21 February 2025

Following passage of the Veterans’ Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Act 2025, the first level of external merits review for all claim decisions made after 21 April will be to the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB), regardless of which Act a veteran has coverage under. The VRB is a non-adversarial, low-cost jurisdiction.

This extends access to the VRB for veterans whose claims came under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (DRCA).

The introduction of a ‘single review pathway’ simply means that if you are not happy with your claim outcome after 21 April, you can lodge an appeal for the decision to be reviewed by the VRB, without having to go straight to the Administrative Review Tribunal.

Information on how to appeal to the VRB will be included in determination letters from April. If the VRB does not uphold your appeal, you can then take the matter to the Administrative Review Tribunal.

More information is on our website: www.dva.gov.au/legislationreform

The F-35B is designed for short take-off and vertical landing, allowing it to operate from small runways or ship decks (Picture: Royal Navy)

The F-35 Lightning II is one of the most sophisticated military aircraft in the world, with its A and B models sharing many core systems but remaining distinctly different in their capabilities. While Japan already operates the F-35A, the conventional land-based variant, the Japan Air Self-Defence Force (JASDF) is now being introduced to the F-35B.

Working with experienced F-35 pilots as part of the US Patuxent River Integrated Test Force, specialists are conducting a series of tests with the F-35B to ensure its successful integration. These trials aim to provide Japan with recommendations on how to fully operate the aircraft in the future. They also involve unique deck manoeuvres, such as landing facing aft, landing across the deck with the aircraft’s nose facing the superstructure, and vertical take-offs.

Although both F-35A and F-35B models are variants of the same aircraft, key differences set them apart. The F-35A is lighter, more agile, has greater range, and is less expensive, while the F-35B is a multi-role aircraft designed for short take-off and vertical landing. This capability allows it to operate from small runways or ship decks, making it a valuable asset for maritime operations.

There are three main variants of the F-35: A, B, and C, with all British versions being the B model. In March 2020, the UK’s then-defence minister announced that the cost of an F-35B was approximately $115 million (about £88.8 million), covering its airframe and engine expenses.

Japan has invested in 42 F-35B aircraft, which will be flown from Izumo-class multi-purpose destroyers, led by JS Kaga. Originally commissioned as a helicopter destroyer, JS Kaga is undergoing modifications to operate as a light aircraft carrier. The upgrades include an extended flight deck of more than 800 feet, a redesigned superstructure, and the removal of a ski ramp.

During the trials, extensive data has been gathered and analysed, with findings set to be presented to the Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force. Further collaboration will continue, with British pilots expected to fly F-35s from the Japanese vessel again this summer as part of joint exercises in the Pacific during the 2025 Carrier Strike Group deployment.

Sky News

The Australian citizenship process should be a moment of national pride, free from political influence or manipulation. However, recent reports indicate that the Home Affairs Minister, Tony Burke, has taken an active role in a significant number of citizenship ceremonies, raising concerns over the politicisation of what should be an impartial process.

Reports suggest that Mr Burke’s department will oversee 25 citizenship ceremonies before March 4, granting Australian citizenship to over 12,000 individuals. Notably, these events include a three-day ceremony at Sydney Olympic Park, where up to 6,000 people are expected to become citizens.

The concern is not with granting citizenship to deserving migrants who have fulfilled all legal and procedural requirements. Rather, the issue lies in the unprecedented level of ministerial involvement and the apparent focus on key electorates in Western Sydney. Traditionally, local councils have overseen these ceremonies, ensuring that the process remains independent of federal government influence. The sudden shift in approach, just weeks before an election, raises valid questions about the motivations behind these decisions.

Several public figures, including Shadow Home Affairs Minister James Paterson and local mayors, have voiced their concerns. Senator Paterson has called for an explanation from the government, questioning why these ceremonies are being centralised under ministerial oversight and why Western Sydney is receiving particular attention. He has also requested transparency regarding the expenditure of taxpayer funds on these ceremonies.

Fairfield Mayor Frank Carbone has criticised the move, suggesting that the increased ceremonies and Mr Burke’s personal involvement could be an attempt to influence votes in favour of the Labor Party. He emphasised that citizenship is about pledging allegiance to Australia and its people, not to a political figure or party. Similarly, Liverpool Mayor Ned Mannoun noted that Mr Burke personally handed out certificates at one event—an unusual practice for a federal minister.

Blacktown Mayor Brad Bunting welcomed Mr Burke’s attendance but acknowledged that it was rare for a minister to participate in such ceremonies. Blacktown, one of the most diverse local government areas in the country, already has a structured citizenship ceremony program in place, making the minister’s involvement all the more questionable.

Citizenship is one of the most significant milestones in a migrant’s life. It symbolises their formal acceptance into the Australian community and should remain a dignified, apolitical process. Any perception that the process is being used to carry political favour undermines public confidence in the integrity of Australia’s democratic institutions.

Australians deserve clarity on why these ceremonies have been ramped up in such a targeted manner and why a federal minister is playing a central role in what is traditionally a local government function. The timing of these ceremonies, so close to an election, cannot be ignored.

The Home Affairs Minister must provide a clear and transparent explanation to the public. Citizenship should never be used as a political tool—it is a national privilege that transcends party politics and deserves to be treated with the respect and impartiality it warrants.

eWise Blog

Despite China’s rapid military advancements, a large-scale military operation against Taiwan in 2025 remains unlikely. Several factors, including concerns over military command quality, economic challenges, social stability, and uncertainty surrounding U.S. policy, will likely prevent such a manoeuvre. However, China is expected to continue increasing pressure on Taiwan throughout the year.

The United States has identified a potential Chinese military move against Taiwan as a primary strategic concern. Military improvements in China should not be underestimated, as the country has made significant strides in artificial intelligence and overall military capability. By the end of 2025, China’s navy is projected to have 395 ships, including three operational aircraft carriers. It is also enhancing its amphibious capabilities with advanced assault ships capable of deploying troops, armoured vehicles, drones, and helicopters. Reports indicate China is constructing specialised barges to support potential amphibious landings.

China now possesses the largest aviation force in the region, with modern fighter jets and stealth aircraft that extend its operational range. Additionally, its nuclear weapons stockpile is expanding, and it now leads in hypersonic missile technology. The army has increased troop presence along the Taiwan Strait, enhancing its mobility, firepower, and rapid-strike capabilities.

Throughout 2024, China engaged in military exercises simulating Taiwan invasion and blockade scenarios. Following the inauguration of Taiwan’s new president, large-scale drills were launched, demonstrating China’s ability to encircle the island quickly. Subsequent exercises further showcased its capacity to enforce a blockade or quarantine. In December, a massive military display highlighted China’s defensive readiness against foreign intervention in the region.

Despite these advancements, significant obstacles remain. A key challenge is China’s lack of combat experience. While military drills improve preparedness, they cannot fully replicate the complexities of large-scale warfare, particularly urban combat and extended logistical operations required for a Taiwan invasion. Concerns persist regarding the capabilities of China’s officer corps, particularly in decision-making and adaptability. Corruption also continues to be a serious issue, with recent scandals resulting in high-profile dismissals within the military hierarchy.

Domestic factors further complicate military considerations. China faces demographic challenges, including an aging population and declining birth rates. Social unrest has been exacerbated by rising violence and a series of mass attacks. The economy is also struggling due to mounting local government debt, declining investor confidence, and real estate sector instability. Although China’s trade surplus has grown, Beijing remains cautious about potential economic conflicts with the United States and is actively working to strengthen ties with other global partners.

While China’s leadership likely has growing confidence in its military capabilities, the decision to use force against Taiwan has not been made. The 2027 timeline appears to be a target for military modernisation rather than a definitive invasion date. Economic and social stability concerns remain priorities for Beijing, and the response of the U.S. administration will play a crucial role in shaping China’s actions. Given these factors, while military exercises and coercion tactics against Taiwan will continue in 2025, the likelihood of a large-scale military operation remains low.

ED: From my inbox – thanks to Allan White. If you have an article, you’d like to share, please send it through to me, it saves me research time.

On 21st February 1956, a coordinated air raid was launched against the jungle base of the 7th Independent Platoon, Malayan Races Liberation Army (MRLA) in Central Johore, Malaya. The operation, carried out by Avro Lincolns of No. 1 Squadron RAAF and English Electric Canberra bombers of No. 12 Squadron RAF, resulted in the total destruction of the communist insurgents’ camp. This airstrike was regarded as the most successful of the 4,000 sorties flown by the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) during the Malayan Emergency (1948–1960).

Australia’s Role in the Malayan Emergency

The Malayan Emergency was a conflict between British Commonwealth forces and the communist insurgents of the Malayan Communist Party (MCP). The MCP, seeking to overthrow British colonial rule, waged a guerrilla campaign primarily in Malaya’s dense jungles. To counter this, the British and their allies employed a strategy of jungle warfare, intelligence operations, and aerial bombardment to deny the insurgents safe havens.

Australia became involved in the conflict as part of its commitment to Commonwealth strategic interests in Southeast Asia. The RAAF deployed No. 1 Squadron to Malaya in 1950, equipped with Avro Lincoln heavy bombers, to conduct airstrikes against communist insurgents. The squadron was based at RAF Tengah, Singapore, and carried out numerous attacks on insurgent camps, supply routes, and suspected hideouts deep within the Malayan jungle.

In 1955, the RAAF also deployed No. 38 Squadron, equipped with Dakota transport aircraft, to provide logistical support, troop movements, and supply drops for Commonwealth ground forces engaged in counterinsurgency operations. Additionally, RAAF aircraft assisted with psychological warfare, dropping leaflets urging insurgents to surrender under the British “Briggs Plan”, which aimed to cut off communist support from rural communities.

The 21st February 1956 Raid

The air raid against the 7th Independent Platoon, MRLA, was meticulously planned based on intelligence reports indicating the presence of a well-established jungle base. The Avro Lincolns of No. 1 Squadron RAAF led the attack, delivering heavy bombing runs on the target. The RAF’s No. 12 Squadron Canberra bombers, known for their precision strikes, followed up with additional bombardment, ensuring the complete destruction of the encampment.

The success of this mission demonstrated the effectiveness of air power in counterinsurgency warfare, particularly in Malaya’s rugged terrain where conventional ground forces struggled to locate and engage communist guerrillas. The raid significantly weakened the MRLA’s operational capability in Johore and was a key example of how strategic aerial bombing contributed to the eventual defeat of the communist insurgency.

Australia’s Broader Commitment in Malaya

Beyond air operations, Australia played a wider role in the Malayan Emergency. In 1955, the Australian Army deployed the 2nd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (2RAR) to Malaya as part of the British Commonwealth Far East Strategic Reserve. The battalion was engaged in patrolling, ambushes, and search-and-destroy missions against communist forces.

By 1958, the RAAF’s involvement was winding down, as the insurgency had been largely suppressed. However, Australian ground troops remained engaged in anti-guerrilla operations until the Emergency was officially declared over in 1960.

Legacy of Australian Involvement

Australia’s contribution to the Malayan Emergency was its first major post-World War II military commitment in Southeast Asia, setting a precedent for future deployments, including the Konfrontasi (Indonesia–Malaysia Confrontation) and the Vietnam War. The experience gained in Malaya shaped Australia’s approach to counterinsurgency and strengthened its military ties with Britain and Malaysia.

The 21st February 1956 air raid remains one of the most notable air operations of the Malayan Emergency, showcasing the effectiveness of coordinated airstrikes in jungle warfare and reinforcing Australia’s role as a key Commonwealth ally in the region.

Photo from AWM collection

World Health Organization Warns Trump Funding Cuts May Delay Release of New Pandemic

GENEVA — World Health Organization (WHO) leaders are sounding the alarm Thursday, warning that President Trump’s temporary freeze on federal funding for the organization may delay the release of a new pandemic.

“And that would be terrible,” the organization said in a statement. “We’ve got a cool name for it and everything. Delaying the pandemic now would cost hundreds, maybe thousands of good-paying Chinese jobs.”

According to WHO officials, the next pandemic is expected to be a “real doozy” and lead to creative new policies like standing exactly 28.5 feet away from other people, wearing masks over your ears, and burning down churches. But now, at the rate American policies are changing, the pandemic may never even happen.

“No one wants to see their life’s work go down the drain,” said WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. “It’s almost like Trump doesn’t even care who he hurts as long as he gets to save a buck.”

President Trump’s approval rating has risen by another 10 points in light of news of the pandemic’s likely delay and possible cancelation, surprising members of the mainstream media.

“The COVID pandemic was the best time of my life,” said CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins. “We got to scold people and get paid for it! Trump ruins everything!”

At publishing time, President Trump had responded to the WHO’s warning by making all funding cuts permanent.

ED: Smile!

By Ray Payne OAM

If we’re serious about long-term, stable baseload power that doesn’t emit greenhouse gases, nuclear is the only real solution. The argument that it’s “too expensive” is a complete furphy. We heard the same objections 20 or 30 years ago, and ironically, many of the same critics now say we should have built reactors back then because they would have been cheaper. Well, the reality is this: it’s never going to be cheaper than right now. In another five or ten years, we’ll still be having this debate, and by then, it will only cost more.

Comparing modern nuclear reactors to those designed in the 1950s and 60s is like comparing today’s car safety standards to those of the same era…completely outdated thinking. Every form of electricity production comes with a cost, but nuclear provides consistent, large-scale power without the instability of wind and solar. Yes, nuclear waste is a factor, but the rest of the developed world manages it, and so can we.

Australia needs to think about its future, our industries, our jobs, and the reliable power supply they depend on. Giant wind and solar farms covering vast tracts of land are not the answer. Wind and solar have their place at the microgeneration level, on rooftops, businesses, and farms, but they cannot sustain a nation’s energy needs alone. If we want to move away from gas for heating and cooking, electricity must be abundant and affordable.

This isn’t about ideology or emotion; it’s about common sense and securing Australia’s future. It’s time to think beyond personal preferences and make decisions that benefit the entire country.

NavyWatch Blog – UK

In February 2024, mechanical issues with the propulsion system of a major naval aircraft carrier forced it to withdraw from an important NATO exercise. This was one in a series of technical problems affecting the latest class of British carriers, raising concerns about their reliability and operational readiness.

The issue was detected during routine pre-sailing checks, revealing a problem with a coupling on the starboard propeller shaft. As a result, the vessel remained in port and was unable to join Exercise Steadfast Defender, the largest NATO maritime drill since the Cold War. The carrier was scheduled to operate alongside its sister ship, which had recently returned to service after experiencing similar propulsion failures.

Recurring issues with propulsion systems have led to questions about whether these mechanical failures are typical of new warship designs or indicative of deeper systemic flaws. While minor defects often emerge as ships undergo real-world operations, the frequency and severity of these problems suggest potential design shortcomings.

A similar vessel suffered a breakdown in 2022, just a day after departing for a U.S. deployment. The cause was traced to a misaligned propeller shaft, prompting thorough inspections of the other carrier in the class. Engineers reported no misalignment issues, and officials deemed the problems unrelated to a broader design flaw. However, recurring malfunctions continue to disrupt operations, prompting scrutiny of the fleet’s engineering integrity.

By contrast, other nations’ carriers have faced fewer propulsion-related difficulties. France’s sole nuclear-powered carrier, commissioned in 2001, has seen limited breakdowns, while the U.S. Navy’s newest carrier resolved its propulsion issues early without long-term setbacks.

As these challenges persist, the question remains: are these growing pains of a new fleet, or signs of a larger problem?

On February 20, 1942, as the Japanese invasion of Timor began, the 2/40th Infantry Battalion, as part of Sparrow Force, made a valiant stand at Koepang, fighting to defend the island against overwhelming enemy forces.

The 2/40th Infantry Battalion was composed almost entirely of Tasmanian soldiers and had earned a reputation for their resilience, determination, and unwavering spirit. Fighting alongside Dutch troops, they mounted a determined resistance, determined to hold their ground against the Japanese advance. Despite being heavily outnumbered and facing a well-equipped enemy, they fought with incredible bravery, inflicting significant casualties on the invaders.

For four days, the men of Sparrow Force engaged in fierce combat. However, the relentless assault from Japanese ground forces, supported by air superiority and armoured units, made their position untenable. With ammunition and supplies critically low, and no possibility of reinforcement, the order was finally given to surrender on February 23.

The battle took a heavy toll on the 2/40th Infantry Battalion. Eighty-four men were killed in action, and 132 were seriously wounded. Yet, their suffering did not end with surrender. More than twice the number of those lost in battle would later perish in the brutal conditions of Japanese prisoner-of-war camps. The hardships they endured in captivity remain a tragic chapter in the history of Australia’s involvement in World War II.

Today, we remember the incredible courage and sacrifice of the 2/40th Infantry Battalion and all those who fought in the Battle of Timor. Their bravery and dedication to duty will never be forgotten, standing as a testament to the fighting spirit of the Australian soldier.

Australia’s StrikeMaster is redefining coastal defence and long-range strike capabilities. This cutting-edge system integrates the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) onto the Thales Bushmaster 4×4, creating a highly mobile, land-based maritime strike platform. Developed by Kongsberg Defence Australia and Thales Australia, the StrikeMaster enhances the Australian Defence Force’s ability to rapidly deploy and deny access to key strategic areas—especially in Northern Australia.

As tensions rise in the Indo-Pacific, the 2023 Defence Strategic Review has emphasized the need for long-range precision strike capabilities. The StrikeMaster competes with the M142 HIMARS, offering a cost-effective, locally-produced alternative that strengthens Australia’s sovereign defence industry. However, some within the Australian Army remain sceptical, favouring the extended range of HIMARS’ Precision Strike Missile (PrSM).

With a range exceeding 250 km, stealth features, and the ability to strike naval targets with precision, how does the StrikeMaster compare to global systems like Poland’s NSM Coastal Defence System or China’s DF-21D missile? Could it be a game-changer for Australia’s defence strategy, or will the government favour alternative strike platforms like HIMARS and the B-21 Raider bomber?