Inc during the local government elections in September 2024, having authorised all the election materials.

However, the owner of Better Council’s ABN is Alex Polson, an LNP member who previously worked for Senator Simon Birmingham. Like most of the other members of the Better Council organising team, Polson was a key organiser in Together with Israel.

Better Council – more Labor than grassroots

Better Council urged voters to ‘PUT GREENS LAST’, claiming the Greens had betrayed their environmental roots for an antisemitic obsession with Israel, leaving behind their environmental roots.

Birenbaum was an organiser with Better Council. In August 2024, he recruited volunteers, accused unnamed councillors of inciting antisemitism, and staffed polling booths in Marrickville, Balmain and Stanmore.

Several Inner West Greens members told MWM they had observed Labor volunteers helping Better Council volunteers to pack up their equipment at the end of the daily pre-poll period.

At a Better Council Zoom meeting, volunteers were told that the Inner-West campaign was a reward for Mayor Darcy Byrne’s strong resistance to an August 2024 Boycott Divestment Sanctions motion, similar to one passed by the Labor-run Bankstown-Canterbury Council. 

The Greens lost three Councillor positions in the Eastern suburbs but these were more than balanced by fresh wins in western Sydney and City of Sydney LGAs. The Inner West Greens held their existing five positions but failed to make gains. In a very tight election, Mayor Darcy Byrne and Labor consolidated his control over the Inner West Council.

Better Council considered their campaign a success and held a celebration in mid-November at a luxury unit in the Cosmopolitan Hotel of glitzy Double Bay.

Advance trials election strategy in Queensland

Just weeks after the NSW local government elections, Better Council’s electoral strategy was adopted for the Queensland state elections by the newly-formed Queensland Jewish Collective (QJC).

QJC partnered with the Australian Jewish Association and was supported by Queensland Zionist and financier Stephen Fenwick who previously donated $1 million to Advance. QJC’s front person and director is Israeli Australian Hava Mendelle, whose recently migrated Israeli wife Roz Mendelle, a strategic communications specialist, is also heavily involved.

The campaign had few volunteers and relied heavily on billboards, some of which were very similar to Advance ones. It may have played a role in one Green state MP Amy McMahon narrowly losing her seat, and with no new seats won for the Greens.

By October, Advance had announced that it had raised millions that would be used to try to smash the Greens in the coming Federal election. Its biggest donor last year was the Liberal aligned Cormack Foundation. 

Advance used some of those funds in the Prahran state by-election in Victoria. The Greens maintained their primary vote but failed to get sufficient preferences to hold the seat. 

Like fellow astro-turfer Calland, Hava and Roz Mendelle have re-emerged ahead of the upcoming Federal election as part of a recently formed organisation Minority Impact Coalition (MIM). that aims to put pressure on Labor not to preference Greens.  

MIM links are right-wing but it describes itself as ‘grassroots’. It claims to have no links to Advance. 

Roz Mendelle will be speaking about ‘taking on the Greens’ at an event hosted jointly by Advance and AJA this week. 

Mission accomplished Birenbaum also joins Labor

With the Better Council campaign behind her, Calland became a regular attendee of Labor NSW’s Alexandria branch meetings, where she has strongly supported Israel against accusations of genocide.  

Birenbaum also made a decisive move. He joined NSW Labor and has attended one or more Rosebery meetings. 

In the past 18 months, motions in support of a Gaza ceasefire and recognition of a Palestinian state have been passed throughout several of Sydney’s Labor branches.

Even before his membership of the Rosebery branch came through, Birenbaum tried to influence the debate inside Labor.

A Labor Friends of Palestine motion was before the October meeting of the Alexandria branch. Birenbaum attended the meeting as a guest. The LFOP motion easily passed. Calland was one of two people who voted against it. Six members voted for the motion and one abstained. 

Calland then moved a counter motion which opposed a ceasefire. Birenbaum – who has served in the IDF – spoke and vigorously defended the IDF against allegations of war crimes. Calland’s motion was ruled out of order as inconsistent with the previous motion.

Undercover Birenbaum sets up Greens candidate

But as well as continuing with his public pro-Israel right-wing activities, Birenbaum became involved in some covert campaigning of his own. 

Luc Velez, the Greens’ federal candidate in the seat of Sydney held a stall in Green Square on December 11. He was accompanied by two other Greens campaigners that day. Velez is a well known housing, climate and queer activist. 

Birenbaum approached the stall and asked for a leaflet. According to observers, he then left and returned wearing what Velez realised were video glasses. 

Birenbaum started quizzing Velez on Greens’ policy on Palestine. Velez answered by mentioning Greens’ support for human rights and international law.

He became aware that Birenbaum was using the glasses to film him.

Later Birenbaum posted the video that he had shot covertly on his Facebook page. It was there until recently, but has now been removed.    

This post triggered many responses, including homophobic ones. 

These were not removed by Birenbaum. MWM’s reporters independently verified these responses, which remained on Birenbaum’s account until last week.

Birenbaum has posted many images and comments which are offensive to the Muslim community and followers of Islam. 

In Newcastle, he filmed a small peaceful pro-Palestinian protest for more than half an hour and then interacted with protesters complaining that he felt unsafe, observers told MWM. He also used his video glasses to film undercover at Sydney’s Invasion day rally.

He took his dog Oreo to Greens Deputy Leader Mehreen Faruqi’s animal rights launch in Sydney Park in Inner Sydney. He later posted a positive comment on his dog Oreo’s own Facebook page (also disappeared) but added that it was a pity they (animal rights campaigners) had killed his grandmother. 

Since he became a Labor member, Birenbaum has also continued to lead and speak at Together with Israel rallies which were organised as responses to the anti-semitic graffiti and arson attacks that spread fear and concern in the Jewish community and broader community. Here he has spoken alongside Senator David Sharma and retired MP Michael Danby who founded Labor Friends of Israel. 

Many of the placards and speeches at the rallies were hostile to the Labor government’s claimed weakness on anti-semitism, although active support from Labor friends of Israel has also featured prominently.   

Birenbaum told a rally in January, “The time for lip service [to antisemitism] is over, and the time for actions – not just from us, but from our [Australia’s political] leaders – is now. No more press conferences, no more concerned looks, and no more [empty words, like] ‘this has no place in Australia’.

“Our leaders cannot just throw more money at security, at a task force for this, and a strike force for that – it does not treat the problem, it treats a symptom.

So I’m asking [Albanese] once again, what are you going to do about it?”

Pictured: L-R Michael Danby(ex-Labor MP and Labor Friends of Israel), Ofir Birenbaum (Together with Israel, friend of Australian Jewish Association), Michael Easson (former VP of Labor Party NSW), Rabbi Benjamin Elton(Senior Rabbi Great Synagogue Sydney at a December 2024 rally. Source: ‘Together With Israel’ Facebook

What Labor did about it

The power couple spurred debate across the country yet again in December 2024. While they were on their way to a celebration of Israeli technology event staged at the Great Synagogue in Sydney’s CBD, they stopped to make a detour.

Wearing his infamous spy glasses, Birenbaum began secretly recording a Palestine protest occurring outside the synagogue’s entrance.

Birenbaum happened to “have an Israeli flag with him”, which he unravelled while standing across the road from the protest. Police moved Birenbaum on, alleging his action was provocative.

The media circus followed. The Australian Jewish Association tweeted about their “friend”, a “Jew [was] detained outside Sydney’s Great Synagogue for having an Israeli flag.” This incident was then featured in a Sky News story in which right-wing presenter Chris Kenny interviewed Birenbaum.

This incident provided part of the  political context for Labor’s NSW premier Chris Minns to condemn the Palestine protest as “disturbing”, and called for “urgent change” to protest laws outside places of worship. 

“Demonstration and protests are important, but so is the principle that all Australians have a right to practice their faith free of intimidation or free of protest,” Premier Minns said. In February, the NSW government passed a suite of tough new laws limiting speech and protests. 

Meanwhile, Albanese government passed the strongest hate speech laws and doxxing laws with mandatory sentencing, with many arguing the goal was to silence free speech about Israel. 

The state and federal Labor party leaders have passed reforms that Birenbaum,  Calland and other extreme Zioinists had lobbied for. 

Birenbaum would regularly upload secretly-recorded videos of anti-Zionists, with mentions of their names, workplace, and immediate family. 

Time will tell if the true purpose of the doxxing and hate speech laws is to protect all members of Australian society, or simply to target Pro-Palestinian activists and other dissenters.

Watershed moment for Greens

Many Labor grassroots supporters would not recognise themselves in the political activities of their fellow party members Calland and Birenbaum.  

The stakes are high for the Greens. This week, Greens leader Adam Bandt accused Advance and other third party campaigners of falsely claiming to be community-based. 

“The nation’s billionaires are running the same Trump-style disinformation campaign they did during The Voice, using donations from coal and gas billionaires and the Liberals to build astroturfing groups in a desperate attempt to stop the Greens.”

“This election is make or break for their ability to keep profiteering off the climate crisis. Experts predict a minority Parliament, where the Greens will keep Dutton out and push Labor to tax the billionaires behind Advance, helping us get dental and mental health into Medicare and build affordable housing.”

MWM has sent questions to Ron Hoenig and Tanya Plibersek and will report their responses when they reply. Sophie Calland was contacted but has not respond. 

Inside the ARC of Israel influence in the Queensland Election

This post was originally published on Michael West.

The Labor government has done what the Coalition didn’t, and the Aged Care Royal Commission warned against, privatising aged care assessment and awarded $1.5 billion worth of contracts to for-profit operators. Sarah Russell reports.

The Coalition government abandoned plans to privatise aged care assessments in 2021 following an outcry from key stakeholders amid warnings of risks to the health of older Australians and conflicts of interest.

Three years later, the Albanese Labor government has stealthily done what the Coalition government recognised as a step too far. Labor has largely privatised the aged care assessments under the guise of the ‘Single Assessment System‘.

What’s worse, aged care assessments are being conducted by organisations that also deliver aged care support, a clear conflict of interest. Catholic Healthcare, for example, operates 42 residential aged care homes and provides home care services to about 4,000 older Australians. It was awarded nearly $136 million to undertake aged care assessments until 2029.

The Aged Care Royal Commission expressly warned against this, recommending that all assessments be undertaken by an assessor who was not involved in providing aged care so that a person’s level of funding would be determined independently.

Nearly $1.5 billion has been handed out to private operators under the Single Assessment System to conduct aged care assessments, according to contract details released last December by the Department of Health and Aged Care.

Aged Care Royal Commission

A Single Assessment System was a recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which the Coalition accepted.

However, its plans to privatise aged care assessments were met with fierce resistance, including from state and territory health ministers, the Australian Medical Association (AMA) and the Australian and New Zealand Society for Geriatric Medicine.

The AMA, for example, warned that privatisation

would risk the health of older Australians and open the system up to conflicts of interest.

Despite these warnings, the federal Labor government has now proceeded down the privatisation path. In early 2024, there was an open tender process for organisations with the capacity and capability to deliver aged care assessments for the Single Assessment System. Since December 2024, the private sector (both for-profit and not-for-profit) has been undertaking aged care assessments. State and territory governments continue to deliver hospital-based assessments.

Since December, concerns have been growing about the quality of assessments under this privatised system.

Assessment system failure

I was recently asked to advocate for Susan (not her real name) following an aged care assessment undertaken by APM – a private company that was awarded $226 million to undertake assessments. Susan lives alone on the Mornington Peninsula with no family on hand to offer support.

In July 2024, Susan’s GP requested a comprehensive assessment via My Aged Care. In December 2024, Susan mistakenly received a regional assessment. According to those working in the sector, this is a common mistake.

Comprehensive assessments need to be undertaken by staff who are clinically qualified. These assessors not only ask questions but also probe the answers. They know that older people with cognitive failure can present very well, so it is critical to dig deeper.

Regional assessments, on the other hand, do not require staff with a tertiary degree. According to a number of senior staff in aged care, new assessors working for some private companies may only receive eight hours of online training to conduct regional assessments. These aged care staff are also concerned that some assessments are conducted over the phone if the assessor does not have time to do a face-to-face interview.

Susan’s regional assessment was riddled with errors, some quite serious. These errors have been highlighted in pink.

When I raised concerns about the inaccuracies in Susan’s assessment with the Minister for Aged Care, I received the following response from the Department of Health and Ageing:

“I would like to assure you that the Australian Government is committed to creating a better experience for older people in Australia seeking aged care services.

“The department has developed a new Single Assessment System, to simplify and improve the experience of older individuals undergoing aged care assessments. As part of this system, one workforce will be empowered and trained to conduct the necessary assessments across both home and residential care. This important reform is an opportunity to improve the delivery of aged care assessments, including assessment wait times.”

Fixing a system that wasn’t broken

In the past, our taxes funded councils to undertake regional assessments and provide aged care services under the Commonwealth Home Support Program. Council services were in the main excellent and much appreciated by recipients. Older residents and their families appreciated having a highly trained and fairly remunerated Council employee provide aged care services.

They also knew they were not being ripped off by a private provider that prioritised profits over care.

However, councils have exited aged care in droves because of changes in the way the Federal Government funds aged care. According to the Australian Services Union, just 26 of Victoria’s 79 councils currently provide aged care home services.

So now our taxes are given to large private companies to undertake the private assessments and then private companies to deliver the services.

In some cases, the company that undertakes the assessment is the same company that delivers the home care. What could possibly go wrong?

Written in collaboration with Elizabeth Minter.

This post was originally published on Michael West.

China exposes a fundamental flaw in Australia’s nuclear submarine project. While their navy operates off our coast, AUKUS is sapping funds from capabilities needed today. Former submariner Rex Patrick reports. 

Many Australians have been disturbed, indeed angered, by Chinese warships operating in our exclusive economic zone over the past weeks. How dare they! But the fact is that the Chinese vessels – a destroyer, a frigate and a replenishment ship – are operating in accordance with international law and simply doing to us what we’ve done to them for decades.

Readers will remember a number of recent incidents in which the Chinese military confronted Australian military assets conducting maritime operations in areas of interest to China.

In April 2018, three Australian Naval vessels operating in international waters off Vietnam were challenged by People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) warships.

In November 2023, a PLAN warship closed and transmitted sonar pulses at a disabled RAN ANZAC class warship, HMAS Toowoomba, in international waters off Japan. In February this year, a Chinese Air Force J-16 fighter released flares just 30 metres in front of a Royal Australian Air Force P-8A Poseidon surveillance aircraft.

On all of these occasions, Australia asserted the right of our navy and air force to operate freely in international waters and air space.

Maybe we need to contain our anger!

Strategic takeaways

There are a couple of significant takeaways from the Chinese task group deployment.

The first is that PLAN is no longer a ‘brown-water navy‘. It’s a blue-water navy that can project itself at significant range. In months and years to come, we can expect to see more PLAN warships in Australia’s immediate region and, indeed, in our Exclusive Economic Zone. That’s inevitable.

The second thing to recognise is the fact that our AUKUS submarine strategy is fundamentally flawed.

AUKUS flaw

As the Chinese are operating off the coast of Australia now, we might, and it’s a big might, get our first Virginia Class nuclear-powered submarine in a decade, around 2035.

Whilst Australia embarks on a $368B submarine procurement program, money is being sapped from current programs that would deliver relevant capability now. There is also a huge opportunity cost for procuring other relevant capabilities that could be purchased for near-term delivery.

As PLAN warships were conducting live-fire exercises off the coast of Australia, the only possible contribution that the AUKUS project team could have made in response to it would have been to visually identify those ships by one of its team members flying in a commercial jet over the Tasman Sea en route to another taxpayer-funded junket in Washington.

AUKUS Gravy Plane: $633K a month in flights with the taxpayer picking up the tab

Furthermore, the nuclear submarines we are currently trying to acquire have the capability to operate for extended periods off the coast of China, but that’s simply unnecessary – the PLAN has well and truly arrived off our coast.  They’re bringing the party to us. Even a relatively modest PLAN deployment across our sea lanes would keep our modestly sized navy well and truly tied up.

Sure, we might decide to support the defence of Taiwan, a fellow democracy, but having a new submarine turn up in 2035 doesn’t help with a 2027 biffo.  And even if we did have a submarine, no one can be sure that the United States would turn up for the fight.

President Trump may well just see the fate of Taiwan as another real estate deal, something to be traded away for the right price.

State of readiness

This PLAN ‘visit’ to Australian waters highlights our current force weakness. Whilst we have been cooperating with New Zealand in shadowing the three-ship task group, we really don’t have much in the way of assets to deal with the PLAN’s enhanced capabilities.

Indeed, the Chief of Defence Force has advised the Senate that, despite having a budget this financial year of $58B, it was a Virgin Australian pilot that first advised the Australian Government that the PLAN was conducting live-fire exercises off the east coast.

Our current order of battle is of great concern, noting the growing geopolitical tension in our regions.

We have a couple of relatively modern Air Warfare Destroyers available to the Australian Fleet Commander. But that’s where the good news ends. Only six of our seven 20 to 30-year-old ANZAC frigates are in the water, and it is not known how many of them are operationally worked up to respond to the PLAN.

The Chief of Defence Force, Admiral Johnston, advised the Senate that two ANZAC frigates have been involved in shadowing the task group.

In terms of our six aging Collins class submarines, only three are in the “custody” of the Navy, as described by the Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Hammond, to the Senate. It’s not clear how many are worked up for tasking. The Navy won’t say.

Indeed, it might just be best for the Navy to keep that number under wraps because the number might be just too embarrassing and a positive invitation to the PLAN to come down under more often.

The Department of Defence has proved incompetent in procuring ships. The future frigate program is an exemplar of that procurement failure.  First, it was $30B for 9 ships, then $45B for 9 ships, then $45B for just 6 ships, and there’ll be no new ships delivered to the Navy until 2032.

There is a tender underway for a new off-the-shelf general-purpose frigate, which has a target date for the first delivery of 2029. On-time delivery is not common for Defence projects.

Dumb Ways to Buy: Defence “shambles” unveiled – former submariner and senator Rex Patrick

Alliance fracture

As the PLAN sail west through the Great Australia Bight and off into the distance, some Australians might breathe out and slump back into the traditional ‘she’ll be right’ attitude.

However, with Donald Trump’s re-accession to the US throne, there have been significant changes that one might hope Government and Defence would be paying attention to.

The world is changing rapidly. In just the past few weeks, we’ve seen President Trump floating the idea of a forced taking of the Panama Canal and Greenland in an assault on the norms of rules-based international order.

We’ve also seen the United States Administration cuddling up to Russia in relation to the invasion of Ukraine. There is talk in Europe of the United States walking away from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

There are openly expressed concerns about the reliability of the United States as an ally.

As President Trump shifts his focus to the North American continent in a radical reorientation of US defence policy, Fortress America, it seems Australia needs to be asking the same questions as the Europeans.

Stand on our own

Two decades ago, Australia had a capable, flexible defence force configured for the defence of Australia with the option of expeditionary deployments where our capabilities complemented a multinational operation. 

The current plan on record has abandoned that sovereign goal and focussed on total integration with the US armed forces.

Our forces are now so integrated with and reliant upon the US military that not only is our capability to defend Australia gravely weakened but our own sovereign decision-making is compromised.  

Maybe it’s not just the Chinese that have done us a favour with their task group deployment. President Trump is helping out too.

Australia needs to abandon its bankrupting $368B all-eggs-in-one-basket monolithic AUKUS nuclear submarine program and get back to Defence basics.  We need a modern, capable, flexible and self-reliant Defence force that can meet our own sovereign needs. That is entirely achievable and affordable, provided we make the right decisions now. 

 

This post was originally published on Michael West.

On November 13, a researcher in the Parliamentary Library, Geoff Wade, lodged defamation proceedings against MWM and the author of this story.

On January 30, we attended a case management hearing before Justice Nicholas Owens of the Federal Court of Australia.

We had already made a number of efforts to address Geoff Wade’s concerns with his lawyers Alisa Taylor and Courtney Noble of Canberra law firm MV Law. These were ignored. We were instructed by Justice Owens to prepare a defence.

It was filed yesterday evening (and published below).

We believe the action is vexatious and without merit. Whether the Applicant has been defamed or not is for the Court to decide.

In order to fund the case, we undertook a crowdfunding campaign and surpassed the target of $40k in 24 hours then closed the offer at $48,666. We are deeply appreciative of the community support!

It is important that we are transparent. We pledged to make public the Wade claim (it is published here) and legal correspondence in the matter, including our Defence.

The Defence has just been filed by Sharangan Maheswaran, Mark Davis and Jack Vaughan of XD Law and Advocacy. We publish it below so that supporters and the public can judge for themselves as to the merits of the claim and the defence.

Our legal defences are Contextual Truth, Truth, Public Interest and Qualified Privilege. Wade has been a prolific social media poster mostly interested in Chinese spying in Australia.

His political campaigning included doxing people on Twitter who he believed were connected with the Chinese Communist Party.

In preparation for the story, The Manchurian Candidate, we examined many of Wade’s 60,000 or so tweets, put questions to his lawyers from MV Law, spoke at length with a number of sources who had been distressed by the legal threats from MV Law and put questions to then DPS secretary Rob Stefanic. He responded for the story.

Along with four other publishers – Marcus Reubenstein, Suzy Cong, James Laurenceson and John Menadue – we had previously been threatened with defamation by Mr Wade. Details are here.

Shoebridge takes DPS to task

On Monday morning, DPS was before Senate Estimates. Senator David Shoebridge questioned Deputy Secretary of the Department, Jaala Hinchcliffe, and other department bosses Nicola Hinder and Stephen Fox, as well as Senate President Sue Lines about their knowledge of the Wade activities.

DPS was questioned over a lawsuit – a counter defamation claim against Wade and the Department – from journalist Marcus Reubenstein which was settled in 2021 at a substantial cost to the Commonwealth.

The exchange between Shoebridge and Lines became heated. The DPS responses, though, were mostly to say they would take “questions on notice”, which means they did not know the answers at that time and would respond to the Senate later.

David Shoebridge grills Parliament Services on China tweeter

This post was originally published on Michael West.

Last week’s rate cut and the argy-bargy over how hawkish or indecisive the RBA remains overshadowed important details in our central bank’s statement on monetary policy, Michael Pascoe reveals.

With the Coalition matching Labor’s bulk-billing announcement, blunting a Mediscare campaign, the Albanese Government needs a major differentiator to halt its slide in the polls. The Reserve Bank pointed to one last week: housing.

Not only is the housing crisis not going away, it’s set to worsen according to the RBA’s figures. New dwelling investment is expected to grow by only 0.9% this financial year and just 0.3% in the next. That 2025-26 forecast is a downgrade from 1.3% growth the RBA forecast in November to bugger-all now, to use a technical term.

Jim Chalmers’ May budget was based on a fantasy forecast of 6.25% new dwelling investment growth next year, revised to a still fantastical 5% in December’s mid-year economic forecast.

The RBA has effectively told Jim he’s dreamin’.

Even out in 2026-27 the bank only sees 2.5% growth.

That is nowhere near enough to make a dint in our housing shortage to absorb our population growth. It again labels the “1.2 million new dwellings in five years” target as nonsense. But at the same time, the bank reports there are signs of improved capacity to build shelter.

Capacity growth

The RBA states there are still capacity constraints “for tradespeople employed towards the end of the construction process e.g. plasterers and tilers,” but the RBA’s business liaison contacts “report that builders are offering discounts in some cities in response to weak demand, which has contributed to an unexpected easing in new dwelling inflation.”

“New demand remains weakest in the higher density sector, with liaison contacts continuing to note that construction costs remain too high relative to selling prices, while detached commencements picked up over 2024.”

That cuts to the core of insufficient housing starts. Regardless of a little interest rate cut and some prices falling, prices ran so high as to finally meet buyer resistance on one hand while the cost of building new supply on over-priced land is unprofitable for private developers.

Prices need to fall further to encourage buyers, but lower prices make it harder for developers to take up the various state government offers of higher-density permissions. Leaving housing to “the market” means supply will continue to be inadequate until prices are again on the upward march, maintaining the crisis.

As economist Cameron Murray, one of the very few to see past the developers’ lobby bulldust, sarcastically tweeted: “I thought regulations were the constraint on new homes, but it turns out the market always limits the rate of new housing development.”

Which is where opportunity is knocking for Labor. If “the market” won’t build enough housing as capacity constraints ease, the chance is there for the government to step in to fill the gap.

Government’s responsibility to act

It’s more than the chance; it is the responsibility of the government to do so, as it should in the provision of any essential service where the private sector fails.

The danger for Labor is the knowledge that it already is taking clearly superior housing policy to the election. Dutton’s promise to scrap the Housing Australia Future Fund would end a solid attempt to at least maintain the existing (though inadequate) level of social and affordable housing.

The LNP’s housing policies are all about increasing demand, not filling the gap in supply, listening only to the developers’ lobby, to “the market” that has steadily built this crisis over the past three decades.

Every poll pings housing as one of the electorate’s biggest concerns. If it comes down to deciding which way independent MPs jump with minority government, a clearly positive housing policy versus a clearly negative one should be right up there with the two parties’ climate credibility.

This is the chance for Labor to claim the spirit of Robert Menzies, the founder of the Liberal Party,

in direct government action to support the Great Australian Dream.

It was Menzies who knew housing could not be left to “the market” and poured Federal funding into building both to buy and to rent.

More recently, there was the Social Housing Initiative, an overshadowed but very successful part of the Rudd/Gillard government’s GFC stimulus.

The $5.6B delivered 19,700 new social housing homes plus repairs to 80,000 existing dwellings, including 12,000 major upgrades to housing that was vacant and in danger of becoming uninhabitable.

Without a bigger, bolder initiative, housing supply is set to plod along, maintaining the status quo. The industry reports improving demand for detached houses while the high-rise apartments being promoted by state governments are going nowhere.

The SMH ($) quotes Housing Industry Association economist Tom Devitt: “Land and construction costs are too high both for people to afford those kinds of housing volumes and for it to be viable for the industry to build.”

That looks like tautology to me.

Where governments already own the land, there is the opportunity to do what the private sector cannot and actually get serious about the crisis instead of only trying to be better than the LNP’s drive to push up demand and, therefore, prices.

But it would take strong leadership, bold leadership prepared to have a crack and ignore developers’ lobbying and the doctrinaire rantings of the national dailies.

Three decades of policy failure. Productivity Commission’s housing shame file

 

This post was originally published on Michael West.

Greens senator David Shoebridge grilled the Department of Parliamentary Services in Senate Estimates today over the prolific social media poster in the Library who is suing Michael West Media.

This is “Rough Hansard” (pre transcription) so any changes will be updated.

David Shoebridge (DS) – Thank you for your attendance. Mr [Stephen] Fox (DPS) might be best placed to answer. In 2021, DPS was sued by journalist Marcus Reubenstein in relation to a series of publications that were made by Dr Geoffrey Wade while he was working, and on the company dime. 

Do you remember that legal action against DPS Steven Fox? 

Fox – Thank you. Good morning. I was not in the role in that period. I have been in that role for about 18 months. It precedes my time. 

DS – Do you remember the litigation against DPS? 

Fox – No. I do not. 

DS – Alright. Does anyone have institutional memory of the proceedings? 

Fox – There’s no-one here that was here at the time but we can answer your questions and take them on notice. 

DS – In answers to an earlier round of estimates, it was clear the then Departmental Secretary attended the mediation for those proceedings, Mr Stefanic. And either he or another senior officer was a signatory to a final deed of settlement which saw the Commonwealth make a significant payment. As a result of the actions of Dr Wade. 

Would you produce to this Committee the deed of settlement that was entered into? And whether we are able to in terms of the deed. I’m not asking about the terms of the deed. 

Fox – I’ll take the matter on notice.

DS – You would know the terms of the deed could not override parliamentary privilege? You would know that wouldn’t you?

Fox – I appreciate that and you wouldn’t want me to do something that wasn’t legally possible for me to do and we’ll see what the terms are and come back to you. I’m pushing back on your suggestion if there’s something in the deed that says confidentiality that wouldn’t answer the inquiry to be clear. Ms Hinchcliffe understands the powers of this Committee but also that she has the ability to make a public interest immunity claim, should it be in the public interest.

Senator Shoebridge, please continue. 

DS – Thank you. Was the amount paid in settlement by the Commonwealth to Mr Reubenstein, was it $110,000 or some other amount? If it’s another amount, can you identify it?

Fox – I’ll take it on notice. 

DS – Thank you. Did that include, and if the amount paid under the deed was a set figure – and if you could provide us with that – were there other payments made by the Commonwealth including to their legal costs and what if any legal costs were incurred?

Fox – I’ll take it on notice for you. 

DS – Were there any restrictions or was there any action taken against Dr Wade for costing the Commonwealth more than $100,000 because of the actions he undertook while he was working for the Commonwealth? 

Fox – Any action taken against Dr Wade? I’ll have to take it on notice. 

DS – Alright. When did you say you commenced, Mr Fox? 

Fox – 18 September, 2023. 

DS – In November 2023, I understand a series of questions were put to DPS by an independent media outlet asking if they’re aware that Dr Wade was engaging in further social media commentary during work hours on X under a pseudonym? 

You were the parliamentary librarian at the time. Do you recall that? They were made to the secretary at the time. Was any investigation done as to whether or not Dr Wade was during work hours using that X account?

Fox – I’ll need to take it on notice. That was handled by the office of the secretary at the time. Mr Stefanic was the officer who had the questions directed at him. 

DS – Between Mr Stefanic and Dr Wade, are you in the intermediate management chain?

Fox – Yes. 

DS – Are you saying you weren’t in any way involved in that? 

Fox – I was not. 

DS – That would seem peculiar, the Secretary engages directly with someone — somebody in your employ and you’re totally unaware of it? 

Fox – That was the arrangement that was possibly, and possibly because of the previous issues that were around that you’ve been asking questions about. 

DS – Why are you speculating its relation to previous issues? Did you have some knowledge? 

Fox – I can’t speak for Mr Stefanic’s reason for handling the matter. 

DS – That X account … did engage in quite aggressive political commentary, aggressive political attacks. And was happening during work hours. Was any action taken against Dr Wade in relation to again doing that? 

DPS – Good morning. I’m the Acting Deputy Secretary and the Chief Operating Officer. I have the HR portfolio within my remit. I’m very happy to take that question on notice. I understand that there was some consideration but as to what that consideration was, what that actually found, I’m not aware but I’m very willing to take it back on notice and come back to you. 

DS – Was HR involved in the, was there an investigation following that question in November of 2023? 

DPS – Senator, I would be confident about my myself, but I’d have to take it on notice. R has had some involvement and what that involvement was and what it constituted, I’d like to be able to confirm. 

DS – Okay. We’re left in an uncomfortable situation where we have the whole of the senior management team of the Department here. And nobody can answer whether or not even whether or not an HR investigation was undertaken in relation to a senior researcher for questions that were asked in November of 2023. 

It does seem, given the number of people we have here, and I can name them all, no-one can shed any light on this? 

DPS – That’s a little unfair because the officers have indicated to you they were not the officers at the time. They are doing their best to assist and they have taken it on notice.

DS – That’s not true. Mr Fox was the Parliamentary Librarian at the time. 

DPS – Ms Hinchcliffe has taken the matter on notice. It’s unfair to make that accusation that somehow they have knowledge of this event. 

DS – I didn’t make that accusation. 

DPS – If you wish to make that accusation. They were not the officers. You mischaracterised their evidence. You mischaracterised it. You put words in my mouth. You did. It’s unhelpful when you do that. You’re being unhelpful by making that sweeping generalisation that somehow these officers should know something that happened before they were there. 

DS – To be clear, I don’t know if you heard Mr Fox’s evidence? Did you hear it? Let me finish my question. Would you please let me finish my question? Did you hear Mr Fox’s evidence that he was the parliamentary librarian and had managerial oversight of Dr Wade at the time the questions were directed?

I heard the whole of his evidence which was the former secretary dealt with this matter. Was any disciplinary action taken against Dr Wade as a result of again his inappropriate use of X? 

DPS – Senator, I’m very happy to include that as part of my response when I come back to you. 

DS – Has Dr Wade informed the department that he’s now commenced his own litigation against a series of media outlets? Senator, we are aware that there have been private proceedings that have been launched. Has Dr Wade informed you it’s likely to involve significant engagement about his work and his activities at work which may involve yet more Commonwealth resources? Has he informed you of that? 

DPS – At the moment, my understanding of that is the private legal matter has just commenced. We have not yet had an understanding as to what if any departmental involvement or information might be required. But we are very aware there’s a private matter that’s been launched. 

DS – There’s an obligation if people are working for DPS to be mindful of potential conflicts of interest. Has Dr Wade advised the DPS these proceedings may amount to a conflict of interest as they will inevitably traverse his work as a parliamentary librarian? 

DPS – We are paying close attention to conflicts of interest across the Department. I personally have not sighted Mr Wade’s conflict. I will do so and come back to the Committee.

DS – You say his conflict. If there is a potential conflict that’s been identified. By Mr Wade. So you’re not aware if he has just to be clear? Is that true? 

DPS – I have not sighted his conflict. I’m not saying whether or not he has or not yet declared one. There’s an obligation to as soon as you’re aware of a potential conflict to notify your employer of it? There’s an obligation to be mindful of their personal and work interactions and to declare possible or potential conflicts as they arise. 

So if you would on notice provide any such conflict, notice of conflict to the Committee, indicate, if one has been made, indicate on what date any such conflict was made? 

DPS – Happy to take it on notice, Senator. 

DS – And just so there’s absolutely unambiguous, can whoever is in a position in DPS to answer this, advise if there was an investigation of the X account, whether or not Dr Wade confirmed he was the author of or the owner of such an account? 

DPS – Happy to take it on notice. 

DS – If there was an investigation of the Twitter account, what if any conclusions were made in relation to that investigation? 

DPS – Happy to take that on notice, Senator. I understand it was deleted a few days after the queries were made to DPS. 

DS – Again, if the investigation hit a blank wall because it was deleted, whether or not any actions were taken for deleting a necessary source of investigation.

DPS – I’ll take it on notice. 

—- The author discloses a potential conflict of interest. Geoff Wade has launched defamation proceedings against MWM and the author of this story. We are defending the claim. Details here.

 

This post was originally published on Michael West.

A senior army officer who dismissed sex abuse complaints as alcohol-related was appointed to lead SAS “reforms” ahead of the Brereton war crimes report. Stuart McCarthy reports.

The Albanese government’s appointment of recently retired Defence Chief General Angus Campbell as Ambassador to Belgium, NATO and the European Union has reignited a long-running sex abuse scandal in the infantry battalion, which was commanded by Campbell in East Timor at the turn of the century.

The controversy highlights deep-rooted cultural and institutional problems among the defence force’s most senior generals, their failures to deal with sexual and other serious abuse, and what former soldiers call “gross hypocrisy at the highest command levels” throughout the Afghanistan war crimes saga.

Adding fuel to the controversy is how a decorated senior army officer who dismissed complaints about sex abuse by a Sergeant – the Sergeant was later convicted of multiple rapes and sexual assaults – was appointed to lead in-house Defence “reforms” of the SAS ahead of Major General Paul Brereton’s landmark 2020 report on alleged war crimes in Afghanistan.

The officer now acknowledges his initial conclusions that the complaints were alcohol-related rather than sexual in nature proved to be incorrect once the facts became known.

Three decades after the abuse occurred in the Townsville-based 2nd Battalion, the Royal Australian Regiment (2 RAR), a group of survivors and family members profoundly affected by ongoing trauma are now calling for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to launch an independent investigation into more evidence of sexual abuse involving the same former Sergeant.

They also want the probe to examine “potential cover-ups” by officers up the chain of command. The group has given MWM credible accounts of an additional alleged rape and at least two additional alleged sexual assaults that occurred in the battalion during the mid-1990s and says there are “likely” to have been more.

Australia’s Afghanistan war crimes a serious challenge for Albanese government

Apologise, Review, Rinse, Repeat

In 2012, then Defence Minister Stephen Smith apologised in Parliament to the victims of sexual abuse in the defence force after a 1500-page review by law firm DLA Piper uncovered several hundred credible allegations of abuse, including rape and sexual assault. He told Parliament the government’s “actions and commitment into the future” would ensure such an apology “will never have to be repeated.”

The government responded to the DLA Piper report by establishing the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (DART), initially led by Major-General Len Roberts-Smith, which eventually found 1,723 “plausible” complaints of sexual abuse at the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA), resulting in more than $60 million in “reparation” payments at a maximum of $50,000 per individual complainants. The final DART report in 2016 says a total of 133 complaints comprising 191 separate abuse allegations “that could constitute a criminal offence” were referred to state and territory police forces.

Defence abuse expert Professor Ben Wadham told MWM he doesn’t know if any of those referrals have resulted in actual prosecutions, “Through my research, there have been numerous cases of individuals who experienced institutional abuse and sexual assault where the perpetrators have been identified but have not come before the criminal justice system for resolution.

The principal barrier is jurisdictional authority between the military justice system and civilian police.

Wadham is the director of the ‘Open Door: Improving the Wellbeing of Veterans, Public Safety Personnel and their Families’ research initiative at Flinders University and provided key testimony on institutional abuse to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide (DVSRC).

The cycle sadly continues. As recently as 2021, Campbell reportedly warned a class of ADFA officer cadets not to go out late at night and consume alcohol while presenting themselves as “attractive” to avoid falling “prey” to sexual abuse. Critics suggested Campbell’s comments were “dangerous” and “outdated,” leading to “victim blaming” and “barriers to the victims of sexual assault being able to talk.” Campbell responded, saying his speech was “misinterpreted by some.”

Bystander behaviour

The 2 RAR survivor group also accuses the senior Defence hierarchy of the same “bystander behaviour” that top generals blamed for enabling Australian special forces war crimes in Afghanistan.

MWM can also reveal military police involved in an investigation into the conduct of the former Sergeant at 2 RAR raised concerns about the possibility of similar misconduct in the 1st Recruit Training Battalion (1 RTB) at Wagga Wagga, where he previously served as a recruit instructor.

These concerns are shared by other sources who have recently spoken to MWM.

The Courier Mail reported in 2012 that a 1994 complaint of two sexual assaults committed by the Sergeant was made to then Major Shane Caughey, a company commander in 2 RAR.

Defence documents, including a sworn statement from the complainant, show Caughey dismissed the complaint on the grounds that there was “never a hint” of the Sergeant’s homosexuality.

One year later the Queensland Police charged the Sergeant with raping a soldier at a civilian residence, then another soldier came forward with rape and assault allegations. The Sergeant was eventually convicted of assaulting four soldiers and raping two, sentenced to imprisonment by civilian and military authorities, and discharged from the defence force.

Defence documents also show that in 2001 Caughey – by then a Lieutenant Colonel – was issued a “show cause” notice after an investigation found the rape at the civilian residence “arguably” could have been prevented if the earlier sexual assault complaint had been handled “more rigorously.”

Not so secret military justice review at odds with suicide royal commission

Incomplete information

MWM does not allege any wrongdoing by Caughey. However, his documented handling of the complaint does illustrate cultural and institutional barriers to sex abuse reporting at the defence force leadership level. To Caughey’s credit, he responded to MWM’s query in his private capacity, not representing Defence or any other organisation.

He says he is not aware of any other reported or alleged offences or suspicions held by the military police in relation to the former Sergeant’s service at 1 RTB prior to his 2 RAR posting. On his handling of the initial complaint, Caughey acknowledges that based on “incomplete information” initially provided to him, “My initial conclusion that these incidents were not sexual in nature, but were actions consistent with disorientation based on excessive alcohol consumption … proved to be incorrect once all facts became known.”

For legal reasons and to protect the identities of survivors and their families, MWM will not name the former Sergeant or the complainants. The abuse survivors who spoke to MWM are fearful of the repercussions if their identities are exposed by Defence officials motivated by containing reputation damage to themselves or 2 RAR.

Culture of impunity

The abuse survivors say this is why they need Albanese’s direct intervention with an investigation “completely independent” of Defence and the military justice system. They cite a “culture of impunity, gross hypocrisy and arse-covering” in the defence force senior leadership – laid bare throughout the Brereton inquiry and the DVSRC – as justification for appealing to Albanese.

During the DVSRC’s proceedings the Commission’s chair Nick Kaldas – a former Deputy NSW Police Commissioner – publicly flayed Defence’s top brass for “catastrophic leadership failures.”

A key finding in the DVSRC final report last year was that the “military justice system” – including the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force (IGADF) – had been “weaponised” against complainants and other Defence personnel affected by their inquiries, often through the abuse of administrative law as a proxy for criminal proceedings.

The Brereton inquiry was held under the auspices of the IGADF and has been heavily criticised for its failure to find command culpability on the part of senior defence force officers. Brereton was appointed by the Albanese Government as the inaugural head of the National Anti-Corruption Commission in July 2023.

Caughey told MWM he categorically denies there were cover-ups through the chain of command. He says new allegations or evidence of abuse should be “referred to the civilian police.” Regarding the survivors, he says:

It is my strong desire and hope that any person impacted directly or indirectly by the actions of [the former Sergeant] be afforded all available support for their ongoing trauma.

Despite his 2001 “show cause” notice, Caughey rose through the ranks to Major General and retired from the defence force in 2018. Until recently, he performed the honorary role of Colonel Commandant of the Royal Australian Regiment, the parent organisation of the Army’s regular infantry battalions.

Royal Commission into Veteran Suicide confronts lawfare, cronyism and a bureaucratic nightmare

Brereton Inquiry

Amid growing war crimes speculation and media leaks around the Brereton inquiry’s proceedings in 2019, Caughey was appointed to the role of independent “special forces advisor,” answerable to then Chief of Army Lieutenant General Rick Burr.

Burr told The Australian in 2020 ($) that Caughey’s mandate was to “support and monitor the implementation of reforms” to the SAS recommended in a 2018 review of the Army’s special operations command by former spy chief David Irvine.

Caughey’s appointment coincided with Burr’s vocal, public attacks on junior and middle-ranking special forces troops in Afghanistan for “bystander behaviour” enabling war crimes. Burr said to The Australian at the time:

It’s critical to our profession that people call out bad behaviour when they see it … we want our people to call it out so it can be acted on quickly.

The current Defence staff directory indicates Caughey remains in his special forces reform role to this day, presumably as a contractor or consultant. (MWM asked Defence to confirm Caughey’s current employment status, but they did not respond.)

Survivor group call for investigation

The 2 RAR survivor group’s calls for an independent investigation are backed by experts in military law and Defence abuse, one of whom says the investigation should have the powers of a royal commission.

Professor Wadham told MWM the defence force remains “manifestly incapable” of holding itself to account for institutional failures in responding to abuse cases such as this one. He says that when survivors and families meet institutional barriers to reporting abuse, they “find  another way.”

In Wadham’s view, appealing to executive government via the media is a “perfectly legitimate” approach to seeking recourse, citing the 2011 ADFA Skype sex scandal that triggered the DLA Piper review and DART, among other more recent examples.

The former 2 RAR soldiers who spoke to MWM on condition of confidentiality were in their late teens to early twenties at the time of the abuse. At least one has chronic, “treatment resistant” post-traumatic stress disorder so severe he has undergone the controversial electro-convulsive treatment. One of their spouses told MWM:

“I believe the proven and alleged abuse, cover-up, and then promotion of those responsible for the cover-up have eroded the trust of the entire battalion and significantly contributed to the distortion of culture that has played out in these men’s lives. A culture of silence was not only encouraged but reinforced by the 2 RAR hierarchy, then backed up through the highest ranks when Caughey was promoted. 2 RAR is a battalion sworn to secrecy, and its darkness stemmed from the top down.”

Military lawyer and Defence analyst Dr Glenn Kolomeitz says the defence force’s mishandling of the abuse in 2 RAR thus far “is classic Defence incompetence stuff.” He told MWM:

“Not only is an independent inquiry warranted, it should have the powers of a royal commission to seize departmental documents, protect the witnesses and tackle the jurisdictional issues arising from sex offences in a military setting. Hand-passing this to IGADF or the civilian police would be a blunder.”

Command responsibility

Dr Kolomeitz drafted Senator Jacqui Lambie’s 2023 referral of senior defence force officers to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court for an investigation into the war crime of command responsibility.

The referral was triggered by the Albanese Government’s failure to initiate criminal proceedings against senior officers who knew or should have known war crimes were being committed by troops under their command in Afghanistan but failed to take action.

An independent oversight report discrediting Brereton’s exoneration of the Defence leadership was suppressed for months last year by Defence Minister Richard Marles, until the day military whistleblower David McBride was sentenced to more than five years in jail, for disclosing classified documents implicating senior officers in command culpability for crimes identified in the Brereton report.

Richard Marles concealed war crimes report, denying justice for David McBride

Angus Campbell’s role

The sex abuse survivors and family members who spoke to MWM are scathing in their criticisms of “gross hypocrisy” among 2 RAR officers and their peers who rose through the ranks to senior command and leadership appointments in the years leading up to the Brereton inquiry and DVSRC. One former soldier said to MWM:

How on earth did [Campbell] become chief of the defence force after the [sex abuse] shit-fight in 2 RAR? He and his mates were the worst bystanders.

Although the sexual abuse occurred years before Campbell took command of 2 RAR in 2001, the survivors accuse Campbell and his peers of “turning a blind eye” not only to the initial abuse complaints, but the ongoing health and welfare needs of affected soldiers and families who were – and remain – badly traumatised.

Campbell was later the national commander of Australian troops in the Middle East and Afghanistan in 2011, then promoted to Chief of Army in 2015. His referral of so-called “rumours” of war crimes to the IGADF in 2016 triggered the Brereton inquiry.

Campbell and Burr were leading proponents of the now-debunked “we didn’t know” narrative in efforts to circumvent criminal liability for command responsibility under Australian and international law.

One of the more notorious war crimes identified in the Brereton report was, in fact, publicly reported to Prime Minister Julia Gillard, Defence Minister Stephen Smith and Defence Force Chief General David Hurley by the President of Afghanistan in 2012, four years before Campbell’s IGADF referral.

MWM has approached Albanese, Marles and Defence Personnel Minister Matt Keogh for comment, asking if they support the 2 RAR survivors’ calls for an independent inquiry into the abuse and potential command cover-ups.

Our media query to Albanese was flicked to Defence, but after agreeing to an extended deadline, we have received no response from either Defence or the Prime Minister’s office.

They didn’t know, really? Pursue top brass over alleged war crimes in Afghanistan, says veteran

This post was originally published on Michael West.

While much of the ire over Whyalla’s struggling steel plant has centred on the billionaire formerly at its helm, how was the situation allowed to fester for so long? Where was ASIC? Andrew Gardiner reports.

The turmoil surrounding Whyalla’s steelworks – now in administration amid a promised Federal-State bailout – took a new turn on Thursday, with attacks on the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The regulator was accused of being “asleep at the wheel” at the plant’s peril, while billionaire owner Sanjeev Gupta “worked on renovation approvals for his $34m Sydney mansion”. 

In a letter to ASIC chairman Joseph Longo, Senator Jacqui Lambie called on the regulator to belatedly investigate the plant’s former owners, the Gupta Family Group (GFG), for reportedly trading while insolvent. With 1,100 jobs on the line and hundreds of others relying on the steelworks, Senator Lambie said the signs were there for months that something was seriously wrong.

“ASIC is still oblivious to what’s going on? So I’ve got a message for Mr Longo – I’ve got a Christmas card list and a bullseye list, and you’re about to be shifted from one to the other,” she told MWM. 

“GFG has been operating in circumstances of grave financial difficulties and an apparent inability to pay its debts, large and small when they were due,” Lambie wrote in her letter to ASIC. “For months on end, the people and businesses of Whyalla have been suffering (and it) can’t be that GFG directors can just walk away from this scot-free,” she added later. 

“In November, Rex Patrick and I publicly called for (GFG subsidiary One Steel Manufacturing) to be put into administration.

Mr Longo is getting paid $858k per annum and appears to be doing nothing for those paying his way.

Senator Jacqui Lambie

In extraordinary scenes on Wednesday, the SA Government moved to place One Steel into administration, appointing KordaMentha as administrator, and ramming changes to the Whyalla Steel Works Act through state parliament with haste some say should have been seen months ago.

From Whyalla to Williamtown, for KordaMentha, where there’s a bill there’s a way

The move came after alarm bells were raised over the failure by GFG – a group with annual worldwide revenue of around $20B – to restore its crippled blast furnace to full capacity, and January’s announcement by the company of 350 contractor job cuts, a move which blindsided workers.

Rescue package in place

On Thursday, the state and federal governments announced details of a $2.4B plan to rescue the steelworks, including plant upgrades and close to $2B in subsidies for a new private owner.

The three-part plan includes $32.6m for infrastructure improvement, $50m for creditors, and $6m for a jobs and skills hub, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said. 

Another $384m of state and federal funds was expected to ensure workers and contractors at Whyalla Steelworks get paid while the plant is in a state of flux. 

Albanese said a further $1.9B would be used to “work with a new owner to invest in the upgrades and new infrastructure” to ensure the steelworks has a sustainable, long-term future, 

Whyalla Steel has forged some of our country’s biggest projects – rail lines, airports and stadiums. We need Whyalla steel.

But is the bailout package enough? SA’s Treasury previously estimated the cost of transforming Whyalla’s steelworks at $3B, and of the $2.4B pledged, some $500m is earmarked for debts, payrolls and other ‘stabilisation’ efforts, leaving a shortfall of at least $1.1B, presumably for the new owner to fork up.

This is by no means the first time ASIC has drawn the ire of a Senator. Last September, Malcolm Roberts expressed serious reservations about the regulator’s investigation of ABC Bullion amid allegations the company charged clients storage fees for metal that wasn’t even in their vaults.

Bullion failures. ASIC disregards Senate and ignores whistleblower evidence

Trading while insolvent is a situation where companies continue to operate and rack up further debts, despite being unable to pay earlier debts when they were due. Penalties under the Corporations Act include a five year ban from managing other corporations and reparations to creditors or liquidators.

Reports estimate GFC’s and One Steel’s debts at more than $300m, while Sanjeev Gupta has a reported net worth of around $2.8B.

A bright green steel future for Australia? What’s the scam?

This post was originally published on Michael West.

In a landmark Administrative Review Tribunal decision, public servants have been warned their secrecy culture is unlawful and must end. Rex Patrick reports.

The Albanese Government forked out tens of thousands of taxpayer’s dollars in legal fees to Clayton Utz to resist releasing a Ministerial brief on the prospective extinction of the Maugean Skate. That’s public money not well spent.

And the government’s resistance has delayed the release of the brief by more than a year, which will make the information less valuable from a public oversight perspective. That’s not good news for the Skates; and it’s another all too familiar example of political and bureaucratic obstruction of government transparency.

But this decision is very significant. It delivered a massive win for future transparency, sternly warning public servants that

the secrecy culture inside government is unlawful and that public service leaders and managers are responsible for stopping it.

Back in November 2023 I made an FOI request to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) for briefings they had provided Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek in relation to reconsideration of a decision concerning marine farming in Macquarie Harbour, Tasmania.

A brief was identified by Brendan Linton-Smith, an Acting Branch Head in DCCEEW, but he refused access to the entirety of the brief.

I took the matter to the Information Commissioner and asked her not to review the decision, but to allow me to take the matter straight to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (as it was then called). I did not have time for the FOI to sit with the Information Commissioner for several years while a fish species was potentially going extinct.

The Information Commissioner agreed to this, and when the matter was moved to the AAT, the Department assigned Ms Rachel Short, a permanent branch head in DCCEEW, to defend the Department’s secrecy claims.

She drew the short straw and ended up being slammed by the Tribunal.

Saving Tasmania’s Maugean Skate – a victim of extinction politics

Ms Short gave written evidence and was cross-examined by me on the day of the hearing. She protested the brief’s release by suggesting to the Tribunal that “… it was important that those preparing briefs containing opinion and advice based on an analysis of a preliminary nature do so in the knowledge that the brief will remain confidential to the intended recipients …”

(Not so) frank and fearless

Unfortunately for Ms Short, the Tribunal member was Nicholas Manetta, Doctor of Philosophy in Administrative Law (Cambridge), and a part-time lecturer in Administrative Law at the University of South Australia. He wasn’t going to have any of Ms Short’s codswallop.

He started off early in his judgement:

“Ms Short’s contention does not address what I have assumed to be a clearly uncontroversial fact; namely, that, generally speaking, federal public servants must have become used to their documents being made available under the FOI Act. The FOI Act was passed in 1982, more than forty years ago. I do not accept the general premise of Ms Short’s contention; namely, that public servants in the respondent’s Department expect today to work in an environment of confidentiality in relation to their preliminary advice and reports to the Minister.”

He then added:

“To the contrary, I believe I should proceed on the basis that public servants are aware, at least in a general way, that the FOI Act may require disclosure of departmental work, whether of a preliminary nature or otherwise.”

But Ms Short held firm in her belief this it is reasonable to suppose that public servants might restrict the content of their noting briefs because of a fear of successful FOI Act requests.

Dr Manetta, relying in part on my submissions, articulated the situation.

“Mr Patrick submitted that the contention needs to be evaluated carefully against the background of the responsibilities that APS managers and employees have under the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth). Section 10 of the Public Service Act specifies ‘APS values’. Section 10(5) of the Public Service Act provides that the APS is ‘apolitical and provides the Government with advice that is frank, honest, timely and based on the best available evidence.

“Section 13 of the Public Service Act then requires public servants to act honestly, with integrity, with care and diligence, and in a manner that supports APS values. These values include the value to which I have just made specific reference. An employee must also act in accordance with any direction given by a manager: see section 13(5) of the Public Service Act.”

Precedent set

Having spelt out how public servants must conduct themselves, Dr Manetta turned his mind to the responsibilities of senior public servants:

“An agency head is, furthermore, required to uphold and promote APS values: see section 12 of the Public Service Act. I think this latter requirement includes a responsibility to promote a culture of upholding APS values within an agency.”

He then laid down the law (literally):

“If Ms Short’s analysis were correct, it would mean that public servants in her branch could well choose to operate in a way that is contrary to APS values (and, therefore, in breach of their obligations under the Public Service Act) merely because my decision might require disclosure of their preliminary work on this occasion. If there is a risk of the type identified by Ms Short, there appears to be a relatively straightforward way to address it; namely, by reinforcement of APS values within her agency (whether by formal direction or otherwise).”

Rex Patrick’s Federal Court win a victory for transparency and a loss for government secrecy

Dereliction of duty

Ms Short also suggested that if the Tribunal allowed access to the brief, the Department would be less likely to engage in preliminary analysis and provide advice to the Minister or may prefer to provide advice orally rather than in writing.

Dr Manetta has killed that idea off in his decision, further pointing out the clear legal duties of public servants.

“One APS value is, as I have said, the provision of timely, honest, careful and diligent advice to the Minister. That advice will be provided in the manner expected by the Minister and in accordance with proper recordkeeping obligations within the Department.

“Those tasked with the management of the public service and liaising with the Minister’s office can be expected, in my opinion, to ensure that the Minister remains properly informed, and informed in writing where it is appropriate to do so. This is a fundamental aspect of public administration.

“I do not accept the submission that acceding to the FOI request in this case could reasonably be expected to result in a dereliction in the performance of this core task in the ways mentioned by Ms Short.”

Dr Manetta then went on to declare that almost all the briefs were to be released. The Department has the option to appeal the decision to the Federal Court. I suspect that they won’t go there because they won’t want an even higher authority upholding Dr Manetta’s decision and reasoning.

The brief will be made public sometime in the next three weeks.

The full ART decision and the reasons can be found here.

Transparency leadership

Dr Manetta’s decision is a strong one that FOI officers will now have to take regard of. If they dare advance a “chilling effect” excuse in their decisions, they can expect to have those decisions overturned by reference to Dr Manetta’s decision, which is landmark in nature.

The only thing missing in the Manetta’s decision was a reference to the need for transparency culture to be driven from the very top; that is by ministers and the prime minister. That’s been a conspicuous failure of the Albanese Government who went to the last election promising transparency and failed to deliver it.

Indeed, in respect of FOI they have turned out to be as bad if not worse than their political predecessors.

This is something to consider as we approach the polling booths sometime before May 17, although no one should expect, based on past performance, that Dutton and his posse of ministers would do any better on the transparency front.

FOI reform will have to be pushed by the crossbench and independents, perhaps from the vantage point of the parliamentary balance of power, and buttressed by a growing pile of ART and Federal Court decisions that provide the legal scaffolding for improved FOI transparency.

The fish that could bring Snowy Hydro to a permanent stop

 

This post was originally published on Michael West.

Is the Productivity Commission in breach of international law by its support for Israel lobby Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce? Michael West reports.

Chair of Australia’s Productivity Commission, Danielle Wood, has declined to respond to questions about her agency’s support for Israel lobby group Australia Israel Chamber of Commerce (AICC).

According to lawyers contacted by MWM, Ms Wood and the PC may be in breach of the Commission’s own policy guidelines which state “In the performance of its functions, the Commission must have regard to the need … for Australia to meeting its international obligations and commitments”.

Ms Wood, a respected Australian economist, is due to present before the AICC on February 13, 2025.

As reported by MWM last month, the AICC, has been funded by companies such as Elbit Systems whose weapons have been used in human rights abuses in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon.

Further, the investigation found that AICC associate IACC had been involved in funding illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Investigation: elite Australian big business group monetises Israeli war machine

Legal opinion obtained by MWM questioned whether Mr Wood’s association with the AICC would “be publicly seen as supporting and or tacitly endorsing or otherwise ignoring the many egregious alleged violations of international law and Australia’s international legal obligations as well as the PC’s own legislative/statutory policy guidelines (namely subsection 8(1)(j) of the PC Act), and thus showing public support for, promoting and thereby enriching (via non-member ticket sales/ promoting membership purchases, and general notoriety as a powerful business lobby) for the AICC”.

Money raised by the AICC because of the Wood presentation “may well end up funding violations of international law whether directly or indirectly”.

The opinion cites Israeli companies involved in the “perpetration of war crimes, atrocities and what the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has declared to be a “plausible” genocide in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories such as Elbit Systems.

“The Australian government has a positive legal duty to prevent and punish genocide, including investigating and prosecuting persons suspected of being involved in genocide and atrocity crimes at both international law (the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention) and the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute)) and at domestic law, namely Division 268 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code (as contained in the Schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)).”

According to the advice Ms Wood’s “mandatory statutory responsibilities as provided by section 8(1)(j) of the PC Act, as Chair of a statutory body appointed by the Governor-General”, the chair and directors are agents and representatives of the Australian Government.

“Australia has numerous binding obligations at international including with regards to international human rights law, various UN treaties and conventions it has ratified (including by enshrining those obligations in Australian domestic law).

Where it can be proved that the AICC (and its associated entity, the IACC) are involved in various violations of international law in the OPT, arguably, by appearing at the upcoming AICC event on February 13, 2025, Ms Wood would be publicly seen as supporting and or tacitly endorsing or otherwise ignoring the many egregious alleged violations of international law and Australia’s international legal obligations as well as her own legislative/statutory policy guidelines (namely subsection 8(1)(j) of the PC Act), and thus showing public support for, promoting and thereby enriching (via non-member ticket sales/ promoting membership purchases, and general notoriety as a powerful business lobby) for the AICC.

MWM twice approached the PC for comment for this story but there was no response.

Elbit: how Australia helped finance the IDF killing of Zomi Frankcom and the slaughter in Gaza

This post was originally published on Michael West.

We are being sued for defamation in the Federal Court of Australia. This legal action poses an existential threat to MWM and, therefore, a threat to the livelihoods of the journalists and producers, which many of you have supported over the years.

The claim is weak and vexatious, but we have been forced to defend it because the claimant and his lawyers from MV Law have refused to respond to any of our offers to address their concerns. Instead, they served us personally at home with the claim.

We will publish the legal correspondence, including the claim, in this story in order to be fully transparent in raising money and for readers to make an informed decision as to whether it is worth supporting our defence.

In short, the man making the claim is Geoff Wade who is a researcher in the Parliamentary Library in Canberra. Wade has been a prolific political campaigner on social media, warning about the threat from China and groups and individuals in Australia allegedly aligned with the Chinese Communist Party who are seemingly acting in the interests of a foreign government.

He has threatened us before, along with others including John Menadue of Pearls and Irritations, independent journalist Marcus Reubenstein, and UTS professor James Laurenceson.

 

Following this claim against five publishers (two of them on Twitter), Geoff Wade was countersued for defamation by Marcus Reubenstein, who added the Commonwealth as a defendant (Department of Parliamentary Services) for vicarious liability as Wade had been tweeting as part of his political campaign during work hours at Parliament House, which is against the DPS Code of Conduct.

The settlement in that matter is confidential, but it emerged in Senate Estimates that the government insurer, Comcover, picked up costs. Costs were therefore borne by the public.

We received a Concerns Notice in this latest matter from Geoff Wade and his solicitors from MV Law: Courtney Noble and Alisa Taylor:

As soon as possible, after receiving this notice, we did what we always do, addressed the concerns of the complainant.

After making two phone calls to Wade’s solicitors MV Law to discuss the concerns of Geoff Wade (they did not return our calls), we promptly responded by email to their Concerns Notice, making an offer to correct any errors in the story (we say there are none) and inviting him to respond:

Neither Wade nor his solicitors responded. We were later served at home by a process server and required to attend Court.

The Judge, Justice Owens, strongly recommended that we seek legal representation (for the company) and has ordered that we file a defence On February 20. The orders a laid out here:

So it is that we are already racking up costs while trying to do the journalism, make payroll and deal with lawyers to defend the matter, a matter we had done everything to avoid against a claim which we will contend is full of falsehoods.

We have sought on five occasions (two phone calls and 3 emails) to address the concerns of Geoff Wade and his lawyers, even taking down the central story complained of – something we have never done. This is our initial response to MV Law:

Having been forced to defend the Wade claim, there is no choice, we are launching a crowdfunding campaign to pay for the legal costs, and also another pitch to the public to support the journalism during this difficult time 

We will publish our defence in due course when it has been completed and attend mediation as instructed by the Judge.

We receive an average of four legal threats a year, mostly defamation. The company has not made one payout or settlement in almost ten years. We deal with complaints promptly and address the grievances of those who complain.

Here is Geoff Wade’s statement of claim:

We will also publish our defence when that is filed and keep readers and supporters up to speed with events as they occur. Geoff Wade’s claim includes a claim for significant harm as he asserts that he was unable to secure academic posts at places like Princeton University due to our coverage.

We say we have not defamed him, and the story is in the public interest given Wade’s public activities on social media, with more than 60,000 posts on social media, which included doxing of people he suspected were linked to the Chinese Communist Party.

The problem with litigation is not only that it is costly but also that there is high risk of a negative outcome due to legal technical things. So, even if we are convinced that we have published the truth, and have no choice but to defend ourselves via the court process, there is a risk of adverse judgement and costs.

If you can afford to support independent journalism, please contribute here. Conservatively, we are seeking $40,000 in the Chuffed crowdfunding exercise. We opted for Chuffed because it is an Australian company and has no record of freezing fundraisings as Gofundme did in the case of David McBride.

It will be our ten year anniversary in July and it is only with the support of subscribers that we have managed to get this far. Thank you.

This post was originally published on Michael West.

Senator Jacqui Lambie will today introduce bills to cap salaries for senior bureaucrats and university Vice Chancellors at $430,000, just below what Treasurer Jim Chalmers takes home. Andrew Gardiner reports.

If there’s one topic guaranteed to generate suburban ire during tough times, it has to be: “fat cats getting cushy, well-paid jobs to do sweet FA”. The latest lightning rod for this popular vexation is none other than Bill Shorten, who, come March, will be earning over a quarter of a million dollars more as Vice Chancellor at the University of Canberra (UC) than he would have as Prime Minister, the job he missed out on at the “unlosable election” of 2019.

In fairness to the retiring NDIS minister, Shorten actually asked for less money than the current UC Vice Chancellor; his $860,000 per year is well below the seven-figure average at that level of academia. For that sum, he will be (among other things) “a networker and campaigner (who) promotes the University and develops productive and beneficial relationships with government, industry and community.”

Bill Shorten has weighed into the Uni Vice Chancellor’s salary debate using the ‘Goldilocks principle’. $1M+ is too much, Jacqui Lambie’s $430K cap is too little, but $850K is just right. He thinks the wage he’s got is “excellent”, but offers little justification for it 🤷‍♂️#auspol pic.twitter.com/Cos86I1mnK

— Rex Patrick (@MrRexPatrick) February 3, 2025

That’s the kind of gig that generates anger at kitchen tables, and who better to speak for the suburbs than Senator Jacqui Lambie? “Vice Chancellors are paid by the Federal Government, but the spend is overseen by the states – they don’t care because it’s not their money!”

“To add insult to injury, these huge salaries are being paid at the top of an industry that’s engaged in massive wage theft from poorly paid staff who actually teach students,” she added.

“We need a big stick, a federal law to significantly cut and cap the salaries of vice-chancellors, rather than a powerless advisory body (with no legislation or enforcement) which the government wants.”

Academics strike as wage theft spreads, uni executive salaries soar

Today in Parliament, Senator Lambie will introduce two bills aimed not just at academic salaries but at what she calls “the obscene entitlement” at the top of our federal bureaucracy. “I’m still fuming that someone like Catherine Campbell got a nearly million-dollar gig after she presided over Robodebt,” Lambie told MWM.

Two amendment bills

The Remuneration Tribunal Amendment Bill (aimed at senior public servants) and the Tertiary Education Legislation Amendment (for the academics) are right up Lambie’s alley, addressing hot-button issues for struggling families and giving her the chance to vent – as only she can – on the Senate floor.

It’s good politics for both Lambie and smaller players on the Senate cross-bench, but can it get up?

Lambie’s point is clear. Australia’s top public servants and military officers are among the highest-paid in the world, taking home salaries much higher than in the United States.  

Take the new Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. His responsibilities dwarf those of our Foreign Affairs and Trade secretary, Jan Adams, but his salary is capped at just US$400,000 ($635,000), while Adams pocketed a cool $1,025,301 in 2023-24.

Lambie told MWM., “Departmental Secretaries have important responsibilities, and their pay should be appropriate to ensure those positions are competitively filled by capable people, but

the present levels of pay at the top of the bureaucratic and academic trees don’t pass the pub test.

Senior salaries out of control

Adding to that consternation is the often-yawning gap between government ministers and unelected department heads or senior academics (see table above).

“The Remuneration Tribunal (which decides public service wages) has simply let these salaries run away, and Senator Lambie’s bill seeks to remedy that,” former Senator Rex Patrick, who is running for election again this year, pointed out.

“As for senior academics, the university boards who fork out these seven-figure packages are either oblivious to, or have no regard for, the struggles of ordinary Australians and don’t have to answer to anyone,” he added. “After all, it’s just taxpayer’s money.”

The bill targeting academic salaries amends existing legislation to set a statutory limit of $430,000 for Vice Chancellors, ensuring compliance by allowing the relevant agency to obtain Vice-Chancellor salary details.

An explanatory memorandum for the bill covering senior public servants also outlines a remuneration cap of $430,000. “Any variation from that limit will be a direct political responsibility of the government of the day and will be subject to parliamentary disallowance.”

MWM contacted both Universities Australia (formerly the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee) and the Remuneration Tribunal in Canberra for a response to Senator Lambie’s comments, but neither had replied by deadline.

Forcing a Senate Inquiry?

Former Senator and South Australia candidate for the Lambie Network at the forthcoming election says, “The bills will be popular in the wider community, and this may lead to a Senate Inquiry, with Vice-Chancellors and senior bureaucrats called to justify their salaries and explain just what it is they do to earn them. It will be a case of ‘you bring the popcorn, and I’ll bring the choc tops’,” he chuckled.

Private member’s bills like these rarely make it through both houses of Parliament and into law, and this pair must run the gauntlet of both major parties (55 Senators out of 76), many of whose alumni wind up in the very same cushy, taxpayer-funded jobs that so irk Australians. One insider told MWM:

They probably won’t get up, but they’ll cause a lot of discomfort in the process.

The tabling of these bills comes as Labor and the LNP look at ‘electoral reform’ legislation described as a “major party stitch-up” which threatens the political futures of independents and minor parties.

An $800,000 cap on spending per lower house electorate would harm both current and prospective cross-benchers, the latter needing to spend big to raise their profiles. Donations or gifts from an individual would be capped at $20,000 per candidate for independents or per state division for parties.

“If it gets up, there will be fewer private members bills like Lambie’s, less diversity and hardly any voices of dissent,” the insider lamented. “At this point in its history, Australia desperately needs dissent.”

The UniParty Reform | The West Report

 

This post was originally published on Michael West.