All News

eWise Blog – Contributor

The Australian Defence Force (ADF) is shifting its approach to language training, prioritising cultural intelligence and strategic linguistic interoperability within the Indo-Pacific region. This transition moves away from an outdated focus on Middle Eastern languages, aligning training efforts with Australia’s evolving strategic interests.

A key step in this realignment is the introduction of Tok Pisin, the most widely spoken language in Papua New Guinea (PNG), into ADF language programs. With PNG’s close geographic proximity and historical ties to Australia, a structured defence treaty is long overdue. However, trust remains a complex issue shaped by colonial legacies, security interventions, and perceptions of ADF personnel. To foster genuine, sustainable partnerships, Australia must go beyond formal agreements and earn trust through cultural and linguistic engagement.

For years, ADF language training has prioritised Arabic, Urdu, Pashto, and Farsi—reflecting past operational commitments. With Australia’s focus now firmly on the Indo-Pacific, its military language training must follow suit. Resources are still allocated to European languages, despite English being the standard for NATO operations. Redirecting this focus to regional languages will improve operational effectiveness with minimal investment.

PNG presents unique linguistic challenges, with over 840 living languages. Tok Pisin, an English-based creole, is a practical choice due to its accessibility and broad use across military, governmental, and community contexts. Another strategic addition to ADF language training would be Bahasa, covering both its Malay and Indonesian variants. Though distinct, these forms remain mutually intelligible, facilitating communication with over 300 million people across Indonesia and Malaysia.

The success of Australia’s partnership with PNG will be determined by the strength of relationships built on the ground. To make this engagement meaningful, Australia must invest in language and cultural capability, ensuring ADF personnel can operate as trusted partners rather than external enforcers. Prioritising Tok Pisin and, where possible, Bahasa, will be a decisive step towards achieving this goal.

ED: These thoughts on aging comes to you from Ted Chitham

A distraught senior citizen phoned her doctor’s office. “Is it true,” she wanted to know, “that the medication you prescribed has to be taken for the rest of my life?” “‘Yes, I’m afraid so,”‘ the doctor told her. There was a moment of silence before the senior lady replied, “I’m wondering, then, just how serious is my condition because this prescription is marked ‘NO REPEATS’

An older gentleman was on the operating table awaiting surgery and he insisted that his son, a renowned surgeon, perform the operation. As he was about to get the anaesthesia, he asked to speak to his son. “Yes, Dad, what is it?” “Don’t be nervous, son; do your best, and just remember, if it doesn’t go well, if something happens to me, your mother is going to come and live with you and your wife….”

(I LOVE IT!)

Ageing: Eventually you will reach a point when you stop lying about your age and start bragging about it. This is so true. I love to hear them say “you don’t look that old.”

The older we get; the fewer things seem worth waiting in line for.

(Mostly because we forgot why we were waiting in line in the first place!!)

Some people try to turn back their odometers. Not me! I want people to know why I look this way. I’ve travelled a long way and some of the roads weren’t paved.

When you are dissatisfied and would like to go back to youth, think of Algebra.

One of the many things no one tells you about ageing is that it is such a nice change from being young.

Ah, being young is beautiful, but being old is comfortable.

First you forget names, then you forget faces. Then you forget to pull up your zipper… it’s worse when you forget to pull it down.

Now, if you feel this doesn’t apply to you … stick around awhile … it will!

eWise Blog – Contributor

On Tuesday evening, Treasurer Jim Chalmers will deliver his fourth budget, an event that serves not only as an economic roadmap but also as a strategic launchpad for the Albanese government’s re-election campaign. However, as the government celebrates certain fiscal achievements, a closer look reveals a concerning trend: a return to deficits, ballooning public expenditure, and a continued waste of taxpayers’ money—particularly in the name of green energy.

A Return to Deficit Spending

Chalmers has benefited from a period of back-to-back surpluses, thanks largely to booming commodity prices and a strong labour market. Those days, however, appear to be over. The budget is set to confirm a return to deficit, with December’s mid-year update projecting a $26.9 billion shortfall in 2024-25, escalating to $46.9 billion in 2025-26. Despite Labor’s claims of reducing gross debt, federal borrowing will still amount to $940 billion in 2024-25—an astronomical figure that weighs heavily on future generations.

While the government has found $2.1 billion in savings, including $720 million from cutting back on consultants, these reductions pale in comparison to the reckless spending being poured into questionable projects.

The Hidden Costs of Green Energy Subsidies

One of the most significant drains on taxpayer funds is the continued subsidisation of wind and solar projects. Climate and Energy Minister Chris Bowen’s renewables push remains a financial black hole, with spending on wind and solar projects kept largely off-budget. While official figures acknowledge that at least $24 billion has been spent, the true costs are likely much higher and shrouded in secrecy.

Despite these massive investments, Australian households and businesses continue to struggle with soaring energy prices. In a pre-budget announcement, the government pledged a further $150 off energy bills from 1 July, extending last year’s $1.8 billion rebate scheme. However, this short-term relief does little to address the underlying problem: an unreliable and expensive electricity grid increasingly dependent on intermittent renewables.

Ballooning Government Expenditure

The Albanese government has also announced an $8.5 billion boost to Medicare, aiming for a bulk-billing rate of nine out of ten GP visits by 2030. While improving healthcare is commendable, history has shown that such broad commitments often lead to inefficiencies, cost blowouts, and a higher tax burden.

Similarly, Labor’s commitment to cap Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) medicine prices at $25 per script will cost an additional $689 million, with another $573 million earmarked for women’s health. Meanwhile, the defence budget has been adjusted, with $1 billion in military spending brought forward, part of a larger $50 billion defence strategy over the next decade.

Infrastructure spending continues unabated, with $7.2 billion committed to Queensland’s Bruce Highway upgrades, $2.4 billion allocated to saving South Australia’s Whyalla steelworks, and $125 million pledged for Melbourne intersection upgrades. While infrastructure investment is necessary, the commonwealth’s eagerness to fund these projects at a disproportionate rate compared to the states raises concerns about fiscal responsibility.

A Nation Held Hostage by Green Ideology

Beyond the official budget announcements, one of the most troubling aspects remains the unchecked cost of the renewables agenda. The push for a rapid transition to wind and solar has left taxpayers on the hook for billions, yet the federal government refuses to disclose the full economic impact of its policies. Australians are paying the price for an unreliable energy grid, increasing power bills, and continued dependence on government handouts to offset rising costs.

The Albanese government’s budget may be dressed up as fiscally responsible, but the reality is clear: reckless spending, a return to deficits, and an ideological obsession with green energy are placing an unsustainable burden on the nation’s finances. Without greater transparency and a more responsible fiscal approach, taxpayers will continue to foot the bill for the government’s costly ambitions.

eNewsletter – David Belmont

Australia’s future has been shaped by a series of international agreements, many of which were signed without widespread public consultation. These agreements have had profound consequences on the nation’s manufacturing sector, agriculture, energy policies, and sovereignty. Understanding their impact is crucial to comprehending the broader economic and political landscape that Australia faces today.

The Lima Declaration (1975)

In 1975, the Australian Labor Party (ALP) government, led by Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, signed the United Nations-inspired Lima Declaration. This agreement required Australia to reduce its manufacturing capabilities by approximately 30% while committing to import that same proportion from other preferred countries. The declaration was presented under the guise of creating a more balanced global economy, redistributing wealth, and providing all nations a “fair share” of industrial production.

Beyond manufacturing, the Lima Declaration also mandated that Australia import as much primary produce as possible, including essential food items such as meat and fruit. These obligations were agreed to without any public referendum or significant parliamentary debate. The economic ramifications were immediate and long-lasting, as Australian industries faced increasing competition from international markets while government policy actively discouraged domestic production.

Shortly after committing Australia to the Lima Declaration, Whitlam was dismissed by the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, on 11 November 1975. While his sacking was primarily due to a constitutional crisis over budget deadlock, the legacy of the Lima Declaration remains. The policies enshrined in this agreement are still felt today, as Australia continues to struggle with manufacturing decline and dependence on imports.

The Kyoto Protocol (2007) and the Paris Agreement (2016)

In 2007, newly elected Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd ratified the Kyoto Protocol immediately upon taking office. This agreement legally bound Australia to reduce its carbon emissions, imposing strict environmental regulations on businesses. While framed as an essential step in combating climate change, the agreement placed a heavy burden on Australian industries, forcing many to either shut down or outsource operations to countries with more lenient environmental policies.

Nine years later, in 2016, Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull signed Australia into the Paris Agreement, further tightening environmental restrictions. This agreement required even greater reductions in carbon emissions, directly impacting not just manufacturing but also agriculture, mining, and energy production. Australian businesses were forced to comply with increasingly stringent regulations, often at great economic cost, while major competitors such as China and India were given more flexible targets.

The consequences of these agreements have been profound. Australia, once a thriving manufacturing hub with a strong industrial base, has seen significant deindustrialisation. Energy prices have soared as traditional power sources were phased out in favour of renewable energy, often without adequate infrastructure in place to support the transition. While environmental concerns are legitimate, these policies have disproportionately harmed Australian businesses and workers.

The Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework (2022)

The trend of signing international agreements with far-reaching implications continued with the 2022 Kunming-Montreal Biodiversity Framework. Under this agreement, signed by the current Labor Prime Minister, Australia has committed to locking up 30% of its land and water (commonly referred to as the 30×30 initiative). This commitment was made under the presidency of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), raising concerns about external influence over Australian land and resources.

The implications of this agreement are significant. By restricting access to vast portions of Australian territory, the government is further limiting opportunities for agriculture, mining, and infrastructure development. Given that Australia is already facing housing shortages, rising costs of living, and increasing dependence on foreign imports, the decision to impose further land-use restrictions raises questions about the government’s priorities.

The Role of the United Nations and Global Governance

A common thread among these agreements is their origin: all have been orchestrated by the United Nations (UN) or other international bodies. While these organisations promote their initiatives as efforts to foster global equality, the reality is that Australia has consistently sacrificed its own economic prosperity in the process.

By adhering to these agreements, successive Australian governments have prioritised globalist policies over national interests. Australian innovation, industry, and wealth are being systematically redirected to benefit other nations while local businesses struggle under heavy regulatory burdens. Meanwhile, the UN remains an unelected body with no direct accountability to the Australian electorate, yet it continues to exert significant influence over domestic policy decisions.

The Consequences for Australia’s Future

The cumulative impact of these agreements is clear: Australian self-sufficiency has been undermined, economic opportunities have been lost, and national sovereignty has been eroded. Manufacturing, once a pillar of the Australian economy, has been decimated. Agriculture, a sector vital to both the economy and food security, has been constrained by regulations and foreign competition. Energy policies have driven up costs, impacting both households and businesses.

Unless future governments take decisive action to reclaim national decision-making power, Australia will remain at the mercy of international agreements that prioritise global redistribution over domestic prosperity. The focus must shift towards rebuilding local industry, securing energy independence, and ensuring that future agreements serve Australian interests first and foremost.

Conclusion

The decisions made by Australian governments over the past five decades have placed the country on a trajectory of economic decline and external dependence. While global cooperation is essential, it should not come at the cost of national prosperity. Australians must remain vigilant, demand accountability from their leaders, and push for policies that prioritise the nation’s long-term interests over international obligations. Only through informed debate and strong leadership can Australia secure its future in an increasingly uncertain world.

US Navy Release

The US Navy operates four Ohio-class submarines, each capable of carrying up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles. These 1980s-era vessels have played crucial roles in conflicts such as the Persian Gulf War and the 2011 Libya intervention. However, after over 40 years in service, these submarines—USS Florida, USS Georgia, USS Ohio, and USS Michigan—are nearing retirement. Scheduled to be decommissioned by 2028, their departure will significantly reduce the Navy’s conventional missile firepower.

To compensate for this loss, the Navy has been developing Block V Virginia-class attack submarines. Unlike earlier Virginia-class models, which can launch 12 Tomahawk missiles, Block V versions incorporate an 80-foot Virginia Payload Module, expanding their capacity to 40 missiles per boat. Between 2019 and 2023, the Navy procured ten Block V submarines, several of which are already under construction.

This upgrade is strategically significant, as modern warfare increasingly relies on high-volume, precision-guided missile strikes. The Tomahawk missile, capable of reaching targets up to 900 miles away at speeds of 550 mph, remains a key asset in military engagements. The ability to launch a large salvo of these missiles provides a crucial advantage, particularly in potential conflicts requiring long-range precision strikes.

In a major engagement, ten Block V Virginia-class submarines could collectively fire up to 400 Tomahawks, ensuring the ability to overwhelm enemy defences. Furthermore, recent enhancements to Tomahawk missiles have increased their effectiveness. Block IV Tomahawks feature a two-way data link, allowing in-flight retargeting, while Tactical Tomahawks can engage moving targets. These advancements enable submarines to strike enemy ships and convoys with greater accuracy.

Submarines provide a stealthy platform for missile deployment, making them less vulnerable than surface ships. The combination of increased missile capacity and improved targeting capabilities strengthens the US Navy’s deterrence and warfighting potential. As the Ohio-class SSGNs retire, Block V Virginia-class submarines will play a pivotal role in maintaining America’s naval strike power, ensuring readiness for future conflicts.

Discover how Australia is revolutionizing its military capabilities with the Bushmaster Electronic Warfare (EW) system under Project Land 555 Phase 6. This video dives into the $75 million AUD upgrade that transforms the iconic Bushmaster Protected Mobility Vehicle into a cutting-edge EW powerhouse. From jamming enemy communications to shielding ADF forces from electromagnetic threats, we explore the advanced electronic attack, protection, and support features that make this platform a game-changer. Learn how Raytheon Australia, Thales, and local industry partners are driving innovation, boosting the economy, and aligning with Five Eyes allies like the US and UK. We’ll compare the Bushmaster EW to regional competitors like China’s Type 05 and South Korea’s K21, showcasing its unique strengths in mobility, modularity, and coalition interoperability. Set to be fully operational by late 2025, this project not only enhances Australia’s deterrence in the Indo-Pacific but also cements its role as a leader in the electromagnetic battlespace. Don’t miss this deep dive into the technology, strategy, and impact of Australia’s next-gen land-based EW capability!

Join us as we explore the current state of Australia’s Collins-class submarine fleet in 2025, a vital part of the nation’s naval defence. Comprising six diesel-electric submarines—HMAS Collins, Farncomb, Waller, Dechaineux, Sheean, and Rankin—these vessels, developed in partnership with Sweden’s Kockums, overcame early technical issues to become one of the world’s most advanced conventional submarine forces. Operating across the Pacific and Indian Oceans, they safeguard trade routes and deter threats but now face challenges from an aging platform, crew shortages, and maintenance demands. With a $4–5 billion Life-of-Type Extension set to begin in 2026 as a bridge to Australia’s nuclear-powered future under AUKUS, we examine their high-stakes missions, from the 1999 East Timor operation to RIMPAC exercises, and upgrades like the AN/BYG-1 combat system. Don’t forget to like, subscribe, and share for more deep dives into defence and technology!

At Carnival Cruise Line, we extend our heartfelt gratitude to the brave men and women of the Australian and New Zealand Defence Force for their dedicated service. As a token of appreciation, we offer a special discount on any cruise, at any time of the year.*

Eligibility Criteria:
This exclusive Defence Force offer is available to personnel in the following branches:

• Active Personnel: Those currently serving in the Royal Australian Navy, Royal Australian Army, Royal Australian Air Force, Royal New Zealand Navy, or the New Zealand Army. Active personnel can provide their PM KeyS number, Regiment number, or Service Number as proof of service.
• Ex-Serving Personnel: This category includes discharged and retired personnel. To qualify, provide relevant documentation demonstrating your service in the ADF or NZDF. Examples include Defence Force superannuation/pension statements from schemes such as the Defence Force Super scheme, the DFRDB scheme, the DFRB scheme, or the DFSS scheme (New Zealand), as well as a Certificate of Service.

Booking Process:

1. Click ‘Book Now’ or ‘Start Booking’
   2. Select how many rooms and guests are required
   3. On the page titled ‘Qualify for a special rate?’
   • Select ‘Country of Residence: Australia’
   • Select ‘Defence Force Offer’

4. Select your preferred cabin
   5. On the ‘Your Offers’ screen select the ‘Defence Force Offer’ rate code
   6. Note: Other Fares that are offered by Carnival at the time of booking will also be displayed, you can choose between the Defence Force Offer fare or another fare available.*
   7. Complete the booking process

Once you have completed your booking, send your verification documents to interline@carnival.com within:

• 24 hours for cruises booked within one week prior to sailing; OR
• 72 hours for all other cruises.

Active Personnel

• PM KeyS Number
• Regiment Number
• Service Number

Ex-Serving Personnel

• Relevant proof of identification/documentation (e.g., defence force superannuation/pension statement, Certificate of Service or super Scheme – the DFRDB scheme, the DFRB scheme or the DFSS scheme)

Defence Personnel may be asked to produce proof of Defence identification during the cruise.

For any questions regarding this offer, please contact:

• Australia: 1300 385 625
• New Zealand: 0800 442 095

*See Our Defence Force Offer Terms and Conditions

We look forward to welcoming you aboard for an unforgettable cruise experience!

ED: From my inbox – Thanks to Dennis Southwell

In 1858, a prophetess in South Africa had a vision that led to one of the most devastating self-inflicted tragedies in history. She proclaimed that all cattle of her tribe had to be slaughtered, and crops destroyed, as they had been tainted. In return, she believed ancestral spirits would drive out foreign settlers and restore abundance. The result was catastrophic—the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of cattle led to famine, and the population of the region was decimated.

This historical episode serves as a cautionary tale for modern approaches to disease control in both livestock and human populations. Throughout history, various species have faced diseases that threaten their survival, from viruses in horses and sheep to fungal blights in crops. The prevailing bureaucratic response to such threats often mirrors the drastic measures taken in 19th-century South Africa—eradicate entire populations to prevent disease spread.

One contemporary example is the response to bee diseases. In Australia, authorities have resorted to mass extermination of beehives when a single case of disease is detected. This approach, rather than fostering natural resistance, has led to declining honey production and threats to essential pollination. Similarly, outbreaks of avian flu prompt the wholesale culling of poultry flocks, leading to shortages in egg supply.

The mindset of total eradication ignores an essential principle of natural selection: survival of the fittest. In the wild, animals and plants develop resistance over time. Wildlife congregating around scarce water sources are exposed to various pathogens, yet the strongest survive and pass on their immunity. This process of natural herd immunity has long protected species from extinction.

Past generations understood the value of controlled exposure. Before modern vaccines, childhood illnesses such as chickenpox were managed through social exposure to build immunity early in life. By contrast, today’s policies often favour absolute control, driven by an increasing reliance on technology to monitor and manage populations.

On a broader scale, global policies often reflect the same extreme measures under the guise of sustainability and public health. Population control policies have emerged throughout history, from enforced limits on childbirth to restrictions on movement and resource use. The implementation of electronic tracking for livestock, and more recently for people, hints at a future where individuals may face similar constraints on their freedoms.

The drive for extreme interventionist policies in the name of progress raises concerns about unintended consequences. Efforts to curb carbon emissions and control land use, for example, could lead to severe resource shortages, disproportionately affecting those with fewer means. Ambitious environmental and public health goals must be balanced against practical realities to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

The lesson from history is clear: solutions driven by fear and absolute control often create greater suffering than the problems they aim to solve. Sustainable approaches should encourage resilience, adaptation, and balance, rather than destruction and suppression. Learning from nature and past mistakes will be essential in crafting policies that protect both people and the planet without sacrificing freedom and prosperity.