Australia won't commit troops in advance
Australia will not commit troops in advance to any conflict, Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy said on Sunday, responding to a report that the Pentagon has pressed its ally to clarify what role it would play if the US and China went to war over Taiwan.
Australia prioritises its sovereignty and "we don't discuss hypotheticals", Conroy said in an interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
"The decision to commit Australian troops to a conflict will be made by the government of the day, not in advance but by the government of the day," he said.
The Financial Times reported on Saturday that Elbridge Colby, the US under-secretary of defence for policy, has been pushing Australian and Japanese defence officials on what they would do in a Taiwan conflict, although the US does not offer a blank cheque guarantee to defend Taiwan.
Colby posted on X that the Department of Defense is implementing President Donald Trump's "America First" agenda of restoring deterrence, which includes "urging allies to step up their defense spending and other efforts related to our collective defense".
China claims democratically governed Taiwan as its own and has not ruled out the use of force to bring Taiwan under its control. Taiwan President Lai Ching-te rejects China's sovereignty claims, saying only Taiwan's people can decide their future.
Australia's largest war-fighting exercise with the United States, involving 30,000 troops from 19 countries, opens on Sunday on Sydney Harbour.
Conroy said Australia was concerned about China's military buildup of nuclear and conventional forces, and wants a balanced Indo-Pacific region where no country dominates.
"China is seeking to secure a military base in the region and we are working very hard to be the primary security partner of choice for the region because we don't think that's a particularly optimal thing for Australia," he said, referring to the Pacific Islands.
Security is expected to be on the agenda when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meets China's leaders this week. He arrived in Shanghai on Saturday for a six-day visit.
The Talisman Sabre exercise will span 6,500 km from Australia's Indian Ocean territory of Christmas Island to the Coral Sea on Australia's east coast.
Conroy said it was possible China's navy would be watching the exercise to collect information, as it had done in the past.
The United States is Australia's major security ally. Although Australia does not permit foreign bases, the US military is expanding its rotational presence and fuel stores on Australian bases, which from 2027 will have US Virginia submarines at port in Western Australia.
These would play a key role in supporting US forces in any conflict over Taiwan, analysts say.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
2 hours ago
- Scoop
Santana 'Flying Under Radar' To Avoid Scrutiny Of Controversial Open-Pit Mine
A local community group has reacted to newly uncovered information with alarm, claiming that Australian company Santana Minerals is intentionally 'flying under the radar' to try and avoid scrutiny around plans which will have 'deep impacts' on the neighbouring community. The company is planning 'any day now' to lodge a fast-track application for a huge, open pit hard rock gold mine that has neighbours and the Central Otago community 'deeply concerned.' Sustainable Tarras, a group representing the small rural community adjacent to the proposed mine, says that it has uncovered multiple instances of 'very worrying information' which has further heightened their concerns about the experience and approach Santana is taking to this huge project. The company has never built or operated a mine before. Resource consent application without public notification intended to bypass locals [1] In recent days, the group obtained a resource consent lodged by Santana to Central Otago District Council, covering a workers camp and various mine buildings. 'We are concerned about many aspects of this application, but even more so about the way it has been lodged,' said Suze Keith, Chair of Sustainable Tarras. 'For starters, the application appears to be missing critical detail and would therefore be likely to be ruled incomplete by the council.' This comes afte r an earlier resource consent application was also ruled incomplete by CODC.[2] 'On top of this current application seeming incomplete, they've asked CODC for a 'Non Publicly Notified' consent. Given the huge impact on adjacent landowners and residents, that is outrageous. The least they could do is to share and discuss these plans publicly well beforehand and ask for a publicly notified consent path. All this from a company which says they have good standing in the community, and claim to have been engaging well. Operating in breach of District Plan Ms Keith says that the group has also discovered that Santana has likely been operating outside of District Plan Rules for years. "The company has operated an industrial factory in Bendigo that we believe to be in clear breach of the district plan for several years. This plant is used to process their drill samples and coordinate drilling crews that work on the proposed mine site nearby. It is outrageous that this overseas company has such disregard for our local regulations, and we are awaiting a council ruling on this. This kind of behaviour is of huge concern if they are to actually be granted consent for the mine in the future.' Mine related works announced at very short notice to commence tomorrow [3] 'And it gets worse,' she said. "We learned that Santana on Thursday communicated to the local community that they will commence significant works in the area, affecting landowners with road closures and explosive blasting activities, with some of these activities starting as early as Monday. Yes, tomorrow.' 'To add insult to injury, Santana does not even have council approval for the majority of these works,' She said. 'It's beyond arrogant - in fact it's a callous disregard for the locally affected residents and indeed our local district council. Cavalier approach Ms Keith cited these findings as examples of 'the cavalier approach that this tiny Australian mining company takes towards a huge environmentally impacting project in our Outstanding Natural Landscape in Central Otago.' She said that these are not isolated examples. The company continues to ignore Sustainable Tarras' reasonable questions [4] and claims local community drop in sessions without sharing important details on the project's impacts. 'Collectively these incidents speak volumes about how this company chooses to operate in our district and what we can expect going forward.' Broken promises to the community Ms Keith cited a pattern of promises broken to the community, which are emerging with increasing regularity and increasing impact. 'Santana has broken its promise to make expert reports available as soon as these were completed', she said. 'They have announced to the stock exchange that certain reports are completed, and have made comments about how comprehensive they are, but despite our requests will not share them with us. Why would they not make this information public? What have they found out that they don't want to share? 'An earlier plan to provide proper accommodation for its temporary workforce has been walked back - now proposed to be a large multi year workers campground, with temporary shelters and camp conditions. A far cry from quality accommodation.' Ms Keith also pointed to a promise to locals to seal the Thomson Gorge Road, which 'now appears off the table as well'. Local community locked out, disillusioned and seeking answers Ms Keith said that the most recent findings this week have brought the group's concerns to a head. 'Yet again we see worrying decision-making from Santana that only increases disappointment and distress: the company keeps us locals in the dark, they grossly understate the effects on the local community in their applications and they want to rely on flying under the radar to speed things along without scrutiny.' "In the absence of Santana providing clarity and detail about the impacts of their plans to the local community, we ask that our district and regional councils keep us fully informed as soon as they receive any information or consider making any project decisions", she said. 'It appears to be the only way we may get to fully understand and have some influence over what will otherwise be a massive shock with likely huge and lasting impacts and community outrage in the wider district.' References 1-4 above available on the Sustainable Tarras website - at the following links Resource consent application without public notification intended to bypass locals - link: Earlier resource consent application ruled incomplete by CODC - link: Mine related works announced at very short notice - link: The company continues to ignore Sustainable Tarras' reasonable questions - link:
NZ Herald
5 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Speirs Finance secures $200m in first capital raise for NZ businesses
Reminder, this is a Premium article and requires a subscription to read. Listening to articles is free for open-access content—explore other articles or learn more about text-to-speech. Access to Herald Premium articles require a Premium subscription. Subscribe now to listen. Speirs Finance secures $200m in first capital raise for NZ businesses Michelle Herlihy, chief executive of Speirs Finance. Photo / Supplied Speirs Finance Group, which specialises in lending to small to medium-sized enterprises, has completed its first capital raise. The company said it had completed an asset-backed securities (ABS) issue, securing $200 million from institutional investors in New Zealand and Australia. The multi-tranche notes carry Fitch ratings and settled early this month. Speirs, which is owned by Australian private equity firm Anchorage Capital Partners, said its raise diversified the company's capital strategy, expanding its platform to support the financing of equipment, vehicles, and technology across key sectors including construction, transport, healthcare, agriculture and fleet leasing. Chief executive Michelle Herlihy said investor demand for the deal showed deep confidence in New Zealand's economy.
The Spinoff
11 hours ago
- The Spinoff
30 things I learned from 30 hours of Regulatory Standards Bill hearings
It's pretty confusing on the surface, but if you had 30 hours to spare, you would have learnt a lot about the Regulatory Standards Bill from its week in the select committee. The finance and expenditure committee's hearings on the Regulatory Standards Bill (RSB) came to a close on Friday, following four days, 30 hours, 208 submissions and a whole load of takes. Submissions spanned perspectives from the environment and energy sectors to individuals living with disabilities or in poverty. It's a contentious bill whose name and purpose tends to return puzzled looks, because really, what does it all mean? There's been much to say about the public perception of the bill and its many vocal opponents from its architect, deputy prime minister David Seymour. There's been 'so much misinformation' despite it simply setting out a framework for better regulations, Seymour reckoned on Monday, though his accusations of the bill's opponents having some kind of 'derangement syndrome' haven't really been helpful, either. Meanwhile, opponents have been campaigning against the bill with the same ferocity shown in the lead up to the justice committee's hearings on the Treaty principles bill earlier this year. While the emphasis on property and individual rights have raised immediate alarm bells, there's also a lot of interpretation about what the bill could do, like giving corporations the power to take the government or the little guy to court when they believe their property rights have been impeded on. Realistically, the truth is somewhere in between. Because elements of the RSB are so vague – its scope, its principles and its purpose – it's hard to tell what Aotearoa will look like after the bill comes into full force on July 1, 2026. Ideally, this select committee process will take into account the concerns shared by submitters, and shape the bill into something we can visualise a little better. Until then, here's everything that I learnt about the bill and its submitters from these hearings: If oral submissions are anything to go by, most of the public opposes this bill. But there's also a decent chunk sitting on the fence because, yeah, Aotearoa does need improved regulations, but there's sufficient doubt that the RSB will actually achieve this. Subpart 5 of the RSB clarifies that the bill does not impose legal rights nor does it require compliance. Despite this, many submitters who opposed the bill feared it could give large corporations too much power in the court room, like in the case of Phillip Morris (tobacco) v the Australian government over plain packaging legislation. There is a genuine argument that the longer this bill stays in statute, the more influence it could gain over time, and the more likely certain courts may look to its principles as guidelines. There's often a lot of dissonance between the way the courts have interpreted the law and how parliament interprets it. If a Phillip Morris v Australia situation played out in Aotearoa because of the RSB, parliament could just draft an amendment to make the bill's legal restrictions tighter. And Seymour can very easily claim no blame for what the courts have done. But there's also the potential of the RSB becoming like the Bill of Rights Act, which is a part of our unwritten constitution but is more-so quasi-constitutional: it's not entrenched in law, but it's been around long enough – and has enough influence – to impact on the law-making process. There is a genuine case for including the Treaty in the bill. Seymour and the man who dreamt up the bill's blueprint, Dr Bryce Wilkinson, both claim there's nothing in the bill that wouldn't uphold Māori rights, but it's a bit deeper than that – the principles of responsible regulation just don't align with a te ao Māori worldview. The principles of responsible regulations do need a broader appeal if we want legislation that will actually improve our regulations, not a law that will be chucked out when the next Labour government is elected. Only applying the bill's principles to primary legislation will make this palaver far less of a headache. Treating everyone as 'equal' under the law is actually not a great way of helping our most vulnerable communities. Essentially everything in your life is regulated, from the air you breathe to the clothes you wear and the home you return to every night and what you're eating when you get there. Maybe this is a pretty juvenile thing to realise at the ripe age of 25, but it's also not something the layman often thinks about. Regulations aren't necessarily a bad thing, either – they can keep us alive. Certain industries, such as the energy sector, are set to benefit a lot more from the RSB than others. Much of what the proposed regulatory standards board will do is already covered by the regulatory review committee. The Clerk of the House can submit on bills, though this typically only happens once or twice a year, and in the form of written questions. When deputy clerk Suze Jones showed up to the RSB hearing on Wednesday, Labour's Deborah Russell (who joined parliament in 2017) claimed it was the first time she had seen the Clerk submit to the select committee in person. Geoffrey Palmer likes to be punctual – he showed up an hour early for his submission. Russell has a PhD in political theory. And is familiar with Jean Rousseau. Donna Huata, founding member of the Act Party, has some shame about what the party has become. Most submitters show up just before their allotted speaking time and leave right after, but there was one submitter who stayed for hours to hear multiple perspectives: Tex Edwards, of Monopoly Watch NZ. Trickle down economics is like pissing on people and telling them it's rain. Ministers aren't supposed to attend select committees unless they're invited, which is why you can't really blame Seymour for not showing up. But, it makes a big difference to a submitter to have the committee actually show up. Holding the RSB hearings in a non-sitting week meant the MPs were all back in their electorates and listening on Zoom, and this didn't go down smoothly with a few submitters who hoped they could make their case face-to-face. You probably won't get a heads up that no one's in the room if you're showing up to parliament to submit, either. The online discourse around this bill is already having real life implications, with lawyer Tania Waikato needing a security escort to make her submission at parliament. The select committee can play pretty fast and loose with allotted speaking times, like cutting some submissions short, or letting others stretch past their allotted time, as was allowed for the NZ Initiative. Even our politicians forget to turn the mute button off/on. It's not just you. The administrative staff who run these hearings are very lovely people. They didn't have to answer stupid questions from journalists (or a single journalist, aka me) but they did anyway. It's possible for something to have the potential to be both really good, and really bad.
