logo
The enmity is obvious in 'amicable' political split

The enmity is obvious in 'amicable' political split

The Advertiser21-05-2025

This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to theechidna.com.au
It's the election that refuses to die. Apart from a couple of seats still in the count, it seemed done and dusted. Time to move on, we all thought.
Until yesterday, that is, when David Littleproud dropped a nuclear bomb and blew up the Coalition. A trial separation, he reassured us, to give the Liberal Party room for rediscovery, a chance to decide what it wanted to be, as it reeled from the worst election defeat in its history.
Things were crook in the marriage. Rumblings lingered over Scott Morrison's net zero commitment, which the Nats hated. Peter Dutton had to go to the election with a commitment to divestiture powers over the supermarket duopoly as well a $20 billion Regional Future Fund, which no one really understood. All to keep the Nats happy.
And then there was nuclear, a policy so unpopular it barely got a mention by the Libs in the entire campaign but was championed by the Nats - and still is. The nuclear policy fallout was a major factor in the falling out. The Nats want to stick with it; the Libs aren't so sure.
The Nationals are keen to point to the three previous trial separations in the Coalition, all of which were patched up. The last one happened in 1987 and led to the disastrous Joh for PM push, which helped ensure Labor remained in government for years.
Dressed up as an amicable split, there were obvious hints of resentment over the terrible election loss.
Former leader Michael McCormack questioned whether his city cousins in the Liberal Party had the same work ethic as the Nationals. He took a swipe at the senior coalition ex-partner's lack of discipline and the habit of some of its MPs anonymously backgrounding journalists.
And there was a barely veiled note of scorn for Jacinta Price, the senator who defected to the Libs just after the election.
"There's only one position that Jacinta Nampijinpa Price could gain being a member of the Liberal Party that she couldn't gain being a member of the National Party and that is the prime minister's job," he said in media conference in Wagga Wagga.
"I wasn't being disrespectful. I like Jacinta but she's a long way off the prime minister. First of all, she's in the upper house, second of all, she's in opposition."
If that was amity, enmity wasn't far behind.
So where does this leave the opposition? We now have two rural and regional-based parties because the Liberals were all but banished from the capital cities. One is looking at what went wrong and in electing moderates to its leadership is tacking back to the centre of politics. The other, which held on to its seats, is staying its course to the right.
Because they hold more seats in the lower house, the Liberals will still be the main opposition party, with the Nationals playing a bit part. In walking away from the Coalition, they've made themselves less relevant, which is an odd decision politically but probably only temporary.
As Michael McCormack conceded yesterday, with only 15 seats, the Nationals have less than a snowflake's chance of ever governing in their own right. If they are to ever to sit on the government benches again, they'll have to get back into bed with the Liberals.
That's the reality that will dawn on them over the next three years.
HAVE YOUR SAY: Will the National Party condemn itself to irrelevance by walking away from the coalition with the Liberal Party? Will it now become a fringe right-wing party? How important is a functioning and credible opposition to Australian politics? Email us: echidna@theechidna.com.au
SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
- The official cash rate has fallen below 4 per cent for the first time in two years, after the central bank decided on a cut at its May board meeting. The Reserve Bank board announced a 25 basis point reduction to the official cash rate, taking it to 3.85 per cent.
- An apology by Qantas for sacking 1820 ground crew rings "wholly hollow" and it has failed to make changes that ensure such actions never happen again, a judge has been told.
- If it's good enough for city children to wear seatbelts on school buses, it's good enough for rural kids, too. That's what has been put forward at the Country Women's Association of NSW state conference in Wagga.
THEY SAID IT: "A divorce is like an amputation: you survive it, but there's less of you." - Margaret Atwood
YOU SAID IT: After intense international pressure Israel has agreed to allow six trucks of vital aid into Gaza. Aid agencies say at least 600 trucks a day are needed to feed the war-weary population. Yet Israel denies it is using starvation as a weapon of war.
"Love Peter's cartoon," writes Sue. "Spot on, John. Two wrongs don't make a right. The situation has never been a good one and is an excellent argument against the way Israel was established in the first place. The idea of establishing a homeland for the Jews after World War II was excellent, but the manner was not. No country is going to be happy to have outsiders give, without reference to them, part of their land to other people, particularly a group of people they have ideological and traditional differences with. Don't ask me what the answer is, but the destruction of Gaza will only lead to further problems."
Tony writes: "It certainly looks like the government of Israel is using starvation as a weapon."
"Most people are repelled at the tactics used by the IDF, just as they were appalled by the Holocaust," writes Anita. "Any goodwill remaining after World War II (and there was much), would have dissipated by now and blame would have generalised from the specific, Netanyahu, to the IDF, to the people of Israel. It will take generations for memories to fade. I know of Jewish people who are campaigning against these actions because they have a heart. Australia needs to join the chorus of right-thinking people across the globe decrying this atrocity."
Patricia writes: "Of course Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war. This has been happening for some time. This is a war crime. While some countries, like Ireland, have been calling out the genocide since it became apparent, our government doesn't. I'm told, by Labor supporters and politicians, of the many things Labor has done. But they are far too little, far too late. Labor is in thrall to the Israel lobby. I was writing to my representatives before the election, however their responses are pathetic. Meanwhile, Albanese is promising more aid to Ukraine. I used to be rusted on Labor - never again. I put them as far down the line as possible in the recent election. Never again. I can't help but notice: Ukrainians = white. Palestinians = brown. Is this racism?"
"John's words evoke an image which few of us can stomach," writes Murray. "The deliberate starvation of Palestinians, especially children. There is no way it can be argued that what is happening is not being done deliberately to weaken them. And yet, If Palestinian Hamas and supporting neighbours were allowed to build sufficient strength they would overrun Israel, and the starvation of children would be one of the lesser atrocities. Two wrongs never make a right, that is true. But willfully letting control of a situation slip away, when the survival of your nation is at stake, that would be unforgivable. Israel is fighting for its existence. And keyboard commentators are condemning them."
Sue K writes: "If the USA found Israel's invasion of Gaza unacceptable, all they have to do is stop supplying Israel with the weapons to fight the war. Then we might find Netanyahu notices what the rest of the world is shouting at him. Until then, the situation is hopeless."
"I have been a lifelong supporter of Israel until now," writes Terry R. "Irrespective of the provocation, which was substantial, the religious ratbags now on charge of Israel will be its destruction. Yes I mean destruction. I cannot see Israel ever recovering from the immense damage this team of crooks have done to its reputation. Something must be done to prevent total starvation in Gaza. I hear the arguments put forward by Israel's supporters. They ignore the truth. Sure something must be done to ensure Israel's future is peaceful and free from terrorism. But they must stop the terrorism they are perpetrating now. And I mean now."
Phil writes: "Of all the peoples in the world, I would expect the Jewish people to most easily recognise and recoil from crimes against humanity, such as destruction of homes, dispossession of property, group punishment for resistance, starvation, dehumanisation, summary incarceration and executions, systematic extermination of journalists and health workers, and genocide. The fact that these crimes, so redolent of the Nazi's 'final solution', are being committed against Palestinians, wholesale, by Jews, beggars belief. The failure of the rest of the world to stop it is egregiously tragic."
"Netanyahu will not stop until Gaza is razed to the ground to make it uninhabitable," writes Sharon. "The West Bank is undergoing the same process. If you criticise the Israeli government you are accused of anti-Semitism. No, dear, I'm anti-war."
Bill writes: "While Bibi [Netanyahu] wants to remain in power with the support of right-wing religious extremists, and avoid the resumption of a long-pending corruption court hearing, hospitals in Gaza will be bombed and its citizens will starve. The IDF could spend the next decade advancing up Gaza, only to turn around again and go south, eliminating more of the population on each march. Hamas knows this, which is why they still retain hostages. If Bibi declares peace in Gaza, his government will collapse. He will face court. And an enquiry as to how the famed Israel security system was caught with their pants down. Bibi will keep going, regardless of proposed Euro sanctions, until Trump withdraws support in terms of weapons and the USA Jewish diaspora stops funding Bibi. And Bibi is on record opposing the two-state solution, as will all the illegal squatters/settlers in occupied land."
"Yes, Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war and it doesn't matter what the US or the UK-based lawyers think or how often Israel protest their innocence - the majority of the world's nations are appalled by their actions," writes Jeanette. "There is little difference between Netanyahu and people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao and others who used mass starvation as a weapon of destruction."
Arthur writes: "There can be no doubt that Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war. Hamas does not care for the Palestinians and is just as responsible. Hamas is winning the war but not the battle. Hamas is letting Israel lose its world standing and thus lose the war. Israel is just blind to the realities. A two-state solution is the only glimmer of hope and eventually Israel will have to agree and start to obey international law."
"Is Israel using starvation as a weapon of war? It's not even a question," writes Marilyn. "The evidence is there for all to see. I was reminded of the international standing Israel once had as I finished reading Maria van Lieshout's Song of a Blackbird yesterday. She describes the courage, compassion and resistance by the Dutch during World War II, so that Jewish people might be spared the ravages of the Nazis. One might think that those qualities would in turn be exhibited by Jewish people to others in recognition of sacrifices that many made towards the Jews in that era. That Western nations have barely begun to exercise their voices and possibly enact actions against Israel is beyond the comprehension of people with long memories."
Bernard writes: "Thank you for this newsletter. Hamas may be a terrorist organisation, but Israel has become a terrorising state to the people of Gaza! Given the support Netanyahu gave Hamas to keep Gaza and the West bank divided, we can understand some of the murderous brutality he displays towards the group that assaulted Israel, but not the disproportionate killing of Palestinians. Albanese has asked us not to bring overseas conflicts to Australia, but we allow Australian/Israeli citizens to visit Israel and perform military service. And return to Australia! Since October 2023 how many 'Ausraelis' have departed Australia and performed military service in Israel? Allowing this migration is surely a case of Australia supporting the acts of genocide against Gazans!"
This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to theechidna.com.au
It's the election that refuses to die. Apart from a couple of seats still in the count, it seemed done and dusted. Time to move on, we all thought.
Until yesterday, that is, when David Littleproud dropped a nuclear bomb and blew up the Coalition. A trial separation, he reassured us, to give the Liberal Party room for rediscovery, a chance to decide what it wanted to be, as it reeled from the worst election defeat in its history.
Things were crook in the marriage. Rumblings lingered over Scott Morrison's net zero commitment, which the Nats hated. Peter Dutton had to go to the election with a commitment to divestiture powers over the supermarket duopoly as well a $20 billion Regional Future Fund, which no one really understood. All to keep the Nats happy.
And then there was nuclear, a policy so unpopular it barely got a mention by the Libs in the entire campaign but was championed by the Nats - and still is. The nuclear policy fallout was a major factor in the falling out. The Nats want to stick with it; the Libs aren't so sure.
The Nationals are keen to point to the three previous trial separations in the Coalition, all of which were patched up. The last one happened in 1987 and led to the disastrous Joh for PM push, which helped ensure Labor remained in government for years.
Dressed up as an amicable split, there were obvious hints of resentment over the terrible election loss.
Former leader Michael McCormack questioned whether his city cousins in the Liberal Party had the same work ethic as the Nationals. He took a swipe at the senior coalition ex-partner's lack of discipline and the habit of some of its MPs anonymously backgrounding journalists.
And there was a barely veiled note of scorn for Jacinta Price, the senator who defected to the Libs just after the election.
"There's only one position that Jacinta Nampijinpa Price could gain being a member of the Liberal Party that she couldn't gain being a member of the National Party and that is the prime minister's job," he said in media conference in Wagga Wagga.
"I wasn't being disrespectful. I like Jacinta but she's a long way off the prime minister. First of all, she's in the upper house, second of all, she's in opposition."
If that was amity, enmity wasn't far behind.
So where does this leave the opposition? We now have two rural and regional-based parties because the Liberals were all but banished from the capital cities. One is looking at what went wrong and in electing moderates to its leadership is tacking back to the centre of politics. The other, which held on to its seats, is staying its course to the right.
Because they hold more seats in the lower house, the Liberals will still be the main opposition party, with the Nationals playing a bit part. In walking away from the Coalition, they've made themselves less relevant, which is an odd decision politically but probably only temporary.
As Michael McCormack conceded yesterday, with only 15 seats, the Nationals have less than a snowflake's chance of ever governing in their own right. If they are to ever to sit on the government benches again, they'll have to get back into bed with the Liberals.
That's the reality that will dawn on them over the next three years.
HAVE YOUR SAY: Will the National Party condemn itself to irrelevance by walking away from the coalition with the Liberal Party? Will it now become a fringe right-wing party? How important is a functioning and credible opposition to Australian politics? Email us: echidna@theechidna.com.au
SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
- The official cash rate has fallen below 4 per cent for the first time in two years, after the central bank decided on a cut at its May board meeting. The Reserve Bank board announced a 25 basis point reduction to the official cash rate, taking it to 3.85 per cent.
- An apology by Qantas for sacking 1820 ground crew rings "wholly hollow" and it has failed to make changes that ensure such actions never happen again, a judge has been told.
- If it's good enough for city children to wear seatbelts on school buses, it's good enough for rural kids, too. That's what has been put forward at the Country Women's Association of NSW state conference in Wagga.
THEY SAID IT: "A divorce is like an amputation: you survive it, but there's less of you." - Margaret Atwood
YOU SAID IT: After intense international pressure Israel has agreed to allow six trucks of vital aid into Gaza. Aid agencies say at least 600 trucks a day are needed to feed the war-weary population. Yet Israel denies it is using starvation as a weapon of war.
"Love Peter's cartoon," writes Sue. "Spot on, John. Two wrongs don't make a right. The situation has never been a good one and is an excellent argument against the way Israel was established in the first place. The idea of establishing a homeland for the Jews after World War II was excellent, but the manner was not. No country is going to be happy to have outsiders give, without reference to them, part of their land to other people, particularly a group of people they have ideological and traditional differences with. Don't ask me what the answer is, but the destruction of Gaza will only lead to further problems."
Tony writes: "It certainly looks like the government of Israel is using starvation as a weapon."
"Most people are repelled at the tactics used by the IDF, just as they were appalled by the Holocaust," writes Anita. "Any goodwill remaining after World War II (and there was much), would have dissipated by now and blame would have generalised from the specific, Netanyahu, to the IDF, to the people of Israel. It will take generations for memories to fade. I know of Jewish people who are campaigning against these actions because they have a heart. Australia needs to join the chorus of right-thinking people across the globe decrying this atrocity."
Patricia writes: "Of course Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war. This has been happening for some time. This is a war crime. While some countries, like Ireland, have been calling out the genocide since it became apparent, our government doesn't. I'm told, by Labor supporters and politicians, of the many things Labor has done. But they are far too little, far too late. Labor is in thrall to the Israel lobby. I was writing to my representatives before the election, however their responses are pathetic. Meanwhile, Albanese is promising more aid to Ukraine. I used to be rusted on Labor - never again. I put them as far down the line as possible in the recent election. Never again. I can't help but notice: Ukrainians = white. Palestinians = brown. Is this racism?"
"John's words evoke an image which few of us can stomach," writes Murray. "The deliberate starvation of Palestinians, especially children. There is no way it can be argued that what is happening is not being done deliberately to weaken them. And yet, If Palestinian Hamas and supporting neighbours were allowed to build sufficient strength they would overrun Israel, and the starvation of children would be one of the lesser atrocities. Two wrongs never make a right, that is true. But willfully letting control of a situation slip away, when the survival of your nation is at stake, that would be unforgivable. Israel is fighting for its existence. And keyboard commentators are condemning them."
Sue K writes: "If the USA found Israel's invasion of Gaza unacceptable, all they have to do is stop supplying Israel with the weapons to fight the war. Then we might find Netanyahu notices what the rest of the world is shouting at him. Until then, the situation is hopeless."
"I have been a lifelong supporter of Israel until now," writes Terry R. "Irrespective of the provocation, which was substantial, the religious ratbags now on charge of Israel will be its destruction. Yes I mean destruction. I cannot see Israel ever recovering from the immense damage this team of crooks have done to its reputation. Something must be done to prevent total starvation in Gaza. I hear the arguments put forward by Israel's supporters. They ignore the truth. Sure something must be done to ensure Israel's future is peaceful and free from terrorism. But they must stop the terrorism they are perpetrating now. And I mean now."
Phil writes: "Of all the peoples in the world, I would expect the Jewish people to most easily recognise and recoil from crimes against humanity, such as destruction of homes, dispossession of property, group punishment for resistance, starvation, dehumanisation, summary incarceration and executions, systematic extermination of journalists and health workers, and genocide. The fact that these crimes, so redolent of the Nazi's 'final solution', are being committed against Palestinians, wholesale, by Jews, beggars belief. The failure of the rest of the world to stop it is egregiously tragic."
"Netanyahu will not stop until Gaza is razed to the ground to make it uninhabitable," writes Sharon. "The West Bank is undergoing the same process. If you criticise the Israeli government you are accused of anti-Semitism. No, dear, I'm anti-war."
Bill writes: "While Bibi [Netanyahu] wants to remain in power with the support of right-wing religious extremists, and avoid the resumption of a long-pending corruption court hearing, hospitals in Gaza will be bombed and its citizens will starve. The IDF could spend the next decade advancing up Gaza, only to turn around again and go south, eliminating more of the population on each march. Hamas knows this, which is why they still retain hostages. If Bibi declares peace in Gaza, his government will collapse. He will face court. And an enquiry as to how the famed Israel security system was caught with their pants down. Bibi will keep going, regardless of proposed Euro sanctions, until Trump withdraws support in terms of weapons and the USA Jewish diaspora stops funding Bibi. And Bibi is on record opposing the two-state solution, as will all the illegal squatters/settlers in occupied land."
"Yes, Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war and it doesn't matter what the US or the UK-based lawyers think or how often Israel protest their innocence - the majority of the world's nations are appalled by their actions," writes Jeanette. "There is little difference between Netanyahu and people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao and others who used mass starvation as a weapon of destruction."
Arthur writes: "There can be no doubt that Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war. Hamas does not care for the Palestinians and is just as responsible. Hamas is winning the war but not the battle. Hamas is letting Israel lose its world standing and thus lose the war. Israel is just blind to the realities. A two-state solution is the only glimmer of hope and eventually Israel will have to agree and start to obey international law."
"Is Israel using starvation as a weapon of war? It's not even a question," writes Marilyn. "The evidence is there for all to see. I was reminded of the international standing Israel once had as I finished reading Maria van Lieshout's Song of a Blackbird yesterday. She describes the courage, compassion and resistance by the Dutch during World War II, so that Jewish people might be spared the ravages of the Nazis. One might think that those qualities would in turn be exhibited by Jewish people to others in recognition of sacrifices that many made towards the Jews in that era. That Western nations have barely begun to exercise their voices and possibly enact actions against Israel is beyond the comprehension of people with long memories."
Bernard writes: "Thank you for this newsletter. Hamas may be a terrorist organisation, but Israel has become a terrorising state to the people of Gaza! Given the support Netanyahu gave Hamas to keep Gaza and the West bank divided, we can understand some of the murderous brutality he displays towards the group that assaulted Israel, but not the disproportionate killing of Palestinians. Albanese has asked us not to bring overseas conflicts to Australia, but we allow Australian/Israeli citizens to visit Israel and perform military service. And return to Australia! Since October 2023 how many 'Ausraelis' have departed Australia and performed military service in Israel? Allowing this migration is surely a case of Australia supporting the acts of genocide against Gazans!"
This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to theechidna.com.au
It's the election that refuses to die. Apart from a couple of seats still in the count, it seemed done and dusted. Time to move on, we all thought.
Until yesterday, that is, when David Littleproud dropped a nuclear bomb and blew up the Coalition. A trial separation, he reassured us, to give the Liberal Party room for rediscovery, a chance to decide what it wanted to be, as it reeled from the worst election defeat in its history.
Things were crook in the marriage. Rumblings lingered over Scott Morrison's net zero commitment, which the Nats hated. Peter Dutton had to go to the election with a commitment to divestiture powers over the supermarket duopoly as well a $20 billion Regional Future Fund, which no one really understood. All to keep the Nats happy.
And then there was nuclear, a policy so unpopular it barely got a mention by the Libs in the entire campaign but was championed by the Nats - and still is. The nuclear policy fallout was a major factor in the falling out. The Nats want to stick with it; the Libs aren't so sure.
The Nationals are keen to point to the three previous trial separations in the Coalition, all of which were patched up. The last one happened in 1987 and led to the disastrous Joh for PM push, which helped ensure Labor remained in government for years.
Dressed up as an amicable split, there were obvious hints of resentment over the terrible election loss.
Former leader Michael McCormack questioned whether his city cousins in the Liberal Party had the same work ethic as the Nationals. He took a swipe at the senior coalition ex-partner's lack of discipline and the habit of some of its MPs anonymously backgrounding journalists.
And there was a barely veiled note of scorn for Jacinta Price, the senator who defected to the Libs just after the election.
"There's only one position that Jacinta Nampijinpa Price could gain being a member of the Liberal Party that she couldn't gain being a member of the National Party and that is the prime minister's job," he said in media conference in Wagga Wagga.
"I wasn't being disrespectful. I like Jacinta but she's a long way off the prime minister. First of all, she's in the upper house, second of all, she's in opposition."
If that was amity, enmity wasn't far behind.
So where does this leave the opposition? We now have two rural and regional-based parties because the Liberals were all but banished from the capital cities. One is looking at what went wrong and in electing moderates to its leadership is tacking back to the centre of politics. The other, which held on to its seats, is staying its course to the right.
Because they hold more seats in the lower house, the Liberals will still be the main opposition party, with the Nationals playing a bit part. In walking away from the Coalition, they've made themselves less relevant, which is an odd decision politically but probably only temporary.
As Michael McCormack conceded yesterday, with only 15 seats, the Nationals have less than a snowflake's chance of ever governing in their own right. If they are to ever to sit on the government benches again, they'll have to get back into bed with the Liberals.
That's the reality that will dawn on them over the next three years.
HAVE YOUR SAY: Will the National Party condemn itself to irrelevance by walking away from the coalition with the Liberal Party? Will it now become a fringe right-wing party? How important is a functioning and credible opposition to Australian politics? Email us: echidna@theechidna.com.au
SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
- The official cash rate has fallen below 4 per cent for the first time in two years, after the central bank decided on a cut at its May board meeting. The Reserve Bank board announced a 25 basis point reduction to the official cash rate, taking it to 3.85 per cent.
- An apology by Qantas for sacking 1820 ground crew rings "wholly hollow" and it has failed to make changes that ensure such actions never happen again, a judge has been told.
- If it's good enough for city children to wear seatbelts on school buses, it's good enough for rural kids, too. That's what has been put forward at the Country Women's Association of NSW state conference in Wagga.
THEY SAID IT: "A divorce is like an amputation: you survive it, but there's less of you." - Margaret Atwood
YOU SAID IT: After intense international pressure Israel has agreed to allow six trucks of vital aid into Gaza. Aid agencies say at least 600 trucks a day are needed to feed the war-weary population. Yet Israel denies it is using starvation as a weapon of war.
"Love Peter's cartoon," writes Sue. "Spot on, John. Two wrongs don't make a right. The situation has never been a good one and is an excellent argument against the way Israel was established in the first place. The idea of establishing a homeland for the Jews after World War II was excellent, but the manner was not. No country is going to be happy to have outsiders give, without reference to them, part of their land to other people, particularly a group of people they have ideological and traditional differences with. Don't ask me what the answer is, but the destruction of Gaza will only lead to further problems."
Tony writes: "It certainly looks like the government of Israel is using starvation as a weapon."
"Most people are repelled at the tactics used by the IDF, just as they were appalled by the Holocaust," writes Anita. "Any goodwill remaining after World War II (and there was much), would have dissipated by now and blame would have generalised from the specific, Netanyahu, to the IDF, to the people of Israel. It will take generations for memories to fade. I know of Jewish people who are campaigning against these actions because they have a heart. Australia needs to join the chorus of right-thinking people across the globe decrying this atrocity."
Patricia writes: "Of course Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war. This has been happening for some time. This is a war crime. While some countries, like Ireland, have been calling out the genocide since it became apparent, our government doesn't. I'm told, by Labor supporters and politicians, of the many things Labor has done. But they are far too little, far too late. Labor is in thrall to the Israel lobby. I was writing to my representatives before the election, however their responses are pathetic. Meanwhile, Albanese is promising more aid to Ukraine. I used to be rusted on Labor - never again. I put them as far down the line as possible in the recent election. Never again. I can't help but notice: Ukrainians = white. Palestinians = brown. Is this racism?"
"John's words evoke an image which few of us can stomach," writes Murray. "The deliberate starvation of Palestinians, especially children. There is no way it can be argued that what is happening is not being done deliberately to weaken them. And yet, If Palestinian Hamas and supporting neighbours were allowed to build sufficient strength they would overrun Israel, and the starvation of children would be one of the lesser atrocities. Two wrongs never make a right, that is true. But willfully letting control of a situation slip away, when the survival of your nation is at stake, that would be unforgivable. Israel is fighting for its existence. And keyboard commentators are condemning them."
Sue K writes: "If the USA found Israel's invasion of Gaza unacceptable, all they have to do is stop supplying Israel with the weapons to fight the war. Then we might find Netanyahu notices what the rest of the world is shouting at him. Until then, the situation is hopeless."
"I have been a lifelong supporter of Israel until now," writes Terry R. "Irrespective of the provocation, which was substantial, the religious ratbags now on charge of Israel will be its destruction. Yes I mean destruction. I cannot see Israel ever recovering from the immense damage this team of crooks have done to its reputation. Something must be done to prevent total starvation in Gaza. I hear the arguments put forward by Israel's supporters. They ignore the truth. Sure something must be done to ensure Israel's future is peaceful and free from terrorism. But they must stop the terrorism they are perpetrating now. And I mean now."
Phil writes: "Of all the peoples in the world, I would expect the Jewish people to most easily recognise and recoil from crimes against humanity, such as destruction of homes, dispossession of property, group punishment for resistance, starvation, dehumanisation, summary incarceration and executions, systematic extermination of journalists and health workers, and genocide. The fact that these crimes, so redolent of the Nazi's 'final solution', are being committed against Palestinians, wholesale, by Jews, beggars belief. The failure of the rest of the world to stop it is egregiously tragic."
"Netanyahu will not stop until Gaza is razed to the ground to make it uninhabitable," writes Sharon. "The West Bank is undergoing the same process. If you criticise the Israeli government you are accused of anti-Semitism. No, dear, I'm anti-war."
Bill writes: "While Bibi [Netanyahu] wants to remain in power with the support of right-wing religious extremists, and avoid the resumption of a long-pending corruption court hearing, hospitals in Gaza will be bombed and its citizens will starve. The IDF could spend the next decade advancing up Gaza, only to turn around again and go south, eliminating more of the population on each march. Hamas knows this, which is why they still retain hostages. If Bibi declares peace in Gaza, his government will collapse. He will face court. And an enquiry as to how the famed Israel security system was caught with their pants down. Bibi will keep going, regardless of proposed Euro sanctions, until Trump withdraws support in terms of weapons and the USA Jewish diaspora stops funding Bibi. And Bibi is on record opposing the two-state solution, as will all the illegal squatters/settlers in occupied land."
"Yes, Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war and it doesn't matter what the US or the UK-based lawyers think or how often Israel protest their innocence - the majority of the world's nations are appalled by their actions," writes Jeanette. "There is little difference between Netanyahu and people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao and others who used mass starvation as a weapon of destruction."
Arthur writes: "There can be no doubt that Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war. Hamas does not care for the Palestinians and is just as responsible. Hamas is winning the war but not the battle. Hamas is letting Israel lose its world standing and thus lose the war. Israel is just blind to the realities. A two-state solution is the only glimmer of hope and eventually Israel will have to agree and start to obey international law."
"Is Israel using starvation as a weapon of war? It's not even a question," writes Marilyn. "The evidence is there for all to see. I was reminded of the international standing Israel once had as I finished reading Maria van Lieshout's Song of a Blackbird yesterday. She describes the courage, compassion and resistance by the Dutch during World War II, so that Jewish people might be spared the ravages of the Nazis. One might think that those qualities would in turn be exhibited by Jewish people to others in recognition of sacrifices that many made towards the Jews in that era. That Western nations have barely begun to exercise their voices and possibly enact actions against Israel is beyond the comprehension of people with long memories."
Bernard writes: "Thank you for this newsletter. Hamas may be a terrorist organisation, but Israel has become a terrorising state to the people of Gaza! Given the support Netanyahu gave Hamas to keep Gaza and the West bank divided, we can understand some of the murderous brutality he displays towards the group that assaulted Israel, but not the disproportionate killing of Palestinians. Albanese has asked us not to bring overseas conflicts to Australia, but we allow Australian/Israeli citizens to visit Israel and perform military service. And return to Australia! Since October 2023 how many 'Ausraelis' have departed Australia and performed military service in Israel? Allowing this migration is surely a case of Australia supporting the acts of genocide against Gazans!"
This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to theechidna.com.au
It's the election that refuses to die. Apart from a couple of seats still in the count, it seemed done and dusted. Time to move on, we all thought.
Until yesterday, that is, when David Littleproud dropped a nuclear bomb and blew up the Coalition. A trial separation, he reassured us, to give the Liberal Party room for rediscovery, a chance to decide what it wanted to be, as it reeled from the worst election defeat in its history.
Things were crook in the marriage. Rumblings lingered over Scott Morrison's net zero commitment, which the Nats hated. Peter Dutton had to go to the election with a commitment to divestiture powers over the supermarket duopoly as well a $20 billion Regional Future Fund, which no one really understood. All to keep the Nats happy.
And then there was nuclear, a policy so unpopular it barely got a mention by the Libs in the entire campaign but was championed by the Nats - and still is. The nuclear policy fallout was a major factor in the falling out. The Nats want to stick with it; the Libs aren't so sure.
The Nationals are keen to point to the three previous trial separations in the Coalition, all of which were patched up. The last one happened in 1987 and led to the disastrous Joh for PM push, which helped ensure Labor remained in government for years.
Dressed up as an amicable split, there were obvious hints of resentment over the terrible election loss.
Former leader Michael McCormack questioned whether his city cousins in the Liberal Party had the same work ethic as the Nationals. He took a swipe at the senior coalition ex-partner's lack of discipline and the habit of some of its MPs anonymously backgrounding journalists.
And there was a barely veiled note of scorn for Jacinta Price, the senator who defected to the Libs just after the election.
"There's only one position that Jacinta Nampijinpa Price could gain being a member of the Liberal Party that she couldn't gain being a member of the National Party and that is the prime minister's job," he said in media conference in Wagga Wagga.
"I wasn't being disrespectful. I like Jacinta but she's a long way off the prime minister. First of all, she's in the upper house, second of all, she's in opposition."
If that was amity, enmity wasn't far behind.
So where does this leave the opposition? We now have two rural and regional-based parties because the Liberals were all but banished from the capital cities. One is looking at what went wrong and in electing moderates to its leadership is tacking back to the centre of politics. The other, which held on to its seats, is staying its course to the right.
Because they hold more seats in the lower house, the Liberals will still be the main opposition party, with the Nationals playing a bit part. In walking away from the Coalition, they've made themselves less relevant, which is an odd decision politically but probably only temporary.
As Michael McCormack conceded yesterday, with only 15 seats, the Nationals have less than a snowflake's chance of ever governing in their own right. If they are to ever to sit on the government benches again, they'll have to get back into bed with the Liberals.
That's the reality that will dawn on them over the next three years.
HAVE YOUR SAY: Will the National Party condemn itself to irrelevance by walking away from the coalition with the Liberal Party? Will it now become a fringe right-wing party? How important is a functioning and credible opposition to Australian politics? Email us: echidna@theechidna.com.au
SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too.
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT:
- The official cash rate has fallen below 4 per cent for the first time in two years, after the central bank decided on a cut at its May board meeting. The Reserve Bank board announced a 25 basis point reduction to the official cash rate, taking it to 3.85 per cent.
- An apology by Qantas for sacking 1820 ground crew rings "wholly hollow" and it has failed to make changes that ensure such actions never happen again, a judge has been told.
- If it's good enough for city children to wear seatbelts on school buses, it's good enough for rural kids, too. That's what has been put forward at the Country Women's Association of NSW state conference in Wagga.
THEY SAID IT: "A divorce is like an amputation: you survive it, but there's less of you." - Margaret Atwood
YOU SAID IT: After intense international pressure Israel has agreed to allow six trucks of vital aid into Gaza. Aid agencies say at least 600 trucks a day are needed to feed the war-weary population. Yet Israel denies it is using starvation as a weapon of war.
"Love Peter's cartoon," writes Sue. "Spot on, John. Two wrongs don't make a right. The situation has never been a good one and is an excellent argument against the way Israel was established in the first place. The idea of establishing a homeland for the Jews after World War II was excellent, but the manner was not. No country is going to be happy to have outsiders give, without reference to them, part of their land to other people, particularly a group of people they have ideological and traditional differences with. Don't ask me what the answer is, but the destruction of Gaza will only lead to further problems."
Tony writes: "It certainly looks like the government of Israel is using starvation as a weapon."
"Most people are repelled at the tactics used by the IDF, just as they were appalled by the Holocaust," writes Anita. "Any goodwill remaining after World War II (and there was much), would have dissipated by now and blame would have generalised from the specific, Netanyahu, to the IDF, to the people of Israel. It will take generations for memories to fade. I know of Jewish people who are campaigning against these actions because they have a heart. Australia needs to join the chorus of right-thinking people across the globe decrying this atrocity."
Patricia writes: "Of course Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war. This has been happening for some time. This is a war crime. While some countries, like Ireland, have been calling out the genocide since it became apparent, our government doesn't. I'm told, by Labor supporters and politicians, of the many things Labor has done. But they are far too little, far too late. Labor is in thrall to the Israel lobby. I was writing to my representatives before the election, however their responses are pathetic. Meanwhile, Albanese is promising more aid to Ukraine. I used to be rusted on Labor - never again. I put them as far down the line as possible in the recent election. Never again. I can't help but notice: Ukrainians = white. Palestinians = brown. Is this racism?"
"John's words evoke an image which few of us can stomach," writes Murray. "The deliberate starvation of Palestinians, especially children. There is no way it can be argued that what is happening is not being done deliberately to weaken them. And yet, If Palestinian Hamas and supporting neighbours were allowed to build sufficient strength they would overrun Israel, and the starvation of children would be one of the lesser atrocities. Two wrongs never make a right, that is true. But willfully letting control of a situation slip away, when the survival of your nation is at stake, that would be unforgivable. Israel is fighting for its existence. And keyboard commentators are condemning them."
Sue K writes: "If the USA found Israel's invasion of Gaza unacceptable, all they have to do is stop supplying Israel with the weapons to fight the war. Then we might find Netanyahu notices what the rest of the world is shouting at him. Until then, the situation is hopeless."
"I have been a lifelong supporter of Israel until now," writes Terry R. "Irrespective of the provocation, which was substantial, the religious ratbags now on charge of Israel will be its destruction. Yes I mean destruction. I cannot see Israel ever recovering from the immense damage this team of crooks have done to its reputation. Something must be done to prevent total starvation in Gaza. I hear the arguments put forward by Israel's supporters. They ignore the truth. Sure something must be done to ensure Israel's future is peaceful and free from terrorism. But they must stop the terrorism they are perpetrating now. And I mean now."
Phil writes: "Of all the peoples in the world, I would expect the Jewish people to most easily recognise and recoil from crimes against humanity, such as destruction of homes, dispossession of property, group punishment for resistance, starvation, dehumanisation, summary incarceration and executions, systematic extermination of journalists and health workers, and genocide. The fact that these crimes, so redolent of the Nazi's 'final solution', are being committed against Palestinians, wholesale, by Jews, beggars belief. The failure of the rest of the world to stop it is egregiously tragic."
"Netanyahu will not stop until Gaza is razed to the ground to make it uninhabitable," writes Sharon. "The West Bank is undergoing the same process. If you criticise the Israeli government you are accused of anti-Semitism. No, dear, I'm anti-war."
Bill writes: "While Bibi [Netanyahu] wants to remain in power with the support of right-wing religious extremists, and avoid the resumption of a long-pending corruption court hearing, hospitals in Gaza will be bombed and its citizens will starve. The IDF could spend the next decade advancing up Gaza, only to turn around again and go south, eliminating more of the population on each march. Hamas knows this, which is why they still retain hostages. If Bibi declares peace in Gaza, his government will collapse. He will face court. And an enquiry as to how the famed Israel security system was caught with their pants down. Bibi will keep going, regardless of proposed Euro sanctions, until Trump withdraws support in terms of weapons and the USA Jewish diaspora stops funding Bibi. And Bibi is on record opposing the two-state solution, as will all the illegal squatters/settlers in occupied land."
"Yes, Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war and it doesn't matter what the US or the UK-based lawyers think or how often Israel protest their innocence - the majority of the world's nations are appalled by their actions," writes Jeanette. "There is little difference between Netanyahu and people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao and others who used mass starvation as a weapon of destruction."
Arthur writes: "There can be no doubt that Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war. Hamas does not care for the Palestinians and is just as responsible. Hamas is winning the war but not the battle. Hamas is letting Israel lose its world standing and thus lose the war. Israel is just blind to the realities. A two-state solution is the only glimmer of hope and eventually Israel will have to agree and start to obey international law."
"Is Israel using starvation as a weapon of war? It's not even a question," writes Marilyn. "The evidence is there for all to see. I was reminded of the international standing Israel once had as I finished reading Maria van Lieshout's Song of a Blackbird yesterday. She describes the courage, compassion and resistance by the Dutch during World War II, so that Jewish people might be spared the ravages of the Nazis. One might think that those qualities would in turn be exhibited by Jewish people to others in recognition of sacrifices that many made towards the Jews in that era. That Western nations have barely begun to exercise their voices and possibly enact actions against Israel is beyond the comprehension of people with long memories."
Bernard writes: "Thank you for this newsletter. Hamas may be a terrorist organisation, but Israel has become a terrorising state to the people of Gaza! Given the support Netanyahu gave Hamas to keep Gaza and the West bank divided, we can understand some of the murderous brutality he displays towards the group that assaulted Israel, but not the disproportionate killing of Palestinians. Albanese has asked us not to bring overseas conflicts to Australia, but we allow Australian/Israeli citizens to visit Israel and perform military service. And return to Australia! Since October 2023 how many 'Ausraelis' have departed Australia and performed military service in Israel? Allowing this migration is surely a case of Australia supporting the acts of genocide against Gazans!"

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'Deeply concerning': AUKUS deal under threat as Trump launches review
'Deeply concerning': AUKUS deal under threat as Trump launches review

The Advertiser

timean hour ago

  • The Advertiser

'Deeply concerning': AUKUS deal under threat as Trump launches review

The United States has launched a snap review of the AUKUS submarine deal, throwing its $368 billion security pact with Australia into doubt just as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese prepares for a potential meeting with Donald Trump. After news broke overnight of the development, with the Pentagon reportedly saying the AUKUS deal must be weighed to establish whether it aligns with Mr Trump's "America First" approach, a spokesperson for Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said in a statement that it was "natural that the Administration would want to examine this major undertaking, including progress and delivery." "We are committed to AUKUS and we look forward to working closely with the US on the review," the spokesperson said. "The United States advised Australia and the UK of the review. All three countries are committed to ensuring AUKUS meets national and trilateral objectives. "Importantly, AUKUS will grow both US and Australian defence industry as well as generating thousands of new manufacturing jobs." The Coalition responded with concern, with opposition frontbencher Bridget McKenzie telling Nine's Today the AUKUS pact and Australia's strategic defence partnership with the US needed to be "the Prime Minister's primary concern." "[It is] a deeply concerning development," Senator McKenzie said. "We cannot defend ourselves without these relationships." The Prime Minister will attend the G7 Leaders' Summit alongside Mr Trump in Alberta, Canada, from June 15 to 17, creating an opportunity to finally meet face-to-face with the President, although no plans have been confirmed. The Trump administration has called for Australia to lift defence spending and complained about strict biosecurity rules for meat imports, as well as the low prices paid for US-made medicines on the PBS, while holding out on providing exemptions to sweeping tariffs imposed on key Australian exports. Mr Albanese told the National Press Club on Wednesday that his government would not trade away "the things that make us the best country on earth" and said while he did not want to pre-empt any conversation with the President, "we'll only sign up to things that are in Australia's national interest." "Australia should decide what we spend on Australia's defence. Simple as that," the Prime Minister said. "We will always provide for capability that's needed." AUKUS is a three-nation security alliance between Australia, the UK and the US agreed in 2021 under the prime ministership of ex-Liberal leader Scott Morrison. It was formed to counter China's strategic moves in the Pacific arena and was underpinned by an agreement between the US and the UK to provide Australia with access to nuclear-powered submarine technology, to eventually replace its aging Collins-class boats, although the first submarine is not expected to join the Australian fleet for years. Australia, which in February made the first of six $US500 million (about $800 million) payments to the US for the boats, is supposed to initially buy between three and five off-the-shelf Virginia-class boats. But military experts say that while the US has the largest nuclear-powered submarine fleet in the world, its shipyards are not building them fast enough to meet the US Navy's own needs. The AUKUS review will be headed by US defence undersecretary Elbridge Colby and is expected to take about 30 days. The United Kingdom had recently completed an AUKUS review and reaffirmed its support, appointing Sir Stephen Lovegrove as its AUKUS Adviser. Greens Defence and Foreign Affairs spokesperson David Shoebridge predicted that Mr Trump would "use this review to either terminate AUKUS and pocket the money already paid, or extract an even more eye-watering sum from Australia to stay in the sinking project without any hard promises for the US to deliver." "Donald Trump is erratic, reckless and careless of America's allies and alliances but he does have one fairly constant trait, he puts US interests first and allies last," Senator Shoebridge said. "The USA reviewing AUKUS shows what the Greens have been warning about for years - this deal makes Australia a junior partner in America's military strategy, not an equal ally. "The Australian public deserves an urgent inquiry into AUKUS before Labor wastes more billions on submarines we will never see. "It's pretty clear what any US review into AUKUS will say, the US does not have any spare submarines to give to Australia." Senator McKenzie said there was "now a growing list of serious issues and tasks for the prime minister with his meeting with President Trump next week." "Any undermining of this serious and substantial alliance between our two countries should be of grave concern to all of us because the reality is there is a very real vulnerability for us," she said. "Obviously, we wish him every success in strengthening that relationship and not weakening it." The spokesperson for Mr Marles said there was bipartisan support for AUKUS in the United States, noting the passage of provisions in the National Defence Authorization Act in 2023 to enable the transfer of US Virginia class submarines to Australia, and to enable Australians to work on maintenance activities of US Virginia class submarines. "Our engagement with the Trump Administration and across the full political spectrum in the United States has shown clear and consistent support for AUKUS," the spokesperson said. "We look forward to continuing our close cooperation with the Trump Administration on this historic project." Mr Albanese has previously discussed AUKUS in phone calls with Mr Trump, while Mr Marles has discussed the deal with US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, both in February and May. "The president is very aware, supportive of AUKUS," Mr Hegseth said after the February meeting with Mr Marles. "(He) recognises the importance of the defence industrial base." Mr Marles responded that the pair had discussed how the US and Australia could advance their longstanding diplomatic relationship in terms of national security, including AUKUS. Foreign Minister Penny Wong discussed AUKUS with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in January. Australia's military budget is expected to rise to 2.3 per cent of gross domestic product, or output, by 2034. The US administration has called for Australia to increase that spending to around 3.5 per cent. Opposition Defence Spokesperson Angus Taylor last week called on the Albanese government to commit to "at least" 3 per cent, but Mr Albanese on Wednesday said he would not set an "arbitrary" figure. Australia tore up its $90 billion diesel-powered submarine deal with France to sign on to AUKUS and is contracted to buy several off-the-shelf submarines costing about $US4 billion each, before making its own. The first Australian-made boats are not due to be operational until the 2040s. The United States has launched a snap review of the AUKUS submarine deal, throwing its $368 billion security pact with Australia into doubt just as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese prepares for a potential meeting with Donald Trump. After news broke overnight of the development, with the Pentagon reportedly saying the AUKUS deal must be weighed to establish whether it aligns with Mr Trump's "America First" approach, a spokesperson for Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said in a statement that it was "natural that the Administration would want to examine this major undertaking, including progress and delivery." "We are committed to AUKUS and we look forward to working closely with the US on the review," the spokesperson said. "The United States advised Australia and the UK of the review. All three countries are committed to ensuring AUKUS meets national and trilateral objectives. "Importantly, AUKUS will grow both US and Australian defence industry as well as generating thousands of new manufacturing jobs." The Coalition responded with concern, with opposition frontbencher Bridget McKenzie telling Nine's Today the AUKUS pact and Australia's strategic defence partnership with the US needed to be "the Prime Minister's primary concern." "[It is] a deeply concerning development," Senator McKenzie said. "We cannot defend ourselves without these relationships." The Prime Minister will attend the G7 Leaders' Summit alongside Mr Trump in Alberta, Canada, from June 15 to 17, creating an opportunity to finally meet face-to-face with the President, although no plans have been confirmed. The Trump administration has called for Australia to lift defence spending and complained about strict biosecurity rules for meat imports, as well as the low prices paid for US-made medicines on the PBS, while holding out on providing exemptions to sweeping tariffs imposed on key Australian exports. Mr Albanese told the National Press Club on Wednesday that his government would not trade away "the things that make us the best country on earth" and said while he did not want to pre-empt any conversation with the President, "we'll only sign up to things that are in Australia's national interest." "Australia should decide what we spend on Australia's defence. Simple as that," the Prime Minister said. "We will always provide for capability that's needed." AUKUS is a three-nation security alliance between Australia, the UK and the US agreed in 2021 under the prime ministership of ex-Liberal leader Scott Morrison. It was formed to counter China's strategic moves in the Pacific arena and was underpinned by an agreement between the US and the UK to provide Australia with access to nuclear-powered submarine technology, to eventually replace its aging Collins-class boats, although the first submarine is not expected to join the Australian fleet for years. Australia, which in February made the first of six $US500 million (about $800 million) payments to the US for the boats, is supposed to initially buy between three and five off-the-shelf Virginia-class boats. But military experts say that while the US has the largest nuclear-powered submarine fleet in the world, its shipyards are not building them fast enough to meet the US Navy's own needs. The AUKUS review will be headed by US defence undersecretary Elbridge Colby and is expected to take about 30 days. The United Kingdom had recently completed an AUKUS review and reaffirmed its support, appointing Sir Stephen Lovegrove as its AUKUS Adviser. Greens Defence and Foreign Affairs spokesperson David Shoebridge predicted that Mr Trump would "use this review to either terminate AUKUS and pocket the money already paid, or extract an even more eye-watering sum from Australia to stay in the sinking project without any hard promises for the US to deliver." "Donald Trump is erratic, reckless and careless of America's allies and alliances but he does have one fairly constant trait, he puts US interests first and allies last," Senator Shoebridge said. "The USA reviewing AUKUS shows what the Greens have been warning about for years - this deal makes Australia a junior partner in America's military strategy, not an equal ally. "The Australian public deserves an urgent inquiry into AUKUS before Labor wastes more billions on submarines we will never see. "It's pretty clear what any US review into AUKUS will say, the US does not have any spare submarines to give to Australia." Senator McKenzie said there was "now a growing list of serious issues and tasks for the prime minister with his meeting with President Trump next week." "Any undermining of this serious and substantial alliance between our two countries should be of grave concern to all of us because the reality is there is a very real vulnerability for us," she said. "Obviously, we wish him every success in strengthening that relationship and not weakening it." The spokesperson for Mr Marles said there was bipartisan support for AUKUS in the United States, noting the passage of provisions in the National Defence Authorization Act in 2023 to enable the transfer of US Virginia class submarines to Australia, and to enable Australians to work on maintenance activities of US Virginia class submarines. "Our engagement with the Trump Administration and across the full political spectrum in the United States has shown clear and consistent support for AUKUS," the spokesperson said. "We look forward to continuing our close cooperation with the Trump Administration on this historic project." Mr Albanese has previously discussed AUKUS in phone calls with Mr Trump, while Mr Marles has discussed the deal with US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, both in February and May. "The president is very aware, supportive of AUKUS," Mr Hegseth said after the February meeting with Mr Marles. "(He) recognises the importance of the defence industrial base." Mr Marles responded that the pair had discussed how the US and Australia could advance their longstanding diplomatic relationship in terms of national security, including AUKUS. Foreign Minister Penny Wong discussed AUKUS with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in January. Australia's military budget is expected to rise to 2.3 per cent of gross domestic product, or output, by 2034. The US administration has called for Australia to increase that spending to around 3.5 per cent. Opposition Defence Spokesperson Angus Taylor last week called on the Albanese government to commit to "at least" 3 per cent, but Mr Albanese on Wednesday said he would not set an "arbitrary" figure. Australia tore up its $90 billion diesel-powered submarine deal with France to sign on to AUKUS and is contracted to buy several off-the-shelf submarines costing about $US4 billion each, before making its own. The first Australian-made boats are not due to be operational until the 2040s. The United States has launched a snap review of the AUKUS submarine deal, throwing its $368 billion security pact with Australia into doubt just as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese prepares for a potential meeting with Donald Trump. After news broke overnight of the development, with the Pentagon reportedly saying the AUKUS deal must be weighed to establish whether it aligns with Mr Trump's "America First" approach, a spokesperson for Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said in a statement that it was "natural that the Administration would want to examine this major undertaking, including progress and delivery." "We are committed to AUKUS and we look forward to working closely with the US on the review," the spokesperson said. "The United States advised Australia and the UK of the review. All three countries are committed to ensuring AUKUS meets national and trilateral objectives. "Importantly, AUKUS will grow both US and Australian defence industry as well as generating thousands of new manufacturing jobs." The Coalition responded with concern, with opposition frontbencher Bridget McKenzie telling Nine's Today the AUKUS pact and Australia's strategic defence partnership with the US needed to be "the Prime Minister's primary concern." "[It is] a deeply concerning development," Senator McKenzie said. "We cannot defend ourselves without these relationships." The Prime Minister will attend the G7 Leaders' Summit alongside Mr Trump in Alberta, Canada, from June 15 to 17, creating an opportunity to finally meet face-to-face with the President, although no plans have been confirmed. The Trump administration has called for Australia to lift defence spending and complained about strict biosecurity rules for meat imports, as well as the low prices paid for US-made medicines on the PBS, while holding out on providing exemptions to sweeping tariffs imposed on key Australian exports. Mr Albanese told the National Press Club on Wednesday that his government would not trade away "the things that make us the best country on earth" and said while he did not want to pre-empt any conversation with the President, "we'll only sign up to things that are in Australia's national interest." "Australia should decide what we spend on Australia's defence. Simple as that," the Prime Minister said. "We will always provide for capability that's needed." AUKUS is a three-nation security alliance between Australia, the UK and the US agreed in 2021 under the prime ministership of ex-Liberal leader Scott Morrison. It was formed to counter China's strategic moves in the Pacific arena and was underpinned by an agreement between the US and the UK to provide Australia with access to nuclear-powered submarine technology, to eventually replace its aging Collins-class boats, although the first submarine is not expected to join the Australian fleet for years. Australia, which in February made the first of six $US500 million (about $800 million) payments to the US for the boats, is supposed to initially buy between three and five off-the-shelf Virginia-class boats. But military experts say that while the US has the largest nuclear-powered submarine fleet in the world, its shipyards are not building them fast enough to meet the US Navy's own needs. The AUKUS review will be headed by US defence undersecretary Elbridge Colby and is expected to take about 30 days. The United Kingdom had recently completed an AUKUS review and reaffirmed its support, appointing Sir Stephen Lovegrove as its AUKUS Adviser. Greens Defence and Foreign Affairs spokesperson David Shoebridge predicted that Mr Trump would "use this review to either terminate AUKUS and pocket the money already paid, or extract an even more eye-watering sum from Australia to stay in the sinking project without any hard promises for the US to deliver." "Donald Trump is erratic, reckless and careless of America's allies and alliances but he does have one fairly constant trait, he puts US interests first and allies last," Senator Shoebridge said. "The USA reviewing AUKUS shows what the Greens have been warning about for years - this deal makes Australia a junior partner in America's military strategy, not an equal ally. "The Australian public deserves an urgent inquiry into AUKUS before Labor wastes more billions on submarines we will never see. "It's pretty clear what any US review into AUKUS will say, the US does not have any spare submarines to give to Australia." Senator McKenzie said there was "now a growing list of serious issues and tasks for the prime minister with his meeting with President Trump next week." "Any undermining of this serious and substantial alliance between our two countries should be of grave concern to all of us because the reality is there is a very real vulnerability for us," she said. "Obviously, we wish him every success in strengthening that relationship and not weakening it." The spokesperson for Mr Marles said there was bipartisan support for AUKUS in the United States, noting the passage of provisions in the National Defence Authorization Act in 2023 to enable the transfer of US Virginia class submarines to Australia, and to enable Australians to work on maintenance activities of US Virginia class submarines. "Our engagement with the Trump Administration and across the full political spectrum in the United States has shown clear and consistent support for AUKUS," the spokesperson said. "We look forward to continuing our close cooperation with the Trump Administration on this historic project." Mr Albanese has previously discussed AUKUS in phone calls with Mr Trump, while Mr Marles has discussed the deal with US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, both in February and May. "The president is very aware, supportive of AUKUS," Mr Hegseth said after the February meeting with Mr Marles. "(He) recognises the importance of the defence industrial base." Mr Marles responded that the pair had discussed how the US and Australia could advance their longstanding diplomatic relationship in terms of national security, including AUKUS. Foreign Minister Penny Wong discussed AUKUS with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in January. Australia's military budget is expected to rise to 2.3 per cent of gross domestic product, or output, by 2034. The US administration has called for Australia to increase that spending to around 3.5 per cent. Opposition Defence Spokesperson Angus Taylor last week called on the Albanese government to commit to "at least" 3 per cent, but Mr Albanese on Wednesday said he would not set an "arbitrary" figure. Australia tore up its $90 billion diesel-powered submarine deal with France to sign on to AUKUS and is contracted to buy several off-the-shelf submarines costing about $US4 billion each, before making its own. The first Australian-made boats are not due to be operational until the 2040s. The United States has launched a snap review of the AUKUS submarine deal, throwing its $368 billion security pact with Australia into doubt just as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese prepares for a potential meeting with Donald Trump. After news broke overnight of the development, with the Pentagon reportedly saying the AUKUS deal must be weighed to establish whether it aligns with Mr Trump's "America First" approach, a spokesperson for Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said in a statement that it was "natural that the Administration would want to examine this major undertaking, including progress and delivery." "We are committed to AUKUS and we look forward to working closely with the US on the review," the spokesperson said. "The United States advised Australia and the UK of the review. All three countries are committed to ensuring AUKUS meets national and trilateral objectives. "Importantly, AUKUS will grow both US and Australian defence industry as well as generating thousands of new manufacturing jobs." The Coalition responded with concern, with opposition frontbencher Bridget McKenzie telling Nine's Today the AUKUS pact and Australia's strategic defence partnership with the US needed to be "the Prime Minister's primary concern." "[It is] a deeply concerning development," Senator McKenzie said. "We cannot defend ourselves without these relationships." The Prime Minister will attend the G7 Leaders' Summit alongside Mr Trump in Alberta, Canada, from June 15 to 17, creating an opportunity to finally meet face-to-face with the President, although no plans have been confirmed. The Trump administration has called for Australia to lift defence spending and complained about strict biosecurity rules for meat imports, as well as the low prices paid for US-made medicines on the PBS, while holding out on providing exemptions to sweeping tariffs imposed on key Australian exports. Mr Albanese told the National Press Club on Wednesday that his government would not trade away "the things that make us the best country on earth" and said while he did not want to pre-empt any conversation with the President, "we'll only sign up to things that are in Australia's national interest." "Australia should decide what we spend on Australia's defence. Simple as that," the Prime Minister said. "We will always provide for capability that's needed." AUKUS is a three-nation security alliance between Australia, the UK and the US agreed in 2021 under the prime ministership of ex-Liberal leader Scott Morrison. It was formed to counter China's strategic moves in the Pacific arena and was underpinned by an agreement between the US and the UK to provide Australia with access to nuclear-powered submarine technology, to eventually replace its aging Collins-class boats, although the first submarine is not expected to join the Australian fleet for years. Australia, which in February made the first of six $US500 million (about $800 million) payments to the US for the boats, is supposed to initially buy between three and five off-the-shelf Virginia-class boats. But military experts say that while the US has the largest nuclear-powered submarine fleet in the world, its shipyards are not building them fast enough to meet the US Navy's own needs. The AUKUS review will be headed by US defence undersecretary Elbridge Colby and is expected to take about 30 days. The United Kingdom had recently completed an AUKUS review and reaffirmed its support, appointing Sir Stephen Lovegrove as its AUKUS Adviser. Greens Defence and Foreign Affairs spokesperson David Shoebridge predicted that Mr Trump would "use this review to either terminate AUKUS and pocket the money already paid, or extract an even more eye-watering sum from Australia to stay in the sinking project without any hard promises for the US to deliver." "Donald Trump is erratic, reckless and careless of America's allies and alliances but he does have one fairly constant trait, he puts US interests first and allies last," Senator Shoebridge said. "The USA reviewing AUKUS shows what the Greens have been warning about for years - this deal makes Australia a junior partner in America's military strategy, not an equal ally. "The Australian public deserves an urgent inquiry into AUKUS before Labor wastes more billions on submarines we will never see. "It's pretty clear what any US review into AUKUS will say, the US does not have any spare submarines to give to Australia." Senator McKenzie said there was "now a growing list of serious issues and tasks for the prime minister with his meeting with President Trump next week." "Any undermining of this serious and substantial alliance between our two countries should be of grave concern to all of us because the reality is there is a very real vulnerability for us," she said. "Obviously, we wish him every success in strengthening that relationship and not weakening it." The spokesperson for Mr Marles said there was bipartisan support for AUKUS in the United States, noting the passage of provisions in the National Defence Authorization Act in 2023 to enable the transfer of US Virginia class submarines to Australia, and to enable Australians to work on maintenance activities of US Virginia class submarines. "Our engagement with the Trump Administration and across the full political spectrum in the United States has shown clear and consistent support for AUKUS," the spokesperson said. "We look forward to continuing our close cooperation with the Trump Administration on this historic project." Mr Albanese has previously discussed AUKUS in phone calls with Mr Trump, while Mr Marles has discussed the deal with US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth, both in February and May. "The president is very aware, supportive of AUKUS," Mr Hegseth said after the February meeting with Mr Marles. "(He) recognises the importance of the defence industrial base." Mr Marles responded that the pair had discussed how the US and Australia could advance their longstanding diplomatic relationship in terms of national security, including AUKUS. Foreign Minister Penny Wong discussed AUKUS with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in January. Australia's military budget is expected to rise to 2.3 per cent of gross domestic product, or output, by 2034. The US administration has called for Australia to increase that spending to around 3.5 per cent. Opposition Defence Spokesperson Angus Taylor last week called on the Albanese government to commit to "at least" 3 per cent, but Mr Albanese on Wednesday said he would not set an "arbitrary" figure. Australia tore up its $90 billion diesel-powered submarine deal with France to sign on to AUKUS and is contracted to buy several off-the-shelf submarines costing about $US4 billion each, before making its own. The first Australian-made boats are not due to be operational until the 2040s.

‘Debacle': Malcolm Turnbull trashes Aussie sub ‘fiasco' as Trump administration announces review into deal
‘Debacle': Malcolm Turnbull trashes Aussie sub ‘fiasco' as Trump administration announces review into deal

News.com.au

timean hour ago

  • News.com.au

‘Debacle': Malcolm Turnbull trashes Aussie sub ‘fiasco' as Trump administration announces review into deal

Malcolm Turnbull has warned the AUKUS nuclear power submarine deal risks becoming a billion-dollar 'fiasco' for Australia as the United States announces a bombshell review into its future. Australia made its first AUKUS down payment to the US in February, transferring nearly $800 million to help boost the country's submarine production. Overnight, The Trump Administration announced its biggest AUKUS sceptic Elbridge Colby will head a review into whether the US should pull out of the submarine deal with Australia. Now former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has told that the 'terrible deal' inked by Scott Morrison had always included a clause or caveat that no submarines will be handed over unless it had submarines to spare. 'So this is a risk that Australia has taken with its eyes wide open,'' Mr Turnbull said. 'It will be a fiasco, I think. So that's one alternative. Another alternative is to go back to France. They've been double crossed once before. 'It is a debacle. I've been saying this for years. It was a debacle when Morrison recklessly entered into it, and it was a debacle when Labor, to avoid a political wedge, went along. 'It's fundamentally a bad deal. I'm not saying naval nuclear propulsion is a bad idea. It's a good idea, but it's, you know, a very expensive one, and you sure you can pay for it. 'But the, but the problem with this deal is it's so asymmetrical, you know, we give the Americans $3 billion, they only have to give us submarines if they feel they could spare them. 'This whole exercise is designed to get us nuclear powered submarines, but the upshot could be that we end up with no submarines at all.' 'All or nothing' submarine deal Australia's former US ambassador Joe Hockey said Australia's defence spending is likely being used by Washington as an excuse to launch a review into the AUKUS pact. Speaking with ABC's Radio National Breakfast, Joe Hockey said the deal was 'all or nothing'. 'If we don't get the Virginia Class submarines in 2032, we have no options left. We have no submarines,' he said. 'So this is all or nothing for Australia. And for the sake of our national security, we need to make sure that we can at least provide some deterrent for potential hostile threats to our nations.' 'We have something to trade on AUKUS. Not only are we paying for our submarines, not only have we paid forward with a $500m check but an Australian company that most people have never heard of, called Austal, is actually helping build the AUKUS submarines … so not only are we paying for them, we're helping to build them. 'That's the sort of trade that Donald Trump would not be aware of'. Defence Minister Richard Marles reacts to AUKUS news Defence Minister Richard Marles has broken his silence on US moves to review the AUKUS security pact insisting the US and Australia remained committed to the deal. 'The United States advised Australia and the UK of the review,'' he said on Thursday morning. 'It is natural that the Administration would want to examine this major undertaking including progress and delivery, just as the UK Government recently concluded an AUKUS review and reaffirmed its support including through the appointment of Sir Stephen Lovegrove as its AUKUS Adviser. 'All three countries are committed to ensuring AUKUS meets national and trilateral objectives. 'Importantly, AUKUS will grow both the US and Australian defence industry as well as generating thousands of new manufacturing jobs. 'There is bipartisan support in the United States with the passage of important provisions in the National Defence Authorization Act in 2023 to enable the transfer of US Virginia class submarines to Australia, and to enable Australians to work on maintenance activities of US Virginia class submarines.' 'Our engagement with the Trump Administration and across the full political spectrum in the United States has shown clear and consistent support for AUKUS. 'We look forward to continuing our close cooperation with the Trump Administration on this historic project.' The Prime Minister discussed the AUKUS deal in a phone call with President Trump on February 11 and as recently as May 5. The Deputy Prime Minister also discussed AUKUS with Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth May 30, just 12 days ago. 'Catastrophic' move A former top advisor to US President Donald Trump has warned that cancelling the AUKUS pact would be 'catastrophic'. John Bolton, who served as President Trump's national security advisor, told Nine the review is likely aimed at scaling back AUKUS, or abandoning the pact altogether. 'It's more a question of how much of a downsize (of AUKUS) they are looking at, including potentially total cancellation — which would be catastrophic, a huge mistake for the US with enormous consequences for Australia and the UK.' Democratic Senator Jeanne Shaheen warned that Beijing would be cheering at the news. 'News that the Trump Administration is considering backing away from AUKUS will be met with cheers in Beijing, which is already celebrating America's global pullback and our strained ties with allies under President Trump,' Senator Shaheen said. 'Scrapping this partnership would further tarnish America's reputation and raise more questions among our closest defence partners and our reliability.' In a statement, the Pentagon confirmed the review was aimed at ensuring AUKUS served the best interests of the United States. 'The Department is reviewing AUKUS as part of ensuring that this initiative of the previous Administration is aligned with the President's America First agenda,' the statement said. 'As (Defence) Secretary (Pete) Hegseth has made clear, this means ensuring the highest readiness of our servicemembers, that allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence, and that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs,' the Pentagon said. 'This review will ensure the initiative meets these common sense, America First criteria.'

AUKUS defence pact 'being reviewed' by US government
AUKUS defence pact 'being reviewed' by US government

Perth Now

time4 hours ago

  • Perth Now

AUKUS defence pact 'being reviewed' by US government

The US government is reportedly reviewing the AUKUS trilateral defence agreement between Australia, the UK and the US. The decision to conduct a review has been reported by multiple news outlets including Reuters, which cited US defence officials without giving further details. The review will reportedly examine whether the pact is in line with US President Donald Trump's 'America First' policy, according to the ABC which also cited a Pentagon source. AUKUS is a three-nation security alliance between Australia, the UK and the US agreed in 2021 under the prime ministership of ex-Liberal leader Scott Morrison. It was formed to counter China's strategic moves in the Pacific arena and was underpinned by an agreement between the US and the UK to provide Australia with access to nuclear-powered submarine technology, to eventually replace its aging Collins-class boats. The deal is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, although the first submarine is not expected to join the Australian fleet for years. Australia, which in February made the first of six $US500 million (about $800 million) payments to the US for the boats, is expected to initially buy between three and five off-the-shelf Virginia-class boats. At the time, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said Mr Trump was supportive of the AUKUS deal. "The president is very aware, supportive of AUKUS," Mr Hegseth said after a meeting with Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles. "(He) recognises the importance of the defence industrial base." Mr Marles responded that the pair had discussed how the US and Australia could advance their longstanding diplomatic relationship in terms of national security, including AUKUS. Australia's military budget is expected to rise to 2.3 per cent of gross domestic product, or output, by 2034. The US regime has already called for Australia to increase that spending to around 3.5 per cent. Australia tore up its $90 billion diesel-powered submarine deal with France to sign on to AUKUS and is contracted to buy several off-the-shelf submarines costing about $US4 billion each, before making its own. The first Australian-made boats are not due to be operational until the 2040s.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store