Brisbane City Council to offer free green bins, but no food organics bins
LNP councillor Sarah Hutton refused to confirm or deny the leaks, but acknowledged the existence of an army of green bins that could be seen via satellite photos.
Google Maps photos showed hundreds of green bins waiting at Nudgee, Rochedale, and Willawong council depots.
The LNP had hinted it would make a bin-related announcement when the council budget was released on June 18, but Labor announced it before they had a chance.
Labor, LNP and the Greens are now all claiming credit for the green bins idea.
Cr Hutton said she would not say more until June 18, but confirmed "FOGO was a no-go."
FOGO bins are for food waste, whereas green bins are for garden waste such as grass and clippings, which are turned into compost.
Brisbane's green bin program is opt-in, costs a fee, and is only used by 30 per cent of households.
"We'll wait and see what the budget has to say."
Cr Hutton would not say whether the residents who paid for green bin collections would get their money back.
Opposition leader Jared Cassidy claimed Labor deserved the credit for the green bins because they had advocated for it.
Cr Cassidy said the green bin rollout would begin next financial year, but would have happened sooner if not for the council "stalling".
"The amount of organic waste going into landfill is the single biggest contributor to Brisbane's carbon footprint, and all we've seen is years of inaction from this LNP Council," Cr Cassidy said.
"Brisbane should be leading Queensland on green waste services, but instead we've been falling behind other councils like Moreton Bay, which rolled out a city-wide garden organics program last year."
Greens councillor Trina Massey said her party had also been advocating for green bins for many years.
She said the green bins were welcome, but severely inadequate given a lack of FOGO bins to prevent food waste from ending up in landfill.
Cr Massey said the council was unwilling to allocate its budget to food waste diversion, despite the enormous amounts of methane it generated.
"This is more greenwashing by the ALP and the LNP, who are celebrating 'wins' when we are a city not moving forward, unlike other cities that are dealing with food waste," Cr Massey said.
"The reality is we are in a financial budget spiral and the LNP are finding short-term ways to boost their green credentials."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
a few seconds ago
- ABC News
What is going to happen at today's no-confidence motion in Tasmanian parliament?
Tasmanians could be forgiven for having a sense of déjà vu today. Just over 10 weeks ago, Lower House MPs were asked to vote on a motion of no confidence in Liberal Premier Jeremy Rockliff. The Labor motion passed by the slimmest of margins, triggering a snap election — the fourth in seven years. Today, when Tasmania's fifty second parliament officially opens, MPs will once again be asked to vote on a motion to decide which party has the confidence of the house to govern the state. Spoiler alert — we already know Labor doesn't have the numbers to succeed. But it could still be a day of high political drama in Tasmania. Here's how things are expected to unfold. Before parliamentary proceedings kick off, a couple of events will take place for the new cohort of elected representatives. The first is an inter-denominational church service at St David's Cathedral in Hobart at 9:15am. That will be followed by a Tasmanian Aboriginal cultural reflection in the Legislative Council chamber. It's a private session for MPs. Members of the House of Assembly will then be summoned into the Legislative Council chamber for the official opening of the new parliament at 11am. The ceremony is expected to take about 15 minutes. Members of the House will then return to their chamber to elect a new speaker. The vote will be the first test of how the new parliament might function. Following last month's election, the Liberals have 14 seats, Labor 10, Greens five, independents five and Shooters, Fishers and Farmers (SFF) one. But having the most seats doesn't necessarily mean that a Liberal MP will end up sitting in the Speaker's chair. In the last parliament, for example, it was former Labor MP Michelle O'Byrne who secured the role. At this stage, it's unclear whether the new Speaker will come from the major parties or the crossbench. Either way, the vote is expected to happen relatively quickly. The House will then temporarily adjourn to allow the new Speaker to be presented to the governor. The main action of the day is likely to happen in the afternoon, once the Speaker returns from Government House, at 2pm. That's when confidence is expected to be tested on the floor of parliament. The specific wording of the motion isn't yet known. But unlike Labor's no-confidence motion in June, which only applied to the premier, this one is likely to ask MPs if they also have confidence in Labor. The broader motion is designed to avoid another early election. But don't expect a quick vote, even if we already know the final result. In the June motion, debate began at about 10am and continued until the House adjourned at 7:30pm. It then resumed at 10am the following day, and wasn't resolved until shortly before 4pm. Based on that precedent, it's possible MPs won't cast their votes on the latest motion until either late Tuesday, or potentially sometime on Wednesday. Politics is a numbers game, and in a hung parliament like this, the critical number is 18. That's the minimum number of votes needed to pass a motion. The Liberals only have 14 seats, meaning they need the support of four additional crossbenchers. Ever since the election, they've been trying to woo the largely progressive crossbench with a series of policy concessions, including: Labor, with only 10 seats, needs eight crossbenchers on its side, including the five Greens. Its main pitches to crossbenchers have included: Until Monday, the outcome of the motion hung in the balance. But when the Greens confirmed Labor had not offered enough to secure their support, the result became clear. Without the Greens, Labor simply won't have the numbers, even if it were to win over the other six crossbenchers, which won't happen. Independent MP Kristie Johnston on Monday confirmed she too would not support Labor. Former Labor-turned-independent David O'Byrne went further on Sunday, saying he would provide confidence and supply to Mr Rockliff, as he did in the previous parliament, citing the need for stability. Independent MP Craig Garland earlier this month said he had no confidence in Mr Rockliff, pointing to the government's handling of the budget, the proposed stadium and Marinus Link. However, on Sunday, Mr Garland welcomed the Liberals' salmon farming decision and called on Labor to do the same. Fellow independent Peter George also cautiously welcomed the Liberals' salmon farming announcement, and expressed support for the phase out of greyhound racing. But he hasn't confirmed which side he will support when the motion comes before parliament. Another independent, George Razay, has also not revealed his hand. Carlo di Falco from the SFF has been highly critical of the Liberals' greyhound racing phase out but hasn't explicitly said if he'll support a no-confidence motion against the party and in favour of Labor. Given the motion is set to fail, the Liberal minority government will remain in power.
ABC News
a few seconds ago
- ABC News
With no-confidence vote set to fail, Tasmanian Labor eyeing yet another term in opposition
Following June's no-confidence motion, Premier Jeremy Rockliff stared down Labor leader Dean Winter. In the Tasmanian parliament, Mr Rockliff stood up, saying "you might get rid of me, mate, but I tell you what, they are coming for you as well". "Because you will always be known as a wrecker". Less than three months on, Mr Rockliff has got a new "mandate" (if you call 40 per cent of the vote, and 14 out of 35 seats a mandate) and some clear air to get on with governing. You could also argue, Mr Rockliff is kicking with the breeze for the first time in a while. He has curried favour with the crossbench by outmanoeuvring Labor and offering some genuine policy concessions. Off the back of a disciplined campaign, the Liberals recorded a 3 per cent swing towards them at the July 19 election — few predicted that result at the beginning of the campaign. That result, and the premier's huge personal vote, gives the Liberals an air of legitimacy. The election has also delivered some fresh blood to the front bench — with former federal MPs Bridget Archer and Gavin Pearce stepping straight into high-profile ministerial positions. Tasmanians are sick of politics and just want a government that tastes like real government. But just like a year ago, there's a question of how long it can last. Major policy concessions were made to keep power. Many in the Liberals' own base will be put offside by backflips on salmon, greyhound racing, and native forestry. Salmon Tasmania head Dr John Whittington called the premier's word "worthless", while greyhound trainer Robyn Johnson said her industry has been made a "scapegoat" so the Liberals could stay in power. Fierce opposition to those moves is a certainty. Then there are the battles inside parliament — where Mr Rockliff will be reliant on a crossbench that just voted to say they had no confidence in him. A year ago, the Liberals also had 14 seats, but could count on the three votes of the Jacquie Lambie Network on most issues, thanks to the friendly deal they'd signed. This time around, the crossbench has a bit more mettle to it. Independent Peter George enters with a high profile and a strong following — he's wasted no time in extracting major policy shifts on the salmon industry. That move, and a planned end to greyhound racing, have already strained the party's relationship with incoming MP Carlo di Falco of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party. While the Greens and independent Kristie Johnston have shied away from backing Labor, they've put the Rockliff government on notice. "Every day in this new minority parliament will be a day where Jeremy Rockliff will have to collaborate and listen," said Greens Leader Rosalie Woodruff, making clear she didn't have confidence in Mr Rockliff either. Despite the premier's defence that the last parliament was working well, the proof is in the pudding — it fell apart at the age toddlers are still learning to walk. There's goodwill to make this parliament last the distance, but what happens if a key commitment is broken? The cashless gaming card was ditched in the face of industry opposition. An unfavourable report by Dr Nicholas Gruen was reason good enough to cast aside the Macquarie Point stadium's planning process. If the salmon review's recommendations aren't taken seriously, or greyhound racing is given a reprieve — that would seriously strain parliamentary support for the Liberals. The man kicking himself most may be Dean Winter. Labor will now embark on its fifth consecutive post-election soul search — and Mr Winter's leadership is up in the air. Three months ago, the government was reeling from criticism — a budget filled with red ink, trying to ram an unpopular stadium through parliament with unpopular fast-track legislation, and attempting to find a home for a 130-metre-long Finnish-built Spirit of Tasmania ferry. Opinion polling had also shown Labor with a lead — something that hadn't happened for a year. In a parallel world where Labor held off on its no-confidence motion for another year or two, an election win isn't unimaginable. Taking the state to an election just over a year after the last one, and failing to secure government, could now define Dean Winter's time as leader. We'll never know if the "wrecker" label soiled Dean Winter's popularity in the election. But a promise not to compromise on his values and policy, after it has stood in the way of him being able to form government, might. As Jeremy Rockliff has offered to meet the crossbench in the middle on salmon and greyhounds, Mr Winter's been firm on his approach. He says putting forward a framework for collaboration — rather than trading away policy was the key to success. Or put more simply - Jeremy Rockliff's been willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power, while Dean Winter hasn't. Sometimes politics is about how well you can sell the backflip. It's clear that the baggage of 2010's partnership with the Greens still haunts Tasmanian Labor. Working with the Greens in any fashion would have drawn criticism from across the aisle and from within their own base. However, Labor's now forgoing the opportunity to be part of a collaboative government, and potentially convince some people that it can work. Now, the shoe is on the other foot, and they'll get to see if that's politically advantageous. There's also a new Spirit vessel sailing into Tasmania this week without a place to dock. The budget's getting worse, with a new public sector bargaining agreement due. Somebody is going to have to work out how to start a state-owned insurance company. Labor will have opportunities, but will have to do things differently to seize power. In the meantime, all that backbone can help them sit even more comfortably on the opposition benches.
The Advertiser
a few seconds ago
- The Advertiser
Trade is a great peacemaker. Why should we go near another US-led folly?
Over the past week, several security experts in the US have been revealing that the US Administration wants Australia to speak out more clearly about the supposed threats posed by China. That is clearly the view of the Trump Administration, even though it has not declared it. But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese shows no sign of doing anything about it. Indeed, his work to improve Australia-China relations and his proposed recognition of a Palestinian state have put some friction in Australia-US relations. It is not new for Labor in Australia to hold back from falling in lock step with whatever the US does in the world, unlike the "All the way with LBJ" Coalition. In 1965, Labor leader Arthur Calwell expressed vehement opposition to the decision of the Coalition Menzies government to commit Australian troops to join US forces in Vietnam. In 2003, Labor leader Simon Crean opposed the Coalition Howard government's decision to join the US in the Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq. They both said they would be vilified as unpatriotic at the time, but be vindicated later: foresight, not hindsight. The difference now is that Labor is in government. The pity is that Labor was not in government in 1965 and 2003, and our role in those disastrous wars would have been avoided. This time, the question is over China and its increasing military presence in the South China Sea and its attitude that it would be legitimate to use force to bring Taiwan under the control of the Communist Party of China. Can we learn from history and not follow the US blindly into conflict with China over Taiwan? We should because that history is littered with folly. Vietnam was a civil war, not a war of communist expansion. The Taliban is back in control in Afghanistan. The first Iraq war failed to capture and arrest Saddam Hussein, who was guilty of waging an aggressive war. In the second Iraq war, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, and the invasion resulted in the rise of ISIS and untold death, destruction, and misery - not the promised peace and democracy. So why should we go near another US-led folly over Taiwan? MORE FROM CRISPIN HULL: In the meantime, maybe Albanese should be more outspoken about the so-called "threats" from China. He could cite the true position. What is the threat? What about around zero? China has a massive population, significant naval, air, and land power, and large economic power. China says Taiwan is part of China and that there are legitimate reasons why it should be under the control of the central Chinese government. Yet, the Communist Party of China has not exercised its national policing power to bring Taiwan under its control. This is presumably because the exercise would be so bloody and costly that it would set back China's aim to be the predominant power in the Indo-Pacific or, indeed, the world, for a very long time. Taiwan has a population of 23 million and is about 130 kilometres from the Chinese mainland. Some of its lesser islands are much closer. Australia, on the other hand, has a population of 26 million and is about 7500 kilometres from China. So, if China is incapable at present of a quick invasion of Taiwan and takeover of its government, what prospect is there of China invading and subjugating a nation 7370 kilometres away over which it has no scintilla of a legitimate claim and which would require overflight and transit through Indonesia. If China is not politically willing or militarily unable to do the relatively easy task of taking Taiwan, why would anyone imagine it would do the massively more difficult task of invading Australia? Australia exports $220 billion worth of goods to China and imports $100 billion. China invests $90 billion a year in Australia. The recent lifting of China's restrictions on Australia proves the point that China needs Australia for its prosperity as much as Australia needs China. Australia is not like the US, which sees China as a competitor. Trade is a great peace-maker. China poses near-zero risk to Australia. And it would pose an even less risk if it were silly enough to invade Taiwan and got a very bloody nose and serious military weakening while Australia stood on the sidelines and watched. But US naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute with close links to the administration, said the US was asking, "Why isn't Australia being more straightforward about why they are buying these submarines?". By not saying so, it made people in the administration think that "short of a direct attack on Australia, these submarines are probably not going to be in the mix". It is pretty telling. The previous Coalition government signed up to AUKUS and the nuclear submarines to use against China, which it had been baiting for years. Labor in Opposition went along with it, so it would not be branded unpatriotic or anti-American. The AUKUS deal is a dud made more dud by an escape clause that means the US does not have to deliver any submarines, and Australia still has to contribute $3 billion to US shipbuilding and would be made even more dud if the US is allowed to dictate how Australia is to use the submarines. It is a belittling insult to Australian sovereignty. We should decide which military hardware we will acquire and the circumstances in which it will be used. We are buying submarines we may never get, with money we haven't got, to fight an enemy we don't have, in places we don't have to go to. It does not excuse it, but what China is doing now - cementing its territory 80 years since being freed of Japanese occupation in 1945 - is much as what the US did in the 80 years since it was finally free of the British in 1783: the 1803 purchase-seizing of Louisiana; the 1823 Monroe Doctrine warning Europeans to stay out of the US's western hemisphere; the war with Mexico 1846-48 in which it grabbed 1.3 million square kilometres of land; and the 1867 purchase of Alaska. But unlike the US, China shows no sign of militarily interfering in other continents, as the US has done to its and Australia's cost. Over the past week, several security experts in the US have been revealing that the US Administration wants Australia to speak out more clearly about the supposed threats posed by China. That is clearly the view of the Trump Administration, even though it has not declared it. But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese shows no sign of doing anything about it. Indeed, his work to improve Australia-China relations and his proposed recognition of a Palestinian state have put some friction in Australia-US relations. It is not new for Labor in Australia to hold back from falling in lock step with whatever the US does in the world, unlike the "All the way with LBJ" Coalition. In 1965, Labor leader Arthur Calwell expressed vehement opposition to the decision of the Coalition Menzies government to commit Australian troops to join US forces in Vietnam. In 2003, Labor leader Simon Crean opposed the Coalition Howard government's decision to join the US in the Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq. They both said they would be vilified as unpatriotic at the time, but be vindicated later: foresight, not hindsight. The difference now is that Labor is in government. The pity is that Labor was not in government in 1965 and 2003, and our role in those disastrous wars would have been avoided. This time, the question is over China and its increasing military presence in the South China Sea and its attitude that it would be legitimate to use force to bring Taiwan under the control of the Communist Party of China. Can we learn from history and not follow the US blindly into conflict with China over Taiwan? We should because that history is littered with folly. Vietnam was a civil war, not a war of communist expansion. The Taliban is back in control in Afghanistan. The first Iraq war failed to capture and arrest Saddam Hussein, who was guilty of waging an aggressive war. In the second Iraq war, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, and the invasion resulted in the rise of ISIS and untold death, destruction, and misery - not the promised peace and democracy. So why should we go near another US-led folly over Taiwan? MORE FROM CRISPIN HULL: In the meantime, maybe Albanese should be more outspoken about the so-called "threats" from China. He could cite the true position. What is the threat? What about around zero? China has a massive population, significant naval, air, and land power, and large economic power. China says Taiwan is part of China and that there are legitimate reasons why it should be under the control of the central Chinese government. Yet, the Communist Party of China has not exercised its national policing power to bring Taiwan under its control. This is presumably because the exercise would be so bloody and costly that it would set back China's aim to be the predominant power in the Indo-Pacific or, indeed, the world, for a very long time. Taiwan has a population of 23 million and is about 130 kilometres from the Chinese mainland. Some of its lesser islands are much closer. Australia, on the other hand, has a population of 26 million and is about 7500 kilometres from China. So, if China is incapable at present of a quick invasion of Taiwan and takeover of its government, what prospect is there of China invading and subjugating a nation 7370 kilometres away over which it has no scintilla of a legitimate claim and which would require overflight and transit through Indonesia. If China is not politically willing or militarily unable to do the relatively easy task of taking Taiwan, why would anyone imagine it would do the massively more difficult task of invading Australia? Australia exports $220 billion worth of goods to China and imports $100 billion. China invests $90 billion a year in Australia. The recent lifting of China's restrictions on Australia proves the point that China needs Australia for its prosperity as much as Australia needs China. Australia is not like the US, which sees China as a competitor. Trade is a great peace-maker. China poses near-zero risk to Australia. And it would pose an even less risk if it were silly enough to invade Taiwan and got a very bloody nose and serious military weakening while Australia stood on the sidelines and watched. But US naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute with close links to the administration, said the US was asking, "Why isn't Australia being more straightforward about why they are buying these submarines?". By not saying so, it made people in the administration think that "short of a direct attack on Australia, these submarines are probably not going to be in the mix". It is pretty telling. The previous Coalition government signed up to AUKUS and the nuclear submarines to use against China, which it had been baiting for years. Labor in Opposition went along with it, so it would not be branded unpatriotic or anti-American. The AUKUS deal is a dud made more dud by an escape clause that means the US does not have to deliver any submarines, and Australia still has to contribute $3 billion to US shipbuilding and would be made even more dud if the US is allowed to dictate how Australia is to use the submarines. It is a belittling insult to Australian sovereignty. We should decide which military hardware we will acquire and the circumstances in which it will be used. We are buying submarines we may never get, with money we haven't got, to fight an enemy we don't have, in places we don't have to go to. It does not excuse it, but what China is doing now - cementing its territory 80 years since being freed of Japanese occupation in 1945 - is much as what the US did in the 80 years since it was finally free of the British in 1783: the 1803 purchase-seizing of Louisiana; the 1823 Monroe Doctrine warning Europeans to stay out of the US's western hemisphere; the war with Mexico 1846-48 in which it grabbed 1.3 million square kilometres of land; and the 1867 purchase of Alaska. But unlike the US, China shows no sign of militarily interfering in other continents, as the US has done to its and Australia's cost. Over the past week, several security experts in the US have been revealing that the US Administration wants Australia to speak out more clearly about the supposed threats posed by China. That is clearly the view of the Trump Administration, even though it has not declared it. But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese shows no sign of doing anything about it. Indeed, his work to improve Australia-China relations and his proposed recognition of a Palestinian state have put some friction in Australia-US relations. It is not new for Labor in Australia to hold back from falling in lock step with whatever the US does in the world, unlike the "All the way with LBJ" Coalition. In 1965, Labor leader Arthur Calwell expressed vehement opposition to the decision of the Coalition Menzies government to commit Australian troops to join US forces in Vietnam. In 2003, Labor leader Simon Crean opposed the Coalition Howard government's decision to join the US in the Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq. They both said they would be vilified as unpatriotic at the time, but be vindicated later: foresight, not hindsight. The difference now is that Labor is in government. The pity is that Labor was not in government in 1965 and 2003, and our role in those disastrous wars would have been avoided. This time, the question is over China and its increasing military presence in the South China Sea and its attitude that it would be legitimate to use force to bring Taiwan under the control of the Communist Party of China. Can we learn from history and not follow the US blindly into conflict with China over Taiwan? We should because that history is littered with folly. Vietnam was a civil war, not a war of communist expansion. The Taliban is back in control in Afghanistan. The first Iraq war failed to capture and arrest Saddam Hussein, who was guilty of waging an aggressive war. In the second Iraq war, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, and the invasion resulted in the rise of ISIS and untold death, destruction, and misery - not the promised peace and democracy. So why should we go near another US-led folly over Taiwan? MORE FROM CRISPIN HULL: In the meantime, maybe Albanese should be more outspoken about the so-called "threats" from China. He could cite the true position. What is the threat? What about around zero? China has a massive population, significant naval, air, and land power, and large economic power. China says Taiwan is part of China and that there are legitimate reasons why it should be under the control of the central Chinese government. Yet, the Communist Party of China has not exercised its national policing power to bring Taiwan under its control. This is presumably because the exercise would be so bloody and costly that it would set back China's aim to be the predominant power in the Indo-Pacific or, indeed, the world, for a very long time. Taiwan has a population of 23 million and is about 130 kilometres from the Chinese mainland. Some of its lesser islands are much closer. Australia, on the other hand, has a population of 26 million and is about 7500 kilometres from China. So, if China is incapable at present of a quick invasion of Taiwan and takeover of its government, what prospect is there of China invading and subjugating a nation 7370 kilometres away over which it has no scintilla of a legitimate claim and which would require overflight and transit through Indonesia. If China is not politically willing or militarily unable to do the relatively easy task of taking Taiwan, why would anyone imagine it would do the massively more difficult task of invading Australia? Australia exports $220 billion worth of goods to China and imports $100 billion. China invests $90 billion a year in Australia. The recent lifting of China's restrictions on Australia proves the point that China needs Australia for its prosperity as much as Australia needs China. Australia is not like the US, which sees China as a competitor. Trade is a great peace-maker. China poses near-zero risk to Australia. And it would pose an even less risk if it were silly enough to invade Taiwan and got a very bloody nose and serious military weakening while Australia stood on the sidelines and watched. But US naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute with close links to the administration, said the US was asking, "Why isn't Australia being more straightforward about why they are buying these submarines?". By not saying so, it made people in the administration think that "short of a direct attack on Australia, these submarines are probably not going to be in the mix". It is pretty telling. The previous Coalition government signed up to AUKUS and the nuclear submarines to use against China, which it had been baiting for years. Labor in Opposition went along with it, so it would not be branded unpatriotic or anti-American. The AUKUS deal is a dud made more dud by an escape clause that means the US does not have to deliver any submarines, and Australia still has to contribute $3 billion to US shipbuilding and would be made even more dud if the US is allowed to dictate how Australia is to use the submarines. It is a belittling insult to Australian sovereignty. We should decide which military hardware we will acquire and the circumstances in which it will be used. We are buying submarines we may never get, with money we haven't got, to fight an enemy we don't have, in places we don't have to go to. It does not excuse it, but what China is doing now - cementing its territory 80 years since being freed of Japanese occupation in 1945 - is much as what the US did in the 80 years since it was finally free of the British in 1783: the 1803 purchase-seizing of Louisiana; the 1823 Monroe Doctrine warning Europeans to stay out of the US's western hemisphere; the war with Mexico 1846-48 in which it grabbed 1.3 million square kilometres of land; and the 1867 purchase of Alaska. But unlike the US, China shows no sign of militarily interfering in other continents, as the US has done to its and Australia's cost. Over the past week, several security experts in the US have been revealing that the US Administration wants Australia to speak out more clearly about the supposed threats posed by China. That is clearly the view of the Trump Administration, even though it has not declared it. But Prime Minister Anthony Albanese shows no sign of doing anything about it. Indeed, his work to improve Australia-China relations and his proposed recognition of a Palestinian state have put some friction in Australia-US relations. It is not new for Labor in Australia to hold back from falling in lock step with whatever the US does in the world, unlike the "All the way with LBJ" Coalition. In 1965, Labor leader Arthur Calwell expressed vehement opposition to the decision of the Coalition Menzies government to commit Australian troops to join US forces in Vietnam. In 2003, Labor leader Simon Crean opposed the Coalition Howard government's decision to join the US in the Coalition of the Willing to invade Iraq. They both said they would be vilified as unpatriotic at the time, but be vindicated later: foresight, not hindsight. The difference now is that Labor is in government. The pity is that Labor was not in government in 1965 and 2003, and our role in those disastrous wars would have been avoided. This time, the question is over China and its increasing military presence in the South China Sea and its attitude that it would be legitimate to use force to bring Taiwan under the control of the Communist Party of China. Can we learn from history and not follow the US blindly into conflict with China over Taiwan? We should because that history is littered with folly. Vietnam was a civil war, not a war of communist expansion. The Taliban is back in control in Afghanistan. The first Iraq war failed to capture and arrest Saddam Hussein, who was guilty of waging an aggressive war. In the second Iraq war, no weapons of mass destruction were ever found, and the invasion resulted in the rise of ISIS and untold death, destruction, and misery - not the promised peace and democracy. So why should we go near another US-led folly over Taiwan? MORE FROM CRISPIN HULL: In the meantime, maybe Albanese should be more outspoken about the so-called "threats" from China. He could cite the true position. What is the threat? What about around zero? China has a massive population, significant naval, air, and land power, and large economic power. China says Taiwan is part of China and that there are legitimate reasons why it should be under the control of the central Chinese government. Yet, the Communist Party of China has not exercised its national policing power to bring Taiwan under its control. This is presumably because the exercise would be so bloody and costly that it would set back China's aim to be the predominant power in the Indo-Pacific or, indeed, the world, for a very long time. Taiwan has a population of 23 million and is about 130 kilometres from the Chinese mainland. Some of its lesser islands are much closer. Australia, on the other hand, has a population of 26 million and is about 7500 kilometres from China. So, if China is incapable at present of a quick invasion of Taiwan and takeover of its government, what prospect is there of China invading and subjugating a nation 7370 kilometres away over which it has no scintilla of a legitimate claim and which would require overflight and transit through Indonesia. If China is not politically willing or militarily unable to do the relatively easy task of taking Taiwan, why would anyone imagine it would do the massively more difficult task of invading Australia? Australia exports $220 billion worth of goods to China and imports $100 billion. China invests $90 billion a year in Australia. The recent lifting of China's restrictions on Australia proves the point that China needs Australia for its prosperity as much as Australia needs China. Australia is not like the US, which sees China as a competitor. Trade is a great peace-maker. China poses near-zero risk to Australia. And it would pose an even less risk if it were silly enough to invade Taiwan and got a very bloody nose and serious military weakening while Australia stood on the sidelines and watched. But US naval operations expert Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute with close links to the administration, said the US was asking, "Why isn't Australia being more straightforward about why they are buying these submarines?". By not saying so, it made people in the administration think that "short of a direct attack on Australia, these submarines are probably not going to be in the mix". It is pretty telling. The previous Coalition government signed up to AUKUS and the nuclear submarines to use against China, which it had been baiting for years. Labor in Opposition went along with it, so it would not be branded unpatriotic or anti-American. The AUKUS deal is a dud made more dud by an escape clause that means the US does not have to deliver any submarines, and Australia still has to contribute $3 billion to US shipbuilding and would be made even more dud if the US is allowed to dictate how Australia is to use the submarines. It is a belittling insult to Australian sovereignty. We should decide which military hardware we will acquire and the circumstances in which it will be used. We are buying submarines we may never get, with money we haven't got, to fight an enemy we don't have, in places we don't have to go to. It does not excuse it, but what China is doing now - cementing its territory 80 years since being freed of Japanese occupation in 1945 - is much as what the US did in the 80 years since it was finally free of the British in 1783: the 1803 purchase-seizing of Louisiana; the 1823 Monroe Doctrine warning Europeans to stay out of the US's western hemisphere; the war with Mexico 1846-48 in which it grabbed 1.3 million square kilometres of land; and the 1867 purchase of Alaska. But unlike the US, China shows no sign of militarily interfering in other continents, as the US has done to its and Australia's cost.
