The Yarn

Senior The Age journalist Michael Bachelard is facing questions about his editorial independence following his latest scrutiny of Victoria Cross recipient Ben Roberts-Smith, with documented records revealing his participation in an overseas study tour sponsored by the influential Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC). On 22 October, Bachelard published a fact-check challenging Roberts-Smith’s interview with Ben Fordham, drawing on findings from the former SAS soldier’s defamation battle against Nine newspapers. Those same publications were defendants in the litigation, giving the organisation a direct institutional interest in the dispute. Roberts-Smith continues to defend five war crime murder charges, which he denies, while attempting to rebuild his life and support his family. Bachelard’s external relationships also warrant examination. On 27 November 2018, J-Wire confirmed his participation in AIJAC’s Rambam Israel Fellowship, publishing photographs alongside executive director Colin Rubenstein. Bachelard subsequently addressed an AIJAC function and thanked the organisation for arranging the visit. The programme provides sponsored overseas study opportunities, although the financial value of his individual arrangements remains undisclosed. In September 2026, Bachelard co-authored an investigation concerning the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church, quoting AIJAC representative Rabbi Ralph Genende. The church strongly disputed the reporting, accusing Bachelard of selectively presenting religious teachings and pursuing a longstanding pattern of hostile coverage. The involvement of a representative from an organisation that previously sponsored his travel makes editorial disclosure and transparency particularly relevant. Roberts-Smith served Australia in Afghanistan, received the nation’s highest military honour and remains entitled to defend himself against serious criminal allegations. His supporters are equally entitled to scrutinise the accuracy, fairness and institutional interests of journalists challenging his account. Nine’s previous litigation against Roberts-Smith makes rigorous editorial independence particularly important. Nine must explain what financial benefits accompanied Bachelard’s 2018 trip, whether relevant editors approved the arrangement, what disclosure policies applied and how potential conflicts were managed in subsequent reporting. It should also account for the standards applied when its journalists assess someone with whom the organisation has already fought a major legal battle. Journalists who demand accountability from decorated soldiers, religious organisations and public officials cannot exempt their own professional relationships and editorial decisions from equivalent scrutiny. Register and become a member: newsycle.com Become a supporter via the links in our bio.

The Albanese Government has selected a former Labor attorney-general to lead Australia’s federal corruption watchdog, following the resignation of its inaugural commissioner over a conflict-of-interest scandal. Attorney-General Michelle Rowland announced on 19 October that Robert McClelland, a former Labor MP and minister under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, would become the next National Anti-Corruption Commissioner in January 2027. His predecessor, Paul Brereton, resigned after an independent inspector found he had improperly managed a conflict of interest involving Robodebt royal commission referrals. The watchdog had controversially declined to investigate six individuals referred over one of Australia’s most serious public administration scandals. Despite mounting criticism over its effectiveness, transparency and expenditure, Labor has now chosen one of its own former cabinet ministers to oversee investigations into serious Commonwealth corruption. McClelland received unanimous parliamentary committee approval, but his extensive political history makes independence and conflict-of-interest safeguards essential. The institution established to hold powerful officials accountable must now demonstrate that political connections will never determine who gets investigated. Australians are entitled to a corruption watchdog capable of scrutinising the government that appointed its commissioner, without favour, interference or preferential treatment. Register and become a member: newsycle.com Become a supporter via the links in our bio.

No better place to wash your underwear than at a beach full of people. 🇮🇳 - Halong Bay, Vietnam

Melbourne fashion week. 👩🏿👳🏾‍♂️🧕🏿🧔🏿‍♀️👩🏿‍🦳🧕🏾

Australia’s preferential voting system is exposing the political alliances and ideological divisions that campaign slogans often conceal. While parties publicly attack one another, the election results reveal where their supporters ultimately direct their votes. The Australian Electoral Commission’s official 2025 federal election results show that 88.2% of Greens preferences flowed to Labor over the Coalition, while 74.5% of One Nation preferences flowed to the Coalition over Labor. These aren’t political opinions. They’re the recorded choices of Australian voters. The policy connections deserve equal scrutiny. Labor and the Greens have found common ground on climate legislation and housing expenditure, including negotiating an additional $3 billion for public and community housing. The Coalition and One Nation share positions on reducing immigration and challenging aspects of Australia’s energy transition, despite substantial disagreements over their respective policies. Michael Arbon has raised an important point about the popular “Put Labor Last” slogan. In electorates where Labor and the Greens are competing for the final positions, preference rankings can determine which candidate survives elimination. Putting Labor last does not automatically defeat the broader political agenda a voter may oppose. Depending on the electorate, it could contribute to a Greens victory instead. The critical distinction is between political rhetoric, actual parliamentary cooperation and the preferences voters record themselves. Parties can oppose one another publicly while agreeing on major legislation, just as voters can favour parties that have no formal alliance. Australians deserve to understand precisely how their electoral system works, which policies parties genuinely share and where their preferences can ultimately end up. The political consequences are determined by the numbers on the ballot, not the slogans printed on campaign material. Register and become a member: newsycle.com Become a supporter via the links in our bio.

Independent MP Allegra Spender has built her political reputation on climate action, renewable energy and government transparency. But financial disclosures have exposed connections between her political campaign, major donors and investment businesses with commercial interests in Australia’s energy transition. Public domain records reveal Spender’s official website is registered to Wentworth Independents Pty Ltd, with Lyndell Droga listed as the registrant contact. Droga was instrumental in establishing Spender’s political campaign and subsequently worked as an adviser to the Wentworth MP. Her husband, investment manager Daniel Droga, co-founded BlueLake Partners and chairs Fifth Estate Asset Management. Australian Electoral Commission disclosures reveal DCM Bluelake Pty Ltd contributed $100,000 to Spender’s 2025 election campaign. Fifth Estate’s published investment portfolio includes EcoJoule Energy, Future Group and businesses involved in renewable energy infrastructure and environmental markets. Meanwhile, Spender continues advocating policies designed to accelerate renewable energy investment. She has even argued for extending favourable capital gains tax arrangements for renewable energy assets until 2040, raising questions about the relationship between political donations, commercial interests and the policies being promoted in Parliament. The disclosed financial connections do not establish corruption or improper influence. But when politicians campaign on integrity while receiving substantial financial backing from interests connected to industries affected by their policy positions, Australians are entitled to demand complete transparency. Who is financing Australia’s energy transition agenda, which businesses stand to benefit, and how rigorously are potential conflicts of interest being scrutinised? Register and become a member: newsycle.com Become a supporter via the links in our bio.

One of the things I’m most proud of about running The Yarn is having built an audience of more than 220,000 followers, despite most people having absolutely no idea who’s behind it. No public identity, no political connections and no ambition to become a household name. Despite the platform’s reach, I’ve never had politicians reaching out, political parties offering opportunities or invitations to political events. I suspect anonymity plays a significant role. When there’s no face to promote, no personality to endorse a campaign and nobody to publicly associate with a political cause, the interest seems to disappear. I’m perfectly comfortable with that. I never started The Yarn to become somebody important. I started it to build something important. I also have enormous respect for those who take a different approach. People like Scotty Challen from Aus Lobby Group, who actively engage with politicians and advocate for a better future for Australia, are making a valuable contribution. We all have a role to play. Some work directly with decision-makers, while others remain outside those circles, asking difficult questions and holding those in power accountable. What makes The Yarn special to me is that its growth has never depended on political endorsements, wealthy backers or influential connections. My only income comes from social media revenue generated through views and the generosity of followers who occasionally shout me a coffee. No political funding, no paid allegiances and nobody deciding what I can or cannot publish. I can criticise Labor, the Coalition, One Nation or anyone else without worrying about whose approval or financial support I might lose. Every follow, shared post, conversation and contribution has helped build something genuinely independent. More than 220,000 people have chosen to support the platform because of its content, without knowing the person running it. I don’t take that trust for granted. I’d rather have the support of ordinary Australians than the influence of powerful political connections. I have no interest in being the face of The Yarn. I’ve always wanted its audience to be the reason it matters.

An Instagram account publicly identifying itself as Shah Ahmad and linking its operator to a business serving Melbourne has posted the words “may those 3 never rest” beneath a video honouring three Australian soldiers murdered in Afghanistan. Sapper James Martin, 21, Private Robert Poate, 23, and Lance Corporal Stjepan “Rick” Milosevic, 40, were killed at Patrol Base Wahab in Uruzgan Province on 29 August 2012. Afghan National Army soldier Hekmatullah opened fire from close range while the Australians were off duty and playing cards. Two other Australian soldiers were wounded. The supplied screenshot shows the account shah_nikzad directing the remark at another commenter during an argument about civilian deaths in Afghanistan. The public profile uses the name Shah Ahmad and describes him as a director of @msisinsulation. The linked MSIS Insulation profile advertises contracting services across Melbourne and surrounding regions. Australians can debate the Afghanistan war, its civilian toll and the decisions of successive governments. Wishing that three murdered servicemen may “never rest” is not an argument about military policy. It is a calculated act of contempt towards three dead Australians and the families who still carry their loss. Register: newsycle.com Become a supporter via the links in our bio.

Rukshan Fernando has accused Anthony Albanese and the Labor Government of turning the reported AI “hack” into a manufactured scare campaign, exaggerating the threat posed by artificial intelligence while downplaying pre-existing security failures on a publicly exposed government website. His allegations remain contested, but the Government cannot dismiss serious technical questions with political spin. Australians deserve the complete incident timeline, the vulnerability exploited, the systems affected, the evidence of AI involvement and the data supporting every public claim. If the official account is accurate, release the technical evidence. If the incident was exaggerated to manufacture fear around AI, Australians deserve to know that too. The Government does not get to invoke cybersecurity when it wants secrecy, then demand blind trust from the public. Claims this serious require evidence, transparency and independent scrutiny. Register and become a member: newsycle.com

Mick Gatto is calling for a royal commission into Nine’s dealings with witnesses, demanding scrutiny of the payments, secrecy arrangements and people who authorised them. “The public are entitled to know the facts,” he said, challenging governments that promise to confront corruption to examine powerful media organisations too. The documented controversy involves Nine’s $700,000 settlement with Person 17, Ben Roberts-Smith’s former partner and a witness in his defamation case. Reached on 25 January 2024, after her trial testimony and shortly before his appeal hearing, the agreement included confidentiality obligations concerning her allegations. Nine maintains it did not prevent her from giving evidence. Gatto’s further allegation that favourable evidence was purchased has not been established by the published material. The attempt to secure half a century of secrecy is documented. The Fairfax parties sought a 50-year suppression order over the settlement, which Federal Court Justice Nye Perram rejected on 2 February 2026. Interim suppression had operated, but the five-decade application failed because substantial information was already public and continued suppression was unnecessary to protect the administration of justice. Gatto wants those responsible for the payment and secrecy application publicly scrutinised. “I’m going to push because they’ve pushed against me,” he said. His demand puts a concrete accountability issue before politicians: whether they are prepared to examine a major media company’s conduct with the same determination they demand when other institutions are involved. Nine’s pursuit of a 50-year order deserves an explanation beyond legal entitlement. Such an order would have restricted reporting about its own settlement for much of a lifetime. A company that builds its authority by exposing other people’s confidential dealings should explain why it sought such extensive protection for its own. The public should not have to accept transparency as a standard powerful newsrooms impose on everyone else. Register and become a member: newsycle.com⁠ Become a supporter via the links in our bio.

Adrian Portelli has confirmed his accounts were temporarily frozen, leaving the LMCT+ founder unable to pay wages, staff or bills. Portelli says the action shocked him after 10 years in business, repeated audits and continued compliance with the law. He remained financially operational only because he held money across separate banks, joint accounts and offshore holdings. Most Australians and small businesses would have no such protection. He has not identified who ordered the freeze, its legal basis, duration or whether any wrongdoing was found. Those facts must be disclosed. The power to disable access to someone’s money can stop payroll, mortgage payments and an entire business before any case has been publicly established. Such power requires strict legal thresholds, immediate independent review and compensation when misused. Portelli could afford alternative access. For most Australians, the same action would amount to instant financial paralysis. Register and become a member: newsycle.com Become a supporter via the links in our bio.

Big things coming.

Anthony Albanese and Volodymyr Zelenskyy have signed a new long-term Australia-Ukraine security agreement in New York, extending Canberra’s commitment beyond the current war and into defence production, trade and future security cooperation. Zelenskyy called it “the strongest document between our countries”. Albanese declared it “a proud day for Australians”. The signing came with another $60 million in Australian assistance for military and humanitarian purposes. By June, the government said Australia had already committed more than $1.8 billion to Ukraine since Russia’s 2022 invasion, including more than $1.6 billion in military assistance. Defence later put military commitments alone at $1.7 billion. The latest package pushes that taxpayer commitment higher again. Albanese told Zelenskyy Australia had stood with Ukraine from the beginning and “will not waver”. The agreement gives that language substance: this is no longer simply a sequence of wartime aid packages. Zelenskyy says the deal is deliberately long-term and will expand joint production, trade and security cooperation even after the fighting ends. The government argues that supporting Ukraine protects sovereignty, international law and Australia’s broader security interests. Critics see the opposite side of the ledger: billions committed to a European war now entering its fifth year, followed by a new agreement designed to keep Australia financially and strategically attached long after the current battlefield phase ends. There is still no publicly defined final price tag for that longer commitment. For Australians who already regard Ukraine as an open-ended foreign-policy money pit, Albanese has just made the commitment deeper rather than smaller. The argument is no longer only about what Australia has already spent. It is about how much more Canberra intends to commit, for how long, and where the limit sits. Register and become a member: theyarn.xyz Become a supporter via the links in our bio.

A transgender player who previously competed in men’s representative sport has now been named at centre half-back in Queensland’s top women’s state football competition’s 2026 Team of the Year. Hayley Finning, who plays for Wilston Grange in the Bond University QAFLW, was selected across half-back at the J.A. Grogan and Emma Zielke awards on 13 September. Finning had already been named in the 42-player squad after a season in which AFL Queensland listed Finning among the competition’s leading defenders. The sporting history makes the selection impossible to dismiss as some abstract culture-war argument. Finning has been reported as the athlete previously recorded under a former name on Australia’s men’s roster at the 2017 IIHF Inline Hockey World Championship. The official IIHF records show that player representing Australia in the men’s competition as a goalkeeper. The AFL’s own elite gender policy allows transgender women into women’s state leagues after maintaining testosterone below 5 nmol/L for at least two years and passing an assessment that can examine height, weight, strength, sprint speed, jumping, endurance and other performance data. The policy itself acknowledges the possibility of competitive advantage in women’s football. Women’s sport exists because male and female physical development produces material differences in strength, speed, power and size. Once athletes who went through male development can enter the women’s competition, take positions in representative sides and be recognised among the best players in the league, women are the ones surrendering places, honours and opportunities created specifically for them. Queensland football has now reached that point. A player with a documented history in men’s representative competition has been selected in the best women’s team in the state league. Calling the policy “inclusive” does not erase what women are being required to give up for it. Subscribe: theyarn.xyz We’ve teamed up with @looksgood_au to create clothing that makes a statement. Register your interest: looksgood.au.

A south-west Sydney resident says he called police for the fifth time in two years on Saturday after another man allegedly began behaving so erratically near his home that officers were needed to remove him. The resident sent us footage from about 4pm on 12 September, saying police arrived and arrested the man. He suspected methamphetamine or GHB may have been involved, although what, if anything, the man had taken has not been established. What he is describing is not one bizarre afternoon. “This was the fifth time I’ve had to call the cops in the past 2 years for tweakers,” he told us, adding that “crazier and crazier things” were happening around the area. Five separate calls from one resident in two years means the problem has moved well beyond something people can shrug off as an isolated incident. Residents should not be forced into becoming the first line of response to public disorder outside their own homes, filming the behaviour, judging whether it is safe to intervene, then calling police because somebody is too unpredictable to approach. When the same household is doing that over and over again, the neighbourhood is not just witnessing disorder. It is being made to absorb it. Footage supplied by @ryanthomaspetersen. Subscribe: theyarn.xyz We’ve teamed up with @looksgood_au to create clothing that makes a statement. Register your interest: looksgood.au.

Andrew Hastie has now been formally challenged over a remarkable response to independent commentator Chris Katelaris, better known as Big Chocky, after effectively telling him his opinion might carry more weight once he had enlisted and put his body on the line for Australia. Hastie then signed off with a sneer, calling him “Little Chocolate” and telling him not to melt under the heat. Katelaris had already made clear he was criticising Hastie’s political record, not his ADF service. Hastie answered by reaching for the uniform anyway. That is an extraordinary position for an elected MP to take with an Australian civilian questioning his conduct. Parliament is not a veterans-only debating chamber and Australians do not need military credentials before politicians are required to take them seriously. Chris has now sent Hastie a formal request to withdraw the remark and apologise publicly, not to him personally, but to Australians who have never served in the ADF. The letter gives Hastie seven days to respond and argues that military service does not confer greater democratic standing over the people Parliament exists to represent. It is particularly rich after days of political outrage demanding Australians show special restraint when criticising Hastie because he served. His service deserves respect. It does not become a shield when Hastie is under attack and then a measuring stick he can use to dismiss civilians challenging his politics. You cannot demand equality before political scrutiny while telling ordinary Australians they have not sacrificed enough to be taken seriously. Hastie wanted to make the argument about who had worn the uniform. Katelaris has now dragged it back to where it belongs. An Australian citizen challenged a federal MP over his political decisions and was answered with his lack of military service and “Little Chocolate”. Now the MP has seven days to decide whether he stands by it. Subscribe theyarn.xyz We’ve teamed up with @looksgood_au create clothing that makes a statement. Register your interest at looksgood.au

The Yarn has been provided a photograph by a source who says it shows Liberal MP Andrew Hastie during his SAS years in Afghanistan wearing dark-blue work overalls at a costume gathering. A second image from Camp Russell shows Afghan cleaners wearing the same style of clothing. The significance is obvious because a May 2026 investigation into Hastie’s SAS history stated he “once dressed up at The Fat Ladies Arms in the uniform of an Afghan toilet cleaner.” The Fat Ladies Arms was the unauthorised SAS bar at Camp Russell, where soldiers drank, held costume parties and operated inside a culture that later drew serious scrutiny. The photograph now in The Yarn’s possession appears consistent with that published account and gives Australians something concrete to judge against Hastie’s own rhetoric about military honour and standards. If the account is accurate, Hastie was dressing as one of the Afghan men employed to clean toilets on the base, turning the clothing of a much lower-status local worker into a costume for entertainment inside an Australian military compound. That sits badly beside the moral authority he now claims when attacking others over respect, dignity and conduct connected to military service. Hastie has spent years judging SAS culture and presenting himself as a man of standards. He should now answer plainly whether he dressed as an Afghan toilet cleaner, whose clothing he was wearing, what the costume was supposed to represent and what he found amusing about it. If honour is the standard Andrew Hastie wants used against everyone else, Australians are entitled to apply it just as hard to him. Subscribe: theyarn.xyz We’ve teamed up with @looksgood_au to create clothing that makes a statement. Register your interest: looksgood.au