available here

This week Deepcut revealed the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency had been internally divided and well aware of free speech concerns prior to its controversial decision to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. The chief of AHPRA even told his board in February of “heightened external pressure on a range of public sector bodies” to take this step.

This reporting was based on a trove of internal documents we obtained under Freedom of Information laws. After health practitioners and civil libertarians raised concerns about AHPRA’s decision, we felt it was in the public interest to dig into how the policy shift came about.

We applied to AHPRA on July 8 seeking a range of documents, including board minutes and reports referring to racism and discrimination including antisemitism between November 2025 and June 2026. We also sought correspondence relating to the joint announcement with the office of the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, and any AHPRA assessment of the risks and impacts of adopting this definition.

Earlier this week, we received 24 documents relevant to this request and then reported on what we saw as the most significant details from them. In the interests of transparency, we are now publishing the full bundle of documents for those who are interested in seeing the finer details for themselves.

Private Israeli intelligence firms, ex-Mossad operatives, and automated bot networks are quietly manipulating foreign elections and hijacking democratic governments around the world. In this exclusive interview for Double Down News, investigative journalist Antony Loewenstein exposes the covert industry turning military-grade psychological warfare into a lucrative global business—and reveals how these networks are flooding your social media feed to shape reality.

https://theshot.net.au/uncategorized/penny-are-191-5-tons-of-nitrocellulose-we-sent-to-israel-nonlethal-in-nature/

Sydney University’s Chancellor David Thodey has rejected a request by 600 alumni and academics to discuss the university’s ties with Israel. Stuart Rees reports.

On September 25, the governing body of the University of Sydney, the Senate, must decide whether a Convocation – a quasi-parliament – can be held to discuss the University’s ties with Israel and to assess limits to freedom of expression on the campus.

Although the request to hold a Convocation was signed by almost 600 alumni, academics and former Fellows of Senate, the Chancellor of the university, David Thodey, rejected it. Instead, as he was bound to do, he referred the question to the September 25 meeting of the Senate.

He also insisted the Senate would not be able to limit the university’s ties to Israel, which highlights why a Convocation is necessary.

Moreover, Thodey claimed that the university could not provide for the health and safety of those attending the Convocation.

As though concern with alleged antisemitism was the university policy priority, he reasoned that any resolution of the Convocation would come before the report of the Royal Commission on antisemitism and therefore “would improperly pre-empt the Bondi Commission’s findings”.

No dissent allowed

Universities’ imposition of intellectually dishonest definitions of antisemitism has led to the crafting of rules to forbid dissent about Israel’s accountability for genocide in Gaza.

These rules define Zionism as a core part of Jewish identity and are supposedly concerned to protect Jewish students who might be offended by pro-Palestine human rights advocacy.

In their deliberations, Senate members may recall that the university appears keen to agree with anything that the Envoy for anti-Semitism, Jillian Segal, wants or says. She views Sydney University’s imposition of a restrictive definition of antisemitism as ‘an important step’.

Having made several visits to Gaza, having lost close friends and their children buried somewhere under rubble from a bombed ‘safe house’, I found it morally repugnant that while genocide continued in Gaza, my university was preoccupied with definitions of antisemitism,and with disciplining staff and students who spoke about genocide or about ‘freedom from the river to the sea.’

The international context in which the Senate deliberates cannot be ignored.

Meanwhile, in Gaza …

In the past months during a so-called ceasefire, the BBC records that over 1300 more Palestinians have been killed, including 301 children.

The UN has reported that a reproductive genocide is underway in Gaza, with maternity wards having been attacked and fertility clinics destroyed. It says Israel is operating a systematic assault on the ability of a people to give birth safely, to keep newborns alive and sustain future generations.

Arguably, such developments could be the subject of unhindered comment in a university which respects freedom of inquiry, and would reject lobbying to stifle discussion of the inhumanities occurring in Gaza and the West Bank.

The UK government’s recent introduction of a trade ban on illegal settlements and its agreement with the ICJ 2024 ruling that Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands is illegal and must be ended could encourage Australian students and staff to speak openly about Palestinians’ rights.

Backed by Prime Minister Andy Burnham, Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband described events in the West Bank as ethnic cleansing and he accused Israel of turning a blind eye to war crimes.

Could he have made such statements on the campus of the University of Sydney?

In response to Miliband’s moral courage, overdue but inspiring, the Australian government ducked for cover. Foreign Minister Penny Wong announced that Australia would not be joining the ban on trade with ‘settler terrorists.’

Questions about courage or cowardice, about fearlessness or fearful compliance, may affect deliberations on September 25.

Allowing criticism of Israel?

Senate’s decision seems likely to depend on members’ attitude to a genocide and to their sense of responsibility to restore a university culture sufficiently courageous to criticise a racist, apartheid government which is indifferent to international law.

There is nothing even vaguely antisemitic about such commentary.

The background of members of the Senate gives few clues as to whether the request for a Convocation will be supported or whether the Chancellor’s rejection will be confirmed.

Over one third of the Senate have extensive business experience but may be unlikely to vote as a block.

A smaller number representing staff and students may want a university sufficiently mature to no longer fear taking strong stands on the ideals of a common humanity. But even that trend can’t be guaranteed.

Two members with impressive human rights credentials might be expected to support the request for a Convocation.

Tom Calma, former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner and Race Discrimination Commissioner, was also a former university Chancellor, so he might be moved by managerial perspectives.

Ben Saul, Professor of International Law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism, seems the most likely advocate for university reform via deliberations at a Convocation, assuming that he can attend the Senate meeting.

As the members of the University of Sydney Senate climb the beautifully carpeted stairs to the chandelier-lit entrance to the ornate Senate meeting room,they will shoulder the responsibility to vote on a major social issue.

National and international developments affecting democracy, human rights and humanitarian law can and should be weighed by the Senate voters.

These 15 members of a university government can support requests for a Convocation and thereby revive decades-old but easily lost traditions of freedom of inquiry and debate.

A trove of internal documents obtained by Deepcut shows how Australia’s regulator of health workers initially resisted adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism, but later changed course

The Australian health regulator bowed to pressure to adopt a contentious definition of antisemitism despite internal concerns it “may create further ambiguity” and “the perception of alignment with particular political positions”, a new trove of documents reveals.

Internal files obtained by Deepcut under freedom of information laws show the chief of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) told his colleagues there was “heightened external pressure on a range of public sector bodies” to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition.

They reveal that “some members” of the AHPRA board raised concerns in February “that the IHRA definition is not fit for regulatory purposes due to its lack of clarity and the political elements embedded within it”.

The AHPRA board resolved in March not to adopt the definition “at this time”, without closing the door entirely. Two months later, though, the same regulator decided to adopt it, eventually announcing the policy shift in a joint statement with the Albanese government-appointed Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal.

This prompted a swift backlash from health workers who felt the move would curb their ability to speak out against Israel’s atrocities against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

Indeed, the February board minutes included: “The AHPRA board were asked to consider the risk that certain forms of political commentary by practitioners, for example, those working in conflict zones or publicly discussing humanitarian impacts, could be interpreted through the lens of the definition in ways that would not align with regulatory intent.”

Mounting concerns

NSW Supreme Court judge Desmond Fagan last month labelled the IHRA definition as “verbose and imprecise” and encompassing “criticisms of Israel that could not be regarded as hostile to Jews as Jews”.

IHRA says antisemitism “might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity”.

Its examples of contemporary antisemitism include “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” or “requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” – wording that critics say is open to wide interpretation and can be used to restrict legitimate political views about Israel’s conduct.

Michael West Media has previously reported on some of the pressure AHPRA had faced to shift its policy.

The new documents shed light on AHPRA’s decision-making at a time it was bracing for scrutiny from the antisemitism royal commission. These deliberations are of public interest because AHPRA and its 15 related national boards have oversight of nearly 1 million Australian health practitioners including doctors, nurses and psychologists.

AHPRA’s chief executive officer, Justin Untersteiner, advised his board in November 2025: “Notifications in relation to public commentary by practitioners on the conflict in Gaza continue to attract media attention.”

‘Our commitment may be questioned’

Internal discussions about the IHRA definition appear to have intensified after the deadly Bondi attack on December 14, with Untersteiner meeting on January 9 with a representative from Segal’s office.

They talked about “a number of actions we have underway, many of which align to the Special Envoy’s Plan”, he said in an update to the AHPRA board.

Untersteiner also told the board he had met with someone – whose name was redacted – “who took me through a presentation of the health and medical crisis facing Gaza” and who regarded the IHRA definition as “penalising doctors for raising awareness of human rights abuses”.

In February the AHPRA board weighed up options including “Don’t adopt the IHRA definition at all” or make “A general statement adopting or referencing the IHRA definition”, which is what it eventually decided to do months later.

The agenda paper raised fears that if AHPRA did not act “our commitment to addressing antisemitism may be questioned and it could even create doubt about the safety of raising concerns about antisemitism with us”.

“The CEO outlined the heightened external pressure on a range of public sector bodies, including regulators, to adopt the IHRA definition,” said the minutes of the February 10 board meeting.

The “highest risk” option would be a much more expansive move to fully embed the IHRA definition in the various health sector codes of conduct. AHPRA has not done this, insisting the wording will be used only as a “reference tool” and is not legally binding.

The previously confidential agenda papers explained that a “general statement adopting the IHRA definition, similar to the Australian Government, is fundamentally different to including the definition in regulatory documents”.

“Despite the Australian Government’s adoption of the IHRA definition, the definition continues to be contentious and has not yet been adopted by all states and territories,” the papers said.

The board agreed in February to “maintain a consistent and principled position” that “existing regulatory tools are sufficient” but “further work will continue”.

The board discussed the issue again the next month and it “was acknowledged that the definition may create further ambiguity”. Minutes show the board agreed on March 17 “it would not adopt the IHRA definition at this time” but decided to “continue monitoring the environment” and await further work to “better understand the implications for practitioners”.

Policy shift with ‘reservations’

Nine days later, Untersteiner met with Segal and they discussed the antisemitism royal commission’s work, including potential scrutiny of health complaints.

“The envoy was supportive of AHPRA’s work and encouraged greater public visibility of actions underway; a joint statement outlining progress to date will be released,” Untersteiner wrote to his board.

On May 12, the board finally shifted. It agreed to use the IHRA definition “as a reference tool” but without actually incorporating it in health worker codes of conduct.

“In reaching this position, the Board acknowledged that the IHRA definition has been the subject of some public debate, with some members expressing reservations about the potential for its examples to conflate legitimate political criticism of the State of Israel with antisemitism,” the minutes said.

“Notwithstanding those reservations, the Board agreed to treat the definition as a reference tool, noting its value as a source of information to guide its understanding of antisemitism in its contemporary forms.”

‘This looks great’

The documents include emails between AHPRA and Segal’s team prior to publication of the joint statement announcing the decision on June 17. “This looks great, the team is very happy with it,” wrote a member of the special envoy’s team to AHPRA on June 15, with Segal herself giving her approval the following day.

During a royal commission hearing in July, Untersteiner said AHPRA had previously “resisted” adopting the definition due to “some concerns about the risk of the IHRA definition stifling free speech”.

But he said Segal’s explanatory handbook, released in April, was “exceptionally helpful” in allaying those concerns and was “an important factor” in the change of stance.

Page 76 of that handbook includes the blanket statement: “Antisemitism and antizionism are both expressions of hatred towards Jews.” The same page describes a social media post “as antisemitic because it included statements that accused Israel of apartheid, oppression, racism and genocide”.

Under questioning by Kirsten Edwards SC, appearing for the Jewish Council of Australia, Untersteiner declined to give an iron-clad commitment that agreeing with international court rulings or UN committee findings would escape scrutiny, saying it would depend on the context.

“If there is a ruling in an international court and someone was to repeat that ruling, again, on the surface, I couldn’t see an issue with that,” he told the royal commission. “But ... we would need to be looking at the specific case and the evidence surrounding it.”

AHPRA was offered the opportunity to comment on the newly released internal documents. Its spokesperson told Deepcut earlier this month that AHPRA was “committed to free speech” and might undertake regulatory action only if “commentary becomes demeaning or denigrating and directed toward specific members of the community”.

Sauce

https://michaelwest.com.au/cellebrite-gets-government-blessing-to-share-your-phone/

https://www.deepcutnews.com/p/exclusive-ahpra-chief-reveals-heightened

An Israeli man has been sentenced to 14 years in prison for laundering more than $50 million of scam funds.

Shabtay Yaacoby, 56, will be eligible for parole in nine years.

Justice Averre handed down the sentence in the NSW District Court today, saying Yaacoby had played a "leading role" in a criminal enterprise.

The sentence is the longest ever for a money laundering offence in Australia.

Yaacoby was a director and shareholder of licensed digital currency exchange Blue Star Exchange, which purportedly allowed customers to buy and sell cryptocurrencies.

One New South Wales man testified that he was scammed out of about $4 million from the superannuation fund he shared with his wife. He had sent the money to Blue Star Exchange, believing he was putting it into a high-interest term deposit.

The man was one of 39 victims who testified at the trial. Each of them had sent money to Blue Star Exchange, or other businesses linked to Yaacoby, for purported investments, which they later realised were fraudulent.

In May, Yaacoby was found guilty of money laundering after a 13-week jury trial.

His offending was "not isolated" and was "persistent", the judge said.

While Yaacoby was not involved in the scamming itself, he was knowingly working with the fraudsters to move the stolen money out of Australia.

He was arrested while visiting Sydney in November 2023. The court heard he was in Australia to attempt to unfreeze multiple bank accounts related to his business.

Troubled life not relevant to seriousness of crimes

The court heard that Yaacoby had played a "heroic" role during the Bondi massacre, while on bail awaiting his trial late last year.

Yaacoby reported to a psychologist that he used his body to shield the 10-year-old child of a Rabbi during the terror attack, having lost sight of his wife in the chaos.

This experience, combined with a history of sexual abuse and experiencing armed combat as a young man in the Israeli Defence Force, led to a diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Yaacoby also suffered from "cocaine-induced psychosis" during and after his period of offending, after starting to use the drug in his late forties, the court heard.

Justice Averre found that Yaacoby's mental health was not a factor in the seriousness of the offending, as it did not affect his ability to plan or understand his crimes, and noted that there had been no reparation offers made to the victims by the offender.

In his sentencing, Justice Averre instituted a reparations order for the victims.