image

Albanese and post-China/US War Dictatorship: PART 2

Albanese and post-China/US War Dictatorship: Part 2

Story so far:

Following a war between China and the US in which there are no clear winners, Australian Prime Minister Albanese wants to ensure that the US sticks to the AUKUS deal and to also increase his own powers. While Albanese is ruthless, his Defence Minister Marles is even more ruthless and manages to replace Albanese as prime minister. 

Characters:

Prime Minister Albanese; Defence Minister Marles; Foreign Affairs Minister Wong; Treasurer Chalmers; Attorney-General Dreyfus; PM’s Chief-of-Staff Gartrell; Secretary of PM&C Davis; Secretary of Treasury Kennedy; Journalists Greg Sheridan, David Speers, Cameron Stewart and Nick McKenzie;; & Premiers: NSW Minns, Vic Allan, Qld Miles, WA Cook, Tas Rockliff, SA Malinauskas; Minister of Defence Industry and Capability Delivery Pat Conroy; Luke Gosling M.P.; Mike Burgess of ASIO.

Scene 20: Prime Minister’s Office

Marles: “Pat. I want you to take-over Defence and I will appoint Luke Gosling in your place.”

Conroy: “What about Moriarty? Should he stay?”

Marles: “He has been Secretary of the Department of Defence for nearly a decade. Hasn’t achieved much because he is little more than an office manager, but even an office manager can be useful if you can give him directions. Let him stay for a while.”

Conroy: “That leaves the appointment of a new Defence Force Chief of Staff. Vice-Admiral Hammond is the obvious choice if we want to bolster AUKUS. Lots of experience with subs.

Marles laughs: “And loves being in Washington!”

Scene 21: Public Service Office

Davis: “National cabinet starts in half an hour. It will be interesting to see if the premiers are still holding out. Marles is going to apologize for the way Albanese approached things but stick with the demand for referral of powers, saying that the street demonstrations and strikes underline the need for centralized control of law enforcement.”

Kennedy: “Not that this will help the economy!”

Davis: “I’m not being told much. Marles is even more secretive than Albanese. But I think that he is ready to make some concessions on trade with China.”

Kennedy: “WA will be happy!”

Davis: “Not only WA! I should help calm down some of the angry business groups.”

Scene 22: Office of the Foreign Minister

Wong: “Anthony (Albanese) is not handling the situation well. He has become a shell of himself.”

Dreyfus: “Every time that I try to talk to him I get the feeling that he will begin to cry. Marles has a lot to answer for!”

Wong: “Marles did not force him to dream of becoming another John Curtin.”

Dreyfus: “But he did push for extremely strong action against China, and it was Marles who got me to get ASIO to check on the G-G.”

Wong: “The death of Gartrell has not helped either.”

Both Wong and Dreyfus are silent for a moment before Wong says: “Marles is not telling me what he is planning next, and this has led to some difficult telephone conversations with quite a few foreign ministers. I don’t know what to tell them.”

Dreyfus: “National cabinet is about to start. Maybe we will learn more?”

Scene 23: Office of the Prime Minister

Marles, Conroy and Gosling are sitting around a table after the national cabinet meeting.

Conroy: “A surprise! The premiers seem to be falling in line – at least for now. The media remain mixed. The News Corp. mob are very supportive and even the ABC seems muted. Dutton does not know what to do. When he criticizes us he sounds pro-Chinese!”

Marles laughs: “We need to keep concern about China in the headlines. And we need to keep Wong, Dreyfus and Chalmers inline. Wong thinks the Japanese will try to repair things with China which means that we are the only true ally the US has in the Indo-Pacific.”

Gosling: “Yeah! India wants nothing to do with this stoush, particularly as Russia is being very vocal for China. And Indonesia says that it is not taking sides.”

Conroy: “It was a good move to soften the talk about conscription and instead emphasize, as you said, ‘general mobilization to protect our cherished freedoms.”

Marles now answers a call on his desk phone, and says: “Send him in.”

Marles greets Mike Burgess, head of ASIO: “Mike. Thanks for coming at such short notice. We have just finished a national cabinet meeting and there some things to discuss. Dreyfus should be here soon.”

Burgess: “Good. I would feel better given that I report to him.”

Marles: “National cabinet feels that we need to monitor Chinese in this country more closely. I know that many have left or are planning to go, but many of those staying will be loyal to Beijing. Don’t worry about resources. The national security budget is expanding rapidly and ASIO will get its share. Conroy has a few specific names that might be worth attention.”

Conroy hands Burgess a piece of paper, saying: “Keep it confidential!”

Marles: “It seems that Dreyfus is not coming. I will tell him about this meeting later. Thanks for coming Mike. These are difficult times and some difficult decisions need to be made.”

Burgess leaves the room.

Gosling: “I wonder what happened to Dreyfus.”

Marles: “I didn’t invite him.”

They all have a little chuckle.

Scene 24: Office of the Foreign Minister

Wong is sitting at her desk when Dreyfus quickly walks in.

Dreyfus: “It’s getting worse. I just passed Mike Burgess in the corridor. He had been in a meeting with Marles and his henchmen. He told Burgess that I had been invited! It is bullshit! Burgess told me what was discussed. I should have been there. ASIO is my legal responsibility!”

Wong: “It’s not only you. He called Keir Starmer yesterday. He didn’t tell me. I only found out this morning because I got a query from the British ambassador here who wanted some clarification on AUKUS. Apparently Marles was trying to keep the British on-board.”

Dreyfus: “There is a problem?”

Wong: “The are still trying to figure out how to handle China now that the American’s have a bloody nose. Maybe AUKUS is not the way to go for them?”

Scene 25: Office of the Prime Minister

Marles is dialling a number on his mobile phone, and angrily says: “I told you not to send text messages – on any app! They leave a record. I will call you when I need you.”

Voice in phone is also angry: “Just remember. You owe me bigtime!”

Marles: “I know.”

Scene 26: Public Service Office

Davis: “I have been cut out of the loop on almost everything. The government of Australia is being run out of the PM’s office. I spoke to Moriarty this morning and he does not seem to know what is happening in Defence – although he won’t admit it. DFAT have the same problem.”

Kennedy: “Thankfully it is harder to run the economy in this way.”

Davis: “Thankfully?”

Kennedy: “I don’t mean thanks for the current situation. I mean Treasury with the help of Finance is still needed and thus can have some control. The problem is Chalmers! He won’t even try to stand up to Marles and it is only when I can talk to him directly that we get some sanity.”

Davis: “I’ve seen a couple of suggestion that they will try to strong-arm the Reserve Bank to cut interest rates.”

Kennedy: “Well, as a Bank Board member I have heard nothing – not yet, at least!”

Davis: “Things are in such a flux now, but where do you think the economy is heading.”

Kennedy: “It will be almost impossible to avoid recession. The question is its severity.”

Davis: “I have thought of resigning. But, this would ….”

Kennedy: “No! No! That would only make it easier for Marles and his mob to …”

Davis: “I know.”

Scene 27: Press Gallery Office

Cameron Stewart: “I just spoke to Malinauskas in South Australia. He has heard rumours that the UK is getting cold feet on AUKUS, and suggests an article extolling the effect it will have on our technological capacity, employment and national security even if the Yanks withdrawer from East Asia.”

Greg Sheridan sitting in front of a computer screen: “Fine. But, look at this! Elon Musk may have been arrested.”

Stewart: “Really? Why?”

Sheridan: “No reasons given yet. His X-tweets have been all over the place, although one did suggest the navy lost its aircraft carrier because the US was lagging behind Chinese-technology. This would not have endeared him to many people, and he has not said he will stop making Tesla cars in China.”

Stewart: “He should be more careful about what he says.”

David Speers is sitting nearby and listening to the conversation.

Speers: “Maybe we should all be more careful. Albanese has met with ASIO’s Burgess – alone! Dreyfus is reportedly not happy.”

Stewart: “What? You think there is some sort of threat to free speech?”

Sheridan: “You know, I do wonder about the UK now. If you say a man is a man and a woman is a woman in a tweet you can end up fined or even in jail. And we had the COVID19 experience here – particularly in Victoria!

Stewart: “You’re being paranoid!”

Scene 28: Prime Minister’s Office

Marles is with Conroy and Gosling.

Marles: “Dreyfus says he wants to resign as A-G.”

Conroy: “Let him. He will always be in the way of what we want to do.”

Marles: “No. I would then need to replace him with someone – and there is no guarantee that they would be easier to manipulate. It’s good to know the flaw in the weave. Besides, he won’t resign. He likes the financial perks and the prestige of A-G too much.”

Gosling: “Any feedback from Burgess so far?”

Marles: “Only an official request for more money. I’ve told Chalmers to find a way of organizing this.”

Conroy: “Chalmers is sounding good on the economy. He’s been on several breakfast television shows this week and urging calm. He knows that he needs to listen to Kennedy and Treasury.”

Gosling: “By the way. How is Davis going?”

Marles smiles: “He is ok. Wants to know more all the time, but I involve him just enough to stop him from resigning. It’s a bit like Dreyfus but Davis is really more into the power stuff. Always wants to be a player.”

Conroy: “So he will now be getting very frustrated.”

Marles: “Yes. But better to keep him than look for a new face!”

Scene 29: Office of the Foreign Minister

Dreyfus and Wong are sitting at a table looking glum.

Dreyfus: “The Mostyn thing really plays on my mind. I set it all in motion because Marles said he had some suspicions. But why? Where did these suspicions come from? I mean, I almost feel that I was set-up to …to, I don’t know what …to bring her down!”

Wong: “Because she was a woman?”

Dreyfus: “No. Nothing like that. More that she was …”

Wong: “She was set-up?”

Dreyfus and Wong looked at each other with a look of surprise on their faces as they realized they had similar thoughts.

Dreyfus: “But how? Sure, she liked a few bets, but no-one who knew her thought she was out of control.”

Wong: “I am told that no-one ever does suspect. But … I wish we could ask Burgess what exactly happened!”

Dreyfus with a mild look of surprise on his face: “I can. It is my job!”

Scene 30: Nondescript Office

Nick McKenzie looked at his mobile phone which was ringing with a number he did not recognize.

McKenzie: “Hello”

Voice on phone: “Marles, Mostyn, Gartrell, the broker.”

McKenzie: “Who are you?”

Voice: “The Broker.”

Scene 31: Prime Minister’s Office

Dreyfus is with Marles

Marles: “So, everything is now finalized the referral of state powers to us! Great!” Anything else happening?”

Dreyfus: “We get some idiot calls. Someone who calls himself ‘The broker’ has been leaving messages for you at my office. Says he knows you.”

Marles says nothing but quicky grabs his mobile phone when Dreyfus leaves: “Why are you calling Dreyfus’ office leaving messages? Who in the fuck are you?”

Voice on the phone: “After all that I have done for you, and you still don’t know? You took the first step with Albanese and the dead woman! Then Gartrell! How many years would you get in the slammer? Life? And then there is the Mostyn thing!”

Marles: “I mean, who are you really? What is your real name? Who is behind you? You can’t do all these things yourself.”

Voice: “When will you deliver?”

Marles is about to reply when he looks at his phone and sees that he is no longer connected. He slumps into his chair.”

 

Albanese and post-China/US War Dictatorship

Albanese and post-China/US War Dictatorship!

Plot: Albanese attempts to become Australian dictator after China-US war but it does not go to plan!

Characters:

Prime Minister Albanese; Defence Minister Marles; Foreign Affairs Minister Wong; Treasurer Chalmers; Attorney-General Dreyfus; PM’s Chief-of-Staff Gartrell; Secretary of PM&C Davis; Secretary of Treasury Kennedy; Journalists Greg Sheridan and David Speers; & Premiers: NSW Minns, Vic Allan, Qld Miles, WA Cook, Tas Rockliff, SA Malinauskas;

Scene 1: Prime Minister’s Office

Albanese: “Fuck! What are we going to do?”

Marles: “We have to agree. The US subs and marines in Australia are the only thing stopping a Chinese invasion.”

Wong: “My department thinks the Chinese now have enough problems at home and dealing with the fall-out from the fighting.”

Marles: “Only for the next year or two!”

Albanese: “Cutting all our exports to China will create a mess here. Think of the job losses!”

Marles: “We need to quickly spend more on defence. Introduce mass conscription. That will take care of job losses!”

Gartrell: “You need to create a national cabinet. Call all the premiers now, show you are in charge. Address the country. Tell it that the world in now different and that Australia must adjust. You can now be a war-time leader!”

Albanese: “Yes. A John Curtin leader. Let’s do it1”

Scene 2: Office of the Foreign Minister

Chalmers walks in and says: “Albanese has just told me. Cut all exports to China! Increase spending on tanks, ships, soldiers. It will wreck the budget. Is the situation really this bad. The Chinese are not going to invade us. Are they?”

Wong: “It hardly matters. Everyone is panicking. Marles is egging him on and teachers pet Dreyfus is helping the Albanese to start imagining himself as some sort of historical figure.”

Chalmers: “My god! We only elected him party leader because the electorate had turned on Shorten. We had little choice. You should have put up your hand.”

Wong: “He saved me when …”

Chalmers: “Let’s not go there again!”

Wong: “I owed him for that. But he is very sneaky and we are now stuck with him.”

Scene 3: Cabinet Room

The state premiers are all on-line as the PM prepares to address the nation.

Albanese: “My fellow citizens. I am speaking to you as head of the new national cabinet which has just concluded a long and difficult meeting. The state premiers and I are united in our view about what measures need to be taken for the future safety and prosperity of Australia. As you already know the conflict over Taiwan has thankfully calmed down and we hope that this uneasy situation does not flare-up again. Nevertheless, as a nation we are now presented with some stark and uncomfortable choices. The US, our alliance partner of many years and conflicts, needs Australia’s support to ensure that the recent events result in a long-term peaceful situation. This can only occur if Australia stands fast with the US against the aggression of China. This hopefully does not mean more fighting but it does mean that Australia needs to sever almost all of its relationships with China. All economic relations, including exports and imports, must cease. This also includes social media apps such as WeChat. The national cabinet understands the disruption to business and personal lives that this will bring. To minimise this, the national cabinet will work through the night so that in the morning we can announce more details of the way forward in these very difficult circumstances. Goodnight.”

Minns: “I hope we know what we are doing. This is all so extreme.”

Cook: “Yes. WA is going to be hit very hard.”

Allan: “Of course we do. The Chinese need to know where we stand, and that is with the US.”

Minns: “And what was the role of the US in causing this mess?”

Malinaukas: “We are a national cabinet, so stop arguing!”

Scene 4: Public Service Office

Davis: “I definitely need a drink. The PM’s speech sounded good. National cabinet, standing with the US etc. But what sounds good may not be good in reality.”

Kennedy: “Don’t be so glum. I knew the Albanese when he was a lobbyist. He has a good political nose, good a PR – but nuance and understanding of complex issues is not his thing. Reality will eventually hit him and his national cabinet!”

Davis: “I’m not so sure. Once something is publicly announced, it is hard to change course. His chief of staff and Marles will be encouraging him to go on. Wong probably knows better, but the PM seems to have some hold over her. As for Chalmers – he is so piss-weak!”

Kennedy: “I must admit that the Vic and SA premiers sound a bit too gung-ho. Allan is an ideologue and Malinauskas just wants more spending in his state for building AUKUS subs – so fuck the rest of Australia!”

Davis: “We better get back to the meeting. Try to minimize the damage caused by this national cabinet.”

Scene 5: Parliamentary Press Gallery Office

 Greg Sheridan: “Here it is. The national cabinet press-release basically says that every-thing China is off-limits to Australians with no exceptions.”

David Speers: What are other countries doing?

Greg Sheridan: “Not much. Don’t they understand the threat? At least we are taking the lead.”

David Speers: “The EU? Japan? Why do we need to take a lead?”

Greg Sheridan: “Because we are standing up for values. And only the US can ensure international order!”

Scene 6: Prime Minister’s Office

Albanese: “The general media reaction has been supportive.”

Marles: “And the Opposition is all at sea. Say they want to support the US but also lots of stuff about the effect on the economy.”

Albanese: “Should I call the US president?”

Gartrell: “He should call you! You are taking the lead on this. He should be grateful.”

Wong: “I think he has bigger problems right now. The US is in shock over this. Some are calling for a nuclear strike on China.”

Albanese: “Should I say something about this? Be bit more of a leader?”

Wong shakes her head.

Albanese: “What now? What do we do next?”

Chalmers: “We try to fix this mess. I think the WA premier is very wobbly on the national cabinet, which is not surprising giving the uproar it is causing with the hit on exports. Their next session of parliament is going to be very rough.”

Marles: “Fuckin parliaments! We should abolish them.”

Chalmers: “Davis waiting in the Cabinet room to give us a briefing on next steps. Kennedy is with him.”

They all leave the room. Sometime later Albanese and Marles return.

Albanese: “Are you serious? Abolish the parliaments, and we appoint the premiers?”

Marles: “Put it up as another temporary measure. Nearly all the premiers would love it.”

Albanese: “Yeh! Especially if we choose them!”

Albanese calls in his chief-of-staff and asks: “Have we heard anything from the US?”

Gartrell shakes his head, and then says: “The WA parliament is in up-roar! There is talk of secession.”

Albanese turns to Marles: “Maybe your idea is good! We need to keep WA in line so that we can offers bases for US subs.”

Scene 7: Prime Minister’s Office

Albanese: “We need a more compliant G-G. How can we get rid of Mostyn. We could then appoint Admiral Johnston to the position – his status-conscious wife would love it – and we could then get a competent Chief-of-Defence Force. So, if we can get rid of present G-G we then kill two birds with one stone. What leverage do we have on Mostyn?”

Marles: “None that I know of.”

Albanese: “Pity!”

Marles: “How much do you trust Gartrell?”

Albanese: “What do you mean?”

Marles: “Only that I would prefer that we keep some of our conversations private – to ourselves!”

Albanese: “OK. You think that you can solve some of our problems?”

Marles: “I don’t know. But give me a little time.”

Albanese: “You always were a very useful chief-of-staff!”

Scene 8: Prime Minister’s Office

Albanese: “How can we get more of a handle on media commentary? Too much is extremely negative.”

Gartrell: “Maybe the commentary is right? I am beginning to worry that we are over-reacting and caving into US demands too easily. The US is nearly as much to blame as China for what happened. Do we need to shoot our-selves in the foot over all this?”

Albanese: “I understand what you are saying, but you are the only person in this building that I can trust with everything. I have no secrets from you. Think of your future career prospects. I will make sure you get a safe seat. Just like I did when Marles was my chief-of-staff. But, I need you to stay in tune with me.”

Scene 9: Prime Minister’s Office

Albanese: “You’re kidding?”

Dreyfus: “No. Marles thought there might be a problem and I asked ASIO to check it out. The G-G has had a gambling problem for years. Quite a few people knew, but we didn’t know how serious it was. She owes millions to some crypto mob based in China as far as we can tell.”

Albanese: “Is this a security risk?”

A knock is heard at the door and Marles walks in with a slight smile on his face: “You now know?”

Albanese: “About the G-G’s gambling?”

Dreyfus to Albanese: “You should talk to her. Maybe she should resign.”

Albanese: “Can you arrange a discreet meeting for tomorrow? And give me a one-page briefing which I can have for the meeting. And we need to find a public excuse for her resignation – and one that does not reflect badly on us!”

Dreyfus stands-up, nods and leaves.

Marles watches Dreyfus leave and then says: “He is so obedient. Thinks you are God! He listens to what you begin to say and finishes the sentence.”

Albanese laughs.

Marles: “So we can now appoint a new G-G. Defence Chief-of-Staff would be a good choice!”

Albanese looks at Marles for a moment before saying: “Did you have some role in this? Is it a set-up?”

Marles: “Mostyn has had a gambling problem for a long-time. We have just taken advantage of it – by making it more of a problem for her.”

Albanese: “Who else knows?”

Marles: “Besides us, only head of ASIO and a couple of his flunkies.”

Albanese: “Let’s keep it that way!”

Scene 10: Prime Minister’s Office

Albanese in new address to nation: “As a result of our discussions in national cabinet it has become clear that we need to prepare for a much longer period of uncertainty as foreign actors – and China in particular – attempt to sow discord in our society. The recent demonstrations against decisions of national cabinet are mostly the result of such foreign influences and there is a clear need for uniformity and firmness against the likely escalation in violence. There is thus a clear need to consolidate government decision making structures. I am thus proposing that all states agree to refer, as provided in Section 51 of the Australian constitution, a number of law and order functions to the Commonwealth which would exercise these powers as part of the national cabinet process. The first step is to bring unity of procedures for the appointment of senior police personnel.”

Scene 11: National Cabinet Meeting.

Albanese: “Calm down. Let’s try to continue working in the national interest.”

Minns: “Your speech did not reflect our discussions and there was no agreement as you suggested. NSW will not be referring such powers to the Commonwealth or to this national cabinet.”

Cook: “And, the same goes for WA.”

Allan: “The wording was clumsy but I think the basic idea is correct.”

Minns: “Wording? It was clear what Albanese wants. It is a naked grab for power!”

Malinauskas: “The polls show that there is a majority in favour.”

Cook: “It is small, and probably reflects the belief – the inaccurate belief – that this was discussed and agreed in national cabinet.”

Albanese: “There are national security considerations which I need to share with you.”

Cook: “Such as?”

Albanese: “The G-G resigned because she was asked to. She was being blackmailed over accessing paedophile internet sites. ASIO believes that she was part of a ring which also includes several senior police officials. I cannot say much more now, certainly not give details, because ASIO is still trying to determine the extent of this ring and the particular individuals involved.”

Scene 12: Prime Minister’s Office

Davis: “Why was I not told about the G-G and this paedophile ring?”

Albanese: “You were to be told, but things have moved so quickly.”

Davis: “What!”

Albanese: “Dreyfus was preparing a brief on the issue but it must have got delayed.”

Davis: “At least your chief-of-staff could have alerted me that there was this issue. I thought the G-G resignation was related to gambling.”

Albanese: “How do you know that?”

Davis looks at Gartrell.

Albanese now looks at Gartrell and asks: “How did you know.”

Gartrell: “Dreyfus was having some problems contacting you and called me.”

Davis, obviously frustrated and stands up to leave: “I am already late for another of these damn meetings.”

After Davis leaves, Albanese looks at a clearly uncomfortable Gartrell: “Just keep in mind the future safe seat!”

Scene 13: Prime Minister’s Office

Albanese to Dreyfus: “There was no need for Gartrell to know about the G-G’s gambling.”

Dreyfus: “He is your chief-of-staff and I could not get you because you were with Davis. Anyway, that’s not the main issue? You have now told national cabinet it was about paedophilia! Why?”

Albanese: “I needed to get them on-side. It was a small price to pay.”

Dreyfus: “This will spread like wild-fire. Half the country will soon know about it.”

Albanese: “Look! I am doing this for the country, for Australia’s national security!”

Scene 14: Prime Minister’s Office

Albanese is with Davis when there is a knock on the door and Gartrell hurries in: “The former G-G has killed herself”

Albanese after pausing for a moment: “I guess this is not a surprise. I need to put out a press-release saying the usual nice things.”

Gartrell’s voice now shows some anger: “Should it mention gambling or paedophilia?”

Albanese: “Let’s just leave it at gambling.”

Albanese: “She resigned because she owed millions to a Chinese gambling syndicate and was being blackmailed.”

Davis: “This is not going to end well – for anyone!

Scene 15: Restaurant

Gartrell is in a restaurant with an unidentified male friend. He is clearly upset, and quickly downs several drinks.

Friend: “Wow! This is unbelievable!”

Scene 16: Public Service Office

Kennedy: “State bureaucrats are beginning to fight back. I know some of them very well and they are calling me.”

Davis: “You’re not alone.”

Scene 17: Prime Minister’s Office

Marles: “Gartrell was talking too much.”

Albanese: “But, did you have to kill him?”

Marles: “It was a drug overdose.”

Albanese, shaking his head: “He never took drugs. He was almost a son to me.”

Marles: “Remember that we are doing all this for Australia’s national security.”

Albanese: “Who organizes these things for you?”

Marles just smiles.

Scene 18: Prime Minister’s Office

Dreyfus: “The state premiers are in revolt. The media is not saying much because of national security concerns, but the rumours are that the paedophile story was a lie and led to the death of an innocent woman. But the dam will eventually burst.”

Albanese says little and seems depressed: “This has got out of control.”

There is a knock on the door and Marles and Wong enter.

Wong to Albanese: “I have been very loyal to you because you once had my back when I really needed it. But, you now need to pull back! We risk a huge recession and massive civil unrest.”

Marles to Albanese: “It might be best for the country if you resign. I am ready to go to the G-G and say I can form a government.”

Wong: “No! There will then be pressure for an election. And, why you? There are other people who might want to be leader.”

Marles: “No. Johnston understands the situation. He knows that I am the best hope. There will be no election until the national security situation improves.”

Wong: “And when will that be?”

Marles: “Not soon!”

Albanese says nothing.

Marles hands Albanese a phone, saying: “Call the G-G.”

Scene 19: Prime Minister’s Office

Official: “The president is now ready to talk to you.”

Marles: “Hello. Yes, yes. Thankyou.”

Putin’s Successor if he is killed soon!

Putin’s Successor if he is killed soon!!

If for some reason Putin unexpectedly dies – for example, he is killed in an aircraft accident (like the president of Iran) – it is worth considering who be the most likely successors.

The Moscow based Minchenko Consulting pyramid list might give us some clues. At the top are three businessmen — Arkady Rotenberg, Gennady Timchenko, Yuri Kovalchuk – who are probably too far removed from the broader Kremlin power structures to be contenders. Sergei Chemezov is a possibility, but would he want the direct responsibilities of president, or would he prefer to be in the background? Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin would undoubtedly want the job but the “teacher’s pet” might not be seen as tough enough by the security forces. Even the experienced and highly intelligent Georgi Malenkov eventually fell to the more hardline Nikita Khrushchev!

The next row down in the Minchenko list contains Igor Sechin, Sergei Kiriyenko, Dmitry Medvedev, and Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin.

Could Sechin attempt to be a successor to Putin – as Bormann did with Hitler? Sechin is seven years younger than Putin (although photos would suggest he is nowhere near as fit) and it would not be surprising if he wanted the top job if the opportunity arose. If we accept suggestions – by Mark Galeotti and others – that Putin is seeking to nurture a “new generation” of “Putinists” it would be surprising if Putin was to designate Sechin his successor. Moreover, after the May 2024 reshuffle, according to Galeotti, Sechin has become “simply a hydro-carbon baron” and not a clan leader. Kiriyenko and Medvedev would clearly jump at the chance to succeed Putin and Kiriyenko’s position inside the Kremlin would be an advantage – but he would probably be seen a too much of a dilettante. It is hard to conceive of Medvedev being acceptable no matter hard he tries to be a tough guy. Sobyanin presently has a great job and may not want to make a move unless assured that he – and not the siloviki power structures – would be running the country.

The third row in the Minchenko list consisted of Sergei Shoigu and Nikolai Patrushev. Shoigu’s power depends completely on his personal relationship with Putin, and he would not last long as a successor no matter how he got there. Patrushev has much wider connections in the upper echelons of power, is close to Putin, and now has a son – Nikolai Patrushev – who is a Deputy Prime Minister. If there was ever to be a struggle for power in the event of say, the unexpected death of Putin in the near future, Nikolai Patrushev – along with Sechin – would probably be a player. Whether or not this would be a Hua Guofeng / Deng Xiaoping or a Malenkov / Krushchev type struggle would depend on the circumstances.

So, in the event of Putin eventually deciding to nominate a successor, Dyumin would seem to be the most likely choice. In the event that Putin does not get to choose because of his sudden death, Mishustin would emerge at the top for at least an interim period.

Read more in my book:

“PUTIN and his Lieutenants: compared to Mao, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Ataturk” is now available on Amazon:  

https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/product/B0DBGYB3RR

 

Brittany Higgins false rape earned her $2m

Brittany Higgins false rape earned her $2m.

Nary always had this uncanny sense of seeing me if I went near my favorite café next to the river in Phnom Penh and would come up to me with a broad happy smile. About a month ago I saw Nary walking on the road in the opposite direction to me, but she did not seem to recognize me until she was only a couple of meters away. Her face was blank and she showed little of the enthusiasm that I had become used to. I recognized that something was different but I had no idea what. I could not just leave her standing there so I invited her to come to the café with me. When the waitress asked Nary what she wanted, Nary could only mumble a response.

Nary had always told me that she worked as a cook and rented a room not far from the café, while her mother lived on the very outskirts of Phnom Penh about an hour away by “tuktuk” taxi. I felt that Nary was in no condition to be left alone, so I invited her back to my apartment. She went straight to the bathroom, had a shower, and then wrapped herself in a large towel and lay on the bed.

Sometime later I went to the bathroom and was shocked to see that her thick panties were lying in the washbasin with a huge amount of blood. I went into the bedroom to ask Nary about this but she just rolled over and I then saw that there was now a lot of blood seeping through the towel wrapped around her lower body. If I had any doubts that she had been sexually assaulted they were removed that night. While I tried totally unsuccessfully to sleep on the living room couch Nary spent the whole night sitting on the bed with the lights on and talking to some imaginary persons or God. The “conversation” was intense and continuous. At about 3 am I heard uncontrollable crying which lasted for well over an hour despite my efforts calm her down.

Neither of us had slept and when dawn broke I told Nary that she could stay in my apartment for a long as she wanted. Nevertheless, Nary insisted that she wanted to go “home”. I gave her $100 and said she could come back in the future. I had put Nari’s underwear in the washing machine and the blood had washed out – but Nary decided to throw these in the bin and left my apartment without any panties.

Contrast this with Brittany Higgins who willingly went back to Parliament House with Bruce Lehrmann, took her white dress off and put it on the floor next to a couch and lay on the couch waiting for him. For some reason Lehrmann was slow to move and by the time he got to her she was half asleep.

Nary has always refused to tell me what had happened. In contrast, Higgins happily lied and tricked her way to getting over $2m in compensation — while all the time partying in her white dress while falsely telling police it was in a bag under her bed because of its association with “rape”!

Justice Michael Lee, who justifiably did not like or trust Lehrmann, probably thinks the word “rape” applies equally to Nary and Higgins when the reality of the world suggests that they are very different things.

Lies of Mike Burgess, the Director General of ASIO

Lies of Mike Burgess, the Director General of ASIO

Mike Burgess, the Director General of ASIO, has been reported as telling the ABC Insider program that there was “far more anti-Semitism than Islamophobia in Australia” before the October 7 Hamas terrorist attacks. (“ASIO boss urges restraint in political rhetoric”, The Australian, 11 August 2024).

However, he presents no evidence for this assertion. I suspect that he has no evidence and is lying because he thinks that this view lines up with that of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

Or if Burgess really believes what he says, I suspect that his claim is based almost entirely on what very vocal – and PR savvy – Australian Jewish groups claim. These people appear to have much greater loyalty to Israel than Australia and are prepared to sow discord in Australia in order to advance the interests of Israel. 

Burgess also, no doubt, reads The Australian newspaper which has team of journalists and commentators who stand out for their lack of work experience in the non-English speaking part of the world and adherence to almost any American idea of being superior humans. Almost to a person they exhibit Islamophobia in the fashion of the clear views of one of Australia’s High Court Judges.

Contrary to what Burgess argues, the willingness of Australians – and the Government — to see Palestinians slaughtered en-masse by Israel suggest that Islamophobia is far greater than anti-Semitism in Australia.

I lived and worked in Russia for many years until October 2022 — that is eight months after the February invasion of Ukraine — and Burgess reminds me of the internal propaganda of Russian security agencies.

Don’t be a coward Mike! Tell us about the evidence that you have about the relative strengths of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia! 

Evan Gershkovitch and Krasikov is Bad Policy

Evan Gershkovitch and Krasikov is Bad Policy

The trading of Russian FSB assassin Vadim Krasikov for various Russian political prisoners, including US citizen Evan Gershkovitch and a number of Russian dissidents, illustrates the incompetence of US and German leaderships in foreign policy – and reflects the reason that Russia is winning the war in Ukraine!

The essence is a failure to understand that the desires of a dictator do not necessarily coincide with those of the remainder of the elite or the wider population. The return of Krasikov was an obsession of Vladimir Putin, and perhaps a few of the Russian elite, but the vast majority would not have cared. This was also the case with Putin’s obsession with Russian historical lordship of Ukrainian lands.

No long-term dictator – whether it be Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Napoleon Bonaparte, Benito Mussolini, Kemal Ataturk or even Putin – is able to totally get his own way, and all rely on some very significant agreement from others in the country’s elite. Putin was able to marshal Russian elite fears about NATO expansion and control of Crimea in support of his own obsessions because the US and its allies made it so easy to do so with their inept foreign policies that Putin could present these as a threat.

While some commentators in the West talk darkly about “appeasement”, the West should have appeased on NATO expansion and not done it, and it should have appeased on Crimea because these were issues of concern to a great many Russians beside Putin. Where it should not have appeased is on such cases as the 2006 poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko and the 2018 Skripal poisonings and the shooting down of MH17 because a much tougher reaction would have been seen as a counter to the obsession of Putin and his security agencies rather than as anti-Russian. The timid reactions of the West allowed Putin to seem to many like a super-strategist, and this increased his chances of shoehorning the elite into accepting his decision to invade Ukraine. The deal to return Krasikov to Russia will make Putin seem even greater in Russian eyes and will bolster his support.

I was living in Russia at the time of the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine and continued to do so for another eight months. I spoke to many people both in Moscow and other places. While there were some who strongly supported the invasion, the great majority were apprehensive and even afraid to use the word “war” or speak against it. But now Russian – and Putin – successes in Ukraine, the Russian economy and dealmaking are leading to a very significant change in attitudes.

The West has tried to blame Chinese support of Russia for the Russian successes, but at a time when many in the West and NATO talk of the possibility of nuclear war, it is NATO member Turkey which has become a major conduit for belated and weak sanctions and QUAD member India which has facilitated oil export revenues. And it was the tardy provision of often dated weapons that allowed Russian forces to consolidate their positions. 

Will the West learn any lessons from this in regard to China? In the end it may not matter, but the West should try to understand – and act upon – the reality that whatever obsession Xi Jinping and some others may have about Taiwan, the majority of Chinese probably do not care unless the West gives Xi Jinping the opportunity to stir up the issue by taking actions that seem more generally anti-Chinese.

Beazley, Richardson, Dibb are old men pushing sexy, ignorant group thinks.

Beazley, Richardson, Dibb are old men pushing sexy, ignorant group thinks.

On 28 May a Defending Australia Summit was held in Sydney by “The Australian Newspaper” which showcased 3 former Australian defence officials who seemed confused by their old age and indulged in ignorant and historically romantic group think.

 

Kim Beazley is a former Australian Minister of Defence and Ambassador to the US, Denis Richardson is a former head of the Department of Defence and Ambassador to the US, and Paul Dibb is a former Department of Defence official in charge of strategy.

 

All have spent nearly all their working lives in Canberra or Washington talking to people with similar ideas and sources of information. None of them have any significant economic, business or industry experience. Despite this, all extolled the virtues of building AUKUS submarines – which, magically, will now be newly designed 12000 ton behemoths compared with 7000 tons for present-day US nuclear submarines and about 3000 tones for present-day Collins class conventional subs — in the South Australia city of Adelaide.

 

It was strange that Richardson said that Australia should not buy foreign defence equipment and then try to modify the stuff to suit its own needs because of the past disasters in this area, but then enthusiastically endorsed AUKUS modified submarines saying that Australia is a “can do nation” and winning is “simply a question of will and perseverance” — as if it was a pep talk for a national football team!

 

All three agreed that Australia would need to join the US in any war with China over Taiwan. One reason seems to be that Australia needs to defend “freedom of navigation” and its international trade routes by fighting China, even though 40% of Australia’s exports go to China (12% to Japan, 7% to South Korea).

 

Another reason is that the Australia-US alliance would collapse if Australia did not join in fighting China, even though Beazley said that the US “has never been more dependent on Australia” than now.

 

It was strange that Dibb said that Japan would not join in the fight against China, and did not suggest that this would affect the US-Japan alliance .

 

Then there was the issue of skilled workers to construct the AUKUS submarines. Australian Submarine Agency director-general Jonathan Mead said his biggest concern over the AUKUS program was finding and training the people to deliver it. “Workforce has always been identified as the No. 1 issue.”

 

“The Australian” journalist Cameron Stewart – once again with no economic, business or industry experience – is an AUKUS enthusiast. The next day he wrote:

 

“South Australia’s Premier, Peter Malinauskas, has sent a timely message to both sides of politics in Canberra that the AUKUS plan to build nuclear submarines will succeed only if it is front of mind in every area of government policy. Malinauskas wants AUKUS to be a consideration in deliberations over the level of Australia’s skilled migration program. But more than that, he is urging the federal government to think bigger on AUKUS, beyond the defence portfolio, and to understand how an enterprise of this size and ambition will touch almost every major area of public policy. When we think about housing, what does it mean for AUKUS? When we think about infrastructure, what does that mean for AUKUS? When we think about education, health, or innovation policy: AUKUS has implications that reach into every portfolio.” The size and ambition of the plan to build five SSN AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines in Adelaide, and maintain three US Virginia-class submarines, is beyond anything attempted in Australia. Malinauskas warns now is not the time to cut migration levels when SA’s defence sector will need to more than double its workforce of 14,000 in defence and associated industries by the 2040s. Foreign nationals cannot work on the AUKUS project for reasons of national security, which means the submarine enterprise will recruit those extra 15,000.”

 

Given the time frames, why not just encourage Australians “to think about” having “big sex for big AUKUS” and put – a la Sparta – the children in special schools to became future AUKUS sex and construction workers?

Jewish women Yvonne Engelman and Nina Bassat are Russia-type PR pawns?

Jewish women Yvonne Engelman and Nina Bassat are Russia-type PR pawns?

President Putin banned the word “war” and insisted that Russians use the term “special military operation” to describe his February 2022 invasion of Ukraine because he wanted to manipulate the public’s thinking and divert it from reality. I lived in Russia until October 2022 – for eight months after the invasion – and can attest how manipulating speech facilitates manipulation of thinking. It works slowly and insidiously.

 

There is now widespread support for the war against Ukraine. Tatiana Stanovaya has written that “critiquing the war makes you an enemy of the state (and by extension, the public)” and liable to be branded a neo-Nazi or Fascist and be jailed.

 

Josh Frydenberg and several Australian Jewish organizations, such as the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), are grossly exaggerating Australian antisemitism – which is mostly the result of events in Gaza – to divert attention from Israeli brutality. They want Australians to feel un-Australian and akin to a Hitler admirer if they focus their minds on a government in Israel – and it seems a society — that wants to purge Gaza of Palestinians.

 

Frydenberg and Co. are happy to manipulate thinking in Australia because their true loyalties are to Israel. I have written about my personal experience of this with Colin Rubenstein of the AIJAC. See:  https://www.jeffschubert.com/me-and-colin-rubenstein-an-australian-traitor/

 

Frydenberg slickly uses the PR trick of getting a couple of vulnerable people who have genuinely suffered — in this case in the Holocaust – as pawns to try to focus attention on “bad Australia” and away from Gaza.

 

Yvonne Engelman said: “My message is: get involved. Stand up and say, ‘this is wrong. We don’t want this in our country’.” Nina Bassett says: “Open your eyes and open your mind and open your heart … speak out on the right side of history”.

 

If Engelman and Bassett really and honestly think there will be a Holocaust in Australia, they would be sensible to leave!

 

Finally, Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister, Richard Marles, says he is “deeply uncomfortable” with the phrase “from the river to the sea” because it “is a phrase which calls for only one state” and it undermined bipartisan support for a two-state solution. Oh! So, now Australians will soon only support something other than a “two-state” solution at the risk of criminal prosecution?

 

In addition to living in Russia, I have lived and worked in China where my book on dictatorship is banned, and I would be happy to explain to Marles – if he has the guts — why he would be happy working in a dictatorship! See my book on Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Kemal Ataturk: https://www.jeffschubert.com/

 

My other internet sites are: https://russianeconomicreform.ru/  and https://shanghai-ifc.org/

 

 Jeff Schubert

WhatsApp and Telegram:  +855 6157 6627

  

Bad News for Ukraine

Bad News for Ukraine!

Several interesting pieces of news about Russia have emerged in recent days which add to my view that Ukraine has little chance of a victory.

 

FIRSTLY, Tatiana Stanovaya, in “Russia’s Pro-Putin Elites”, Foreign Affairs, 9 May 2024 (see (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russia/russias-pro-putin-elites ),

reports on the present elite mood in Moscow when it comes to Ukraine. I left Russia in October 2022, eight months after the invasion of Ukraine, to speak at an Indian Government seminar in New Delhi on Russia-China relations (see

https://russianeconomicreform.ru/2022/10/china-russia-in-era-of-xi-and-putin/ )

but the defiant and aggressive mood in Moscow does not surprise me.

 

Stanovaya writes: “Judging by off-the-record talks I had with contacts in Moscow, it became clear that nobody is looking for an exit strategy from the war or an opportunity to initiate dialogue with the West; nobody is concerned with persuading the West to ease sanctions; nobody is hungry for compromise with Ukraine, at least under its current leadership. There is no conjecture about what would constitute an acceptable deal to end this conflict. Instead, the Russian leadership and elites are proceeding on the basis that Russia cannot afford to lose the war, and to ensure it does not, the country must keep up the pressure on Ukraine, for no matter how long.”

 

“The exact nature of that victory remains vague in the minds of Russian elites, who instead seem to find more safety in Russia’s posture of aggression alone. The war has become a goal in and of itself, serving multiple purposes: it staves off defeat, creates new opportunities for career growth and business ventures, and boosts the economy. Critiquing the war makes you an enemy of the state (and by extension, the public) and hoping for its imminent end is too wishful; a Russian defeat, after all, could make many in the country vulnerable to being held accountable for complicity in war crimes perpetrated in Ukraine.”

 

“More than two years of war have made the Russian elites more anti-Western and anti-Ukrainian than ever, binding them to Putin as their sole assurance of survival. The anti-Western narrative is now pervasive across all segments of the elite, including the siloviki (members of the security services), technocrats within the administration, former liberals now serving Putin, and hawks. The very idea of compromise with the West is repellent to many in the elite. Putin’s re-election in March has reinforced among many the belief that change is impossible, fostering a sense of both powerlessness and dependence. In this situation, all one can do is accept reality: a Russia that is repressive, aggressive, jingoistic, and merciless. It’s not that elites trust Putin — it’s that to survive they have to reconcile themselves to the implacable, tightening grasp of the regime. Those who hoped to simply wait out this period of repression and zealotry now realize that there is no returning to the way things were. The only escape from despair and hopelessness that seems viable requires them to join the ranks of Putin’s devotees: becoming pro-war, radically anti-Western, and often gleeful about anything that hints at the crumbling of the U.S.-led international rules-based order.”

 

“The war and Putin’s escalating confrontation with the West are foreclosing the space for internal divisions and disagreements. In matters of national security and geopolitics, Putin has managed to forge an impressively homogenous political landscape where nothing can challenge the commitment to the war in Ukraine and hostility to the West. The regime has denied the dissenting segment of society—which accounts for approximately 25 percent of the population, a significant proportion, according to the surveys conducted by the Levada Center, Russia’s most reliable independent polling agency—any meaningful political infrastructure and the ability to express antiwar sentiment without risking imprisonment.”

 

“A centripetal force is bearing down on Russia, with the Kremlin exerting greater control over state and society. Both the Russian elite and the broader public desire peace, but strictly on terms favorable to Russia—ideally with the de facto capitulation of Ukraine. They want Russia at a minimum to evade suffering a strategic defeat in Ukraine, but what constitutes an acceptable victory remains a matter of debate. Even to that nebulous end, they appear ready to fight forever.”

 

“Some observers argue that Ukraine should acknowledge that it cannot retake all the territories conquered by Russia and that Kyiv should be willing to cede land to Moscow to pave the way to peace. But that may not be enough for the Kremlin and the elites that serve it. Putin’s dispute over territory is a strategy rather than a final objective; his ultimate goal is not the seizure of a few provinces but the disbanding of Ukraine as a state in its present political form.”

 

“As Russian leaders weigh which nuclear options might best deter the West from taking bolder steps in Ukraine, many within the Russian elite welcome the escalation. ‘How does Europe not understand this?’ one Moscow source in policymaking circles told me. There’s noticeable excitement among the elites and the military: the prospect of engaging NATO soldiers is far more motivating than confronting Ukrainians. For Putin, any form of intervention would be a welcome scenario.” “Many in Russia are in fact eagerly anticipating the further escalation of the conflict, confident in their country’s invincibility.”

 

“Among Russian elites, the prevailing belief is that only a military defeat or a prolonged, severe financial crisis could halt their country’s momentum. Many Russians see defeating Ukraine as a crucial step in the Kremlin’s anti-Western agenda. Forget territorial gains or even preventing NATO expansion—establishing a political regime in Ukraine that is friendly to Russia, thereby denying the West a beachhead on Ukrainian soil, would mark a significant defeat for the West.”

 

“Attempting to appease Putin is futile, and wishfully seeking for fragmentation within Russia is unlikely to be effective as long as the country remains financially robust, maintains the upper hand over Ukraine, and secures total domestic control. The authorities are rapidly becoming more hawkish, the elites are increasingly embracing Putin’s war agenda, and the broader society is unable (or indeed unwilling) to exert the kind of pressure that might push Russia in a different directions. Western leaders face the unenviable task of determining how to engage with a Russia that has grown increasingly self-confident, bold, and radical.”

 

SECONDLY, Prime Minister Mishustin has announced some new ministerial appointments. Acting Deputy PM and Minister of Industry and Trade Denis Manturov has been tapped to become First Deputy Prime Minister. “The upgraded status of the Deputy PM in charge of industry is due to the importance of ensuring technological leadership, as stated in the new May decree signed by President,” government spokesman Boris Belyakov explained. The new government will also see a new Deputy PM position created, with the official specifically tasked with the development of transport and logistics.

 

I have previously written about Russia’s new attempts at “technological leadership” under the heading “Russia’s Crazy New Religion of Economic Sovereignty”. See: https://www.etterretningen.no/2023/05/04/russias-crazy-new-religion-of-economic-sovereignty/

 

I argue that “at the present time Russian nationalism – and fears – are driving the ideas of technological and economic sovereignty. It may take a few years, but eventually the folly will become very clear.” In the short term, however, the focus on this will give some gains and provide the confidence building illusion that Russia is on the right track to greatness and “invincibility” – and so further boosting the unwillingness to compromise on Ukraine. 

 

The appointment of hard-line economist Andrey Belousov to replace Sergei Shoigu as Defence Minister fits in with this view, as the position is mainly concerned with ensuring that the military has the resources that it needs rather than with direct combat operations. An historical example may be the appointment of Albert Speer, who was Adolf Hitler’s architect, to the position of Germany’s Armaments Minister — which brought positive results for Germany.

 

Overall, I retain my view about Russia’s economic future which I wrote six months ago on https://russianeconomicreform.ru/

 

I wrote: “Since February 2022 Russia has increasingly turned inward in political, social and economic terms. At the same time, Russia’s top leaders – and some important supporters – seem to think that Russians have some unique characteristics and talents that will allow an extreme focus on self to thrive in a complex economic and technological world; and also both influence and attract others. While this may appear to be so in the short-term because of Russia’s generally successful efforts at macroeconomic control, rich natural resources, internal propaganda and implicit threats to use nuclear weapons, this thinking is delusional. The ideological corruption of the education system will reinforce the misguided notion of technological sovereignty; and social and economic life will in the medium-long term move toward stagnation. Moreover, Russia is a country with a declining population which is increasingly ignorant of the wider world, a deteriorating culture, and no solid friends. Little will change while Putin and his thinking hold sway in Russia and present an antagonistic face to the world, and most Ukraine related foreign sanctions remain in place. Russia’s economic and political future is not particularly rosy, but neither is it anything like the 1990’s because of a generally competent bureaucracy and little prospect of regional separation.”

Group Think psychology of AUKUS and Option 2

Group Think psychology of AUKUS and Option 2.

The idea that nuclear submarines can be built in Adelaide under AUKUS has the characteristics of the “group think” that led to invasion of Iraq in 2003 — and the prolonged strange debate about business taxation’s Option 2 over twenty years ago. Alexander Downer, the former Australian Foreign Minister – like me from South Australia – in an October 2023 interview with “The Australian” newspaper’s Paul Kelly described the idea of building nuclear-powered submarines in Adelaide as a “bit of a fairytale”. Downer says that “some government in the future will make the obvious decision and not go ahead with the Adelaide build”.

 

So, how and why has this aspect of AUKUS survived so long?

 

One possibility is that the upper ranks of the Australian military and defence bureaucracy are so lacking in intelligence and knowledge that they cannot see the obvious problems. South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas has said: “The AUKUS submarines will be the most complex machines that have ever been built in human history.” Adelaide does not possess the skilled labor, industrial and technological base to build anything more than a basic diesel submarine, and its geographical location is hardly conducive to effective supply chain management of a new design. Moreover, the AUKUS submarine design exists only in digital form.

 

The most likely explanation for the survival of the idea of building nuclear submarines in Adelaide is a type of severe “group think” which I witnessed in the taxation Option 2 (also known as TVM or the Tax Value Method) debate over twenty years ago.

 

Option 2 was extensively analysed and debated by the Business Coalition of Tax Reform (BCTR) for over three years beginning in 1998 — almost exclusively because it was initially pushed by John Ralph, an ex-CEO of CRA and business luminary, based on a Commonwealth Treasury report that did not include it as the preferable way to go; it was just a theoretical second option flight of fancy!

 

Option 2 took on a life of its own because the Business Council of Australia (BCA) – which is essentially an association of CEOs from the 100 biggest Australian companies – wanted to support Ralph and wanted to take the lead in business tax reform.

 

The odd thing was that nearly all the tax accountants inside these 100 companies were opposed to Option 2 because it was not considered practical and was not in use in any other significant country. But these tax accountants did not wish to publicly criticize something that their bosses supposedly supported – at least according the ambitious professional bureaucrats managing the BCA — and so basically adopted a stance of “more research is needed”.

 

When combined with the lack of knowledge of taxation amongst other business groups which were members of the BCTR, this led to a sort of passive group think.

 

The BCTR had a membership of about 40 business associations — such as Canberra based ACCI, the National Farmers Federation, and the Sydney based AI Group and many smaller ones – but the BCA convened and chaired the initial meetings. This gave it a sort of first mover advantage. While a series of “independent” businessmen were eventually appointed chairman of the BCTR meetings, they were ex-CEO members of the BCA.

 

One of chairmen them was particularly aggressive, and when a PwC tax expert raised some issue with Option 2 he was accused of “trying to divide business”. The PwC guy never again spoke at a meeting.

 

In about a dozen full-day meetings that I attended over a three-year period less than 10 of business associations actually put forward an opinion. The rest just sat there saying nothing — meeting after meeting! It was a very passive form of group think. The BCA was left to draft a series of press releases over a three-year period that promoted Option 2 — until in mid-2002 when even its proponents eventually conceded it was unworkable!

 

A similar thing seems to have happened with AUKUS. Someone who wished to see closer defence cooperation between Australia and the US had a moment of inspiration about building nuclear submarines in Adelaide. The idea appealed to prime minister Scott Morrison, a former marketing executive with no industrial or large project experience or knowledge. A high profile announcement gave first mover advantage to AUKUS in a PR sense. Because all other attempts by Australia to procure submarines had been botched, many people seem to have basically thrown up their hands, sighed, and where possible fall into line so that some of the billions of dollars would flow to them.

 

Oh! I forgot to mention that one of the reasons the Option 2 debate lasted so long was the consulting dollars, travel and feelings of importance that flowed to various individuals and groups as long as Option 2 needed “more research” and more meetings.

 

While there are people still saying that nuclear submarines will be built in Adelaide, none of these people are disinterested industrial experts. Indeed, just like the tax experts who opposed Option 2, there seems to be a fear of speaking out — and just like the PwC guy, someone will say you are “trying to divide freedom loving countries” if you question AUKUS.

 

Rex Patrick, a former South Australian Senator and submarine crewman, has written that “senior military officers, who were no doubt great war fighters in their junior years but with little project management experience, have been making high-risk purchase recommendations to Cabinet ministers with zero project management experience”. From the navy’s perspective, “the public is better served if debates about defence are devoid of any contributions from people who know about the subject”.

 

Patrick description of the AUKUS leadership team could, with a few title changes, have equally been used to describe the sort of people pushing Option 2: “The AUKUS leadership team is filled with seasoned military officers, public servants and academics – but little actual shipyard experience. Sure, they’re capable people, but they’re not a hardened project dream team. For many of them the project is a stepping stone to another more senior role.”

 

Just as the BCA got on the front foot and was able to guide and manipulate the Option 2 narrative for three years, the AUKUS debate is now supposedly about technological cooperation in a Pillar 2. As for nuclear submarines in Adelaide, now the so-called Pillar 1 of AUKUS, a form of passive groups think now predominates.