‘Someone will get hurt': Zoe Daniel feared for her safety in toxic election campaign
But it doesn't mean she wasn't shocked, saddened and disappointed that the battle for the seat of Goldstein became so toxic that the former MP feared for her safety and was worried someone was going to attack her home.
Sitting down with The Age for lunch at a cafe in Brighton East in the midst of packing up her electoral office, Daniel said she was, at times, scared for her personal safety during the election.
'I had the Australian Federal Police with me during the last week of the campaign,' she says. 'I was worried someone might attack our house.'
The teal independent lost the seat in Melbourne's south-east to Liberal Tim Wilson by a margin of 175 votes after a recount. The close count further drew out a campaign that had already seen, Daniel says, bad behaviour online spill over into real life.
During the campaign she says people screamed at her on the street calling her a 'c---' and a 'bitch', she reported harassment and stalking to police after a Facebook post identified her car in a private car park behind her electoral office, and she believes she was followed home in one instance.
Daniel says advertising for her campaign did not target Wilson personally and was focused on policy.
'I won't go low, I don't go low,' Daniel says. 'The problem with not going low is that you just go under a barrage of attack.'
Daniel says if voters in the electorate were driving down the highway seeing 'very personal' billboards targeting her, 'some of that will land'.
She says fellow teal Monique Ryan also 'had it pretty hard during the campaign as well'.
'I thought one of us is going to get hurt eventually,' she says.
Wilson said that after having had to make reports to state and federal police during election campaigns, he shared Daniel's concerns about safety.
'There is no place for conduct that makes candidates feel unsafe, and should it occur the best thing to do is report it to the police,' he said.
The campaign in Goldstein featured billboards along the Nepean Highway, trucks driving around and digital advertising calling on residents not to vote for Daniel.
She was also subject to attack ads run by third party proxy groups, including Australians for Prosperity and Repeal the Teal. One, a giant billboard opposite the Kingston City Hall displayed a photo of Daniel's head in a balloon.
'All hot air: Vote for change,' it stated. 'Blocked: Local voices. Disinterested: In local crime. Zero Delivery: On cost of living.'
It was authorised by Australians for Prosperity, headed by former Liberal MP Jason Falinski, who describes himself as Wilson's 'good friend' and was behind Wilson's tilt at the Liberal leadership.
At pre-poll booths, flyers were handed out with a photo of Daniel and the headline: 'Repeal the Teal'. They stated: 'Teals… Not open. Not accountable. Not independent. Not worth it. Put Zoe Daniel last.'
Repeal the Teal is an initiative of the Jewish activist network J-United, with the material authorised by Harriet Warlow-Shill, a Melbourne lawyer who hosted an online event in March headlined, 'Does my teal support terror? One Woman's Journey to find out'.
Warlow-Shill said the Repeal the Teal campaign was not linked to the Liberal Party, and that she resigned as a Liberal Party member in February.
A spokesman for the Liberals said neither Wilson nor the party engaged Australians for Prosperity or Repeal the Teal.
Daniel says much of the abuse towards her was 'opportunistic'.
'If you are a woman, they threaten to rape you or go after your children,' she says. 'As that kind of stuff continued to escalate, then people were getting those disgusting letters in their inboxes saying it was like 1930s Germany. I was really frightened of that.'
The letters were sent anonymously to some residents with Daniel corflutes outside their homes, accusing them of being antisemitic and hating Jews.
They claimed many in the Jewish community were considering their future in Victoria and Australia, and said Daniel's supporters were 'an active participant in our decisions to uproot our families and leave'.
The letters, signed off 'Your Jewish neighbour', said the writers were not connected with any political party.
Goldstein has a large Jewish population, with the latest census data showing 7.1 per cent of residents identify Judaism as their religious affiliation.
The only debate between Daniel and Wilson during the campaign was before members of the local Jewish community at the Brighton Hebrew Congregation, where Wilson wore a yarmulke and declared he was a Zionist.
He criticised Daniel for accepting funding from Climate 200, which he described as 'racist and antisemitic'.
Daniel asked Wilson where his funding had come from and noted that he declared zero dollars in funding after the last election.
'I think it's incredibly unfortunate to see a political party weaponise people's grief and trauma for political gain,' Daniel says. 'I thought it was disgusting.'
Daniel points to her advocacy for the Jewish community during her time as an MP, including helping to organise repatriation flights, establish an antisemitism envoy, introduce stronger laws criminalising hate crimes and support anti-doxxing laws.
During the campaign, Liberal senator James Paterson accused Daniel of 'abandoning' the Jewish community and participating in the 'vilification' of Israel.
'It's just an outright lie, but it's also designed to inflame and, for me, that was at a point where I was starting to feel really concerned,' Daniel says. 'It's really irresponsible. You just shouldn't be saying that.'
Daniel says she is proud of what she and her team achieved in Goldstein and believes the future is bright for the independent and teal movement, even though only eight of the 35 candidates supported by Climate 200 won seats this election.
'The independents got really close in lots of seats,' she says. 'There are various ways to measure success. I mean the presence of those independents now has the Liberal Party on its knees because the Liberal Party had to throw resources at so many seats that it previously would not have had to.'
Loading
Daniel says the independents and teals have delivered a 'massive change' to Australian politics.
'I don't think you can only judge it based on who won and who lost because I think what you need to look at is the erosion of the major parties, and just how that's changing the political landscape.'
Daniel says there is a clear pathway for an independent in the future in Goldstein. 'Will it be me? I'm not sure,' she says. 'Do you want to have a look through my emails? Every single email is 'Please run in 2028', 'Please run in 2028', 'We'll be there', 'We'll be there'.'
Daniel thought she had won on election night and claimed victory at a celebratory party at the Elwood Bowls Club, but a surge in postal votes got Wilson across the line.
She says her supporters are disappointed but also proud and willing to keep going.
'I have the kind of personality where the harder it gets, the stronger I become. Not to say I'm not disappointed and generally pissed off.'
Daniel says anything can happen in the next three years, in terms of domestic politics, international politics and what unfolds for her workwise.
'I am not 'in the foetal position' as the former member described himself after his loss in 2022, and for him to be telling all and sundry that he hopes I 'find peace' is the height of arrogance,' she says. 'His feelings are his own to wrestle with, not mine. I will write my own story and Tim Wilson does not dictate when my chapters begin and end.'
Wilson said he thanked Daniel for her service to the community.
'The election is now over, the people of Goldstein have made their decision. As Australians, we must accept the results of elections and move on,' he said.
Daniel is sanguine about what is next for her.
'I'm not dead,' she says. 'I'm not a career politician, so I've got other options, unlike my predecessor. I've done lots of different things in my life, and I've been really lucky with the opportunities that I have had. So I need to find the right path.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
The week the West was lost: Anthony Albanese joins the countries 'duped' on Israel by terrorists in trucks
This past week has demonstrated how the Western world, which often speaks about defending freedom, liberty and democracy, can be so easily duped by terrorists in pick-up trucks. We saw a statement by 28 countries, including Australia, that was so detached from reality that it blamed Israel for the terrible consequences of the current war in Gaza, rather than Hamas who started the war in the first place, and is refusing all attempts to end it. And of course, it called for an immediate permanent ceasefire without calling on Hamas to disarm or give up power. This is akin to calling for the end of World War II while leaving Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan intact. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese went a step further saying in a statement that Israel was 'killing civilians, including children, seeking access to water and food' and that its actions 'cannot be defended or ignored'. Despite these harsh and demonstrably untrue words, he didn't go as far as French President Emanuel Macron who declared France's intentions to recognise a Palestinian state in September. Britain and Canada have now signalled similar intentions. In doing so these countries are effectively rewarding Hamas for its atrocities of October 7, 2023, while whitewashing almost 100 years of Arab and Palestinian terrorism and intransigence. They appear to have forgotten how Palestinian leaders have constantly rejected statehood from as long ago as the 1937 Peel Commission plan to the more recent 2008 Olmert plan and up until the 2020 Trump Plan, in which the Palestinians refused to even engage. These declarations were predictably praised and lauded by both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. One would think that when a death cult praises you, along with a corrupt entity that financially rewards terrorism, this would cause you to question whether your understandings and actions are morally sound. Well, think again! The West has lost its moral compass and now flounders in the dark, unable to have the courage and conviction of its own stated values, preferring instead to attack the victims of evil, rather than evil itself. No one denies there is suffering in Gaza and the images are horrible, but what so much of the West still refuses to accept is that this is a direct result of the deliberate intentions of a death cult terror group whose leaders openly state that their goal remains the destruction of the Jewish state and the genocide of the Jewish people. Moreover, these same leaders have also been open that they believe the suffering of Gaza civilians are 'necessary sacrifices" and serve their evil cause. Israel has already facilitated over 1.8 million tonnes of aid into Gaza – and has just announced several major measures to improve aid access, including daily local ceasefires, designated aid corridors, aid airdrops, and facilitating aid donations from Egypt and Jordan. But it was telling that it was only after Israel exposed that there were still over 950 truckloads of aid on the Gazan side of border awaiting collection last week that the United Nations agencies, which work closely with Hamas, finally began to move some of that aid. So why didn't these agencies do this before? Meanwhile, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) has delivered the equivalent of more than 91 million meals to needy civilians, bypassing Hamas' looting and interference – a fact that no country making these virtue-signalling declarations has even acknowledged. Even when the GHF offered to help deliver the stranded aid trucks, the UN still refused to take up that offer. The GHF may not be perfect, but it is delivering aid directly to people in need. The fact that the UN won't even engage with the GHF demonstrates that it has abandoned any pretence of supposedly prioritising helping ordinary Palestinian civilians over other goals. The obsession the world has in blaming Israel for the current crisis is not only misplaced – it's dangerous. Anti-Semitic incidents have been cropping up all around the world, including Australia. In Spain, 50 Jewish school kids were kicked off a flight for singing Hebrew songs. Jewish cruise passengers were also prevented from disembarking by anti-Israel protestors at a Greek port. Jews were also collectively slandered by a leading British broadcaster, James O'Brien, on the LBC channel in London. And here in Australia, 10- and 11-year-old students from the Jewish day school Mt Scopus College, were verbally assaulted during an excursion at the Melbourne Museum, by students from another school who harassed them with chants of 'free Palestine' and called them 'dirty Jews". Rather than confronting Hamas' terrorism, the West is choosing the easy path of blaming Israel instead, taken in by false narratives, distorted reporting and blatant falsehoods. When this war ends, Israel may be battered, but it will survive - it always does. But I fear for the West. In its rush to appease populist outrage, leaders have abandoned their integrity and betrayed the very values they claim to uphold. This moral collapse doesn't just endanger Israel - it threatens the very soul of the West. Justin Amler is a policy analyst at the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC)
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Jacinta Price says she could be forced out of Senate due to court fight
Firebrand Liberal senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has warned she could be bankrupted and removed from parliament if she loses a defamation case brought against her by the head of the Northern Territory's Central Land Council. 'I was really hoping it wouldn't come to this,' Price, who controversially defected from the Nationals to run for the Liberal deputy leadership in May, wrote in a message to a mailing list this week ahead of a trial in October. 'If it goes well for them – defamation cases can go either way, after all – they might even bankrupt me and cost me my seat in parliament. But I will not go down without a fight. I will never back down on my principles.' Under section 44 of the Australian Constitution, members who are undischarged bankrupts or insolvent are ineligible to sit in parliament. A stumble in Price's political career would deal a blow to the federal Coalition's right-wing star power. The Northern Territory senator's profile skyrocketed after she played a key role in defeating the 2023 Voice referendum and was elevated to opposition Indigenous affairs minister. Price, whose divisive views on Indigenous issues have troubled other Indigenous leaders, has used her time in parliament to fight for free speech and resist 'political correctness'. She has also called for a wide-ranging inquiry into land councils, which negotiate with governments and corporations on behalf of Aboriginal landholders. She is being sued in the Federal Court over a press release she sent last July about the Central Land Council in which she claimed that a vote of no confidence had been moved against its chief executive, Les Turner. 'Through last week's vote, a majority of Central Land Council members showed their support for the dismissal of the CEO due to unprofessional conduct,' the release said. It claimed the no confidence motion was unsuccessful but had been backed by the then-chair of the land council, Matthew Palmer.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
‘The first generation with declining standards of living': Australia's faltering economic standing
This story is part of the August 2 edition of Good Weekend. See all 14 stories. Not since the height of the Cold War have Australia's national security and economic standing in the world been more under the spotlight. As a topic, international relations is suddenly sexy – and drawing more attention than ever. Dr Stuart Rollo is a regular contributor to the opinion pages of The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, and is author of Terminus: Westward Expansion, China, and the End of American Empire. Rollo, 38, is a researcher at the Centre for International Security Studies at the University of Sydney. The prime minister of Singapore, Lawrence Wong, has said that the American-led era of free trade is rapidly drawing to a close and there's a growing likelihood of a global trade war. Is Australia more exposed than most other countries? A global trade war would be particularly severe for Australia. An over-concentration on mining and the FIRE sectors [finance, insurance and real estate] and decades of financial deregulation that have gutted our manufacturing base have left us with a shockingly simple economy. Harvard's Atlas of Economic Complexity ranks Australia as the 105th most complex economy out of 145, right between Botswana and the Ivory Coast. That is dead last of all OECD countries. Our regional neighbours who would be put under similar pressure by a trade war, like Japan, South Korea and Singapore, have considerably more complex and resilient economies than ours, and are in stronger positions to adapt to shifting global conditions. By some estimates, the average 70-year-old in the US is 72 per cent wealthier than 40 years ago, but the average person under 40 is 24 per cent less wealthy. This trend is happening across the Western world. Is this a further sign of the West's decline? Absolutely. This is the first generation in modern history with declining standards of living and life expectations relative to their parents. There are many causes and symptoms here, but one structural reason is the financialisation and assetisation of Western economies. Since the 1970s we have been shifting from industrial to financial capitalism, where a much higher portion of income is spent on rents and debt repayments rather than reinvested into productive enterprises or spent on consumption. This concentrates more of society's wealth in the hands of asset owners and speculators, who tend to be older people who were able to buy into asset classes like real estate at a time when they were much more affordable relative to wages. What happened to the time when Australians actually made things? Our manufacturing base has been shamefully left to wither away over many decades. How have we allowed this to happen, and is there anything we can do about it? Successive governments from the Hawke-Keating years implemented a slew of policies that opened the Australian economy to global market forces, removed protections for manufacturing and deregulated financial markets, which shifted investment from long-term industrial production and research and development to the high-return FIRE sector and privatised major state-owned enterprises like the Commonwealth Bank, Commonwealth Serums Laboratories, Qantas, Telstra and many others. This left us with reduced national capacity, produced privatised monopolies and got us to the point we are at today, where 15 of our 20 largest companies are majority owned by American investors. Americans have triple the ownership stake in these businesses than Australians do. These policies certainly shaped a period of astonishing economic growth for Australia, but they also caused broad industrial devastation, reduced economic complexity, and heightened socioeconomic inequality. There are several major policy initiatives and strategies underway now to attempt to address some of these issues, but it will be extremely difficult and costly. Back in November 2011, then US president Barack Obama addressed the Australian parliament and announced an American 'Pivot to Asia' because of 'the vast potential of the Asia-Pacific region'. That's become less likely under Trump, hasn't it? The Pivot to Asia was kicked-off by the Obama administration to move beyond the era of costly and destructive 'forever wars' in the Middle East and focus on establishing the United States at the centre of economic, diplomatic and military arrangements in the world's most populous and economically dynamic region. This was always about locking in American regional primacy in the face of a rising China, but Obama took a multilateral approach built around organisations, rules and incentives. From his first day in office in 2017, Trump began to dismantle regional economic and diplomatic integration but maintained the focus on military pressure, although now under an America First approach with more sticks and less carrots to keep its allies on board. To pull this off, the US needs to anchor its alliances with Japan and Australia particularly and hand over responsibility for maintaining a favourable balance of power in the Middle East and Europe to its allies there, something that is already proving to be extremely difficult. I don't think a pivot in anything like its original intended form will ever materialise, but a major American military build-up in the region is certainly on the cards. In your book Terminus, you provide a historical interpretation of America's involvement in the Pacific. Have the power dynamics been irreversibly changed by China's rise? Yes. In Terminus, I document the special vision that the political and commercial architects of the American empire held of China as the almost limitless foreign market upon which America's economic destiny hinged. While American consumers, businesses and investors certainly benefited greatly from China's rapid economic growth in the years since Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms, China has never been politically integrated or subordinated into the American world order. China is now too powerful for this to happen under any circumstances short of major domestic political upheaval, national fragmentation or war. China and the US seem to me to be destined for rivalry and a period of hegemonic contestation in the region and, perhaps, globally. Trump has chosen tariffs as his tool for re-shoring manufacturing in the US. Given that countries affected by his tariffs are already forming new trade alliances and supply chains away from the US, will this work? The goal of the tariff system is to coerce as much of the world as possible into subsidising the reshoring of American manufacturing. While there will likely be more major 'wins' in terms of promises of investment made on paper over coming years to appease the Trump administration, I don't expect that most nations will continue to undermine their own economic interests indefinitely. Several CEOs of major tech companies in the US have warned that AI will wipe out millions of white-collar and entry-level tech jobs by as early as 2030. Are we right to fear for the next generation of young people? I am a tech pessimist. Not only will AI make many relatively well-paying middle-class jobs redundant, but its rampant use during critical learning and developmental stages of life threatens to leave young people dependent on it as a tool for basic research, writing and analysis, and ill-equipped to face the challenges of a changing and unstable world. This is only amplified by the infiltration of social media and tech companies into every corner of social and cultural life, and with it the addiction-driven commodification of our time and attention, packaged into data insights and marketing opportunities for sale to third parties. A Pew research survey released last year of 24 countries showed nearly 31 per cent of respondents – including one in three Americans – would support authoritarianism, with those most in favour of autocrats already sitting on the ideological right. Is democracy under increasing pressure? These polling numbers demonstrate what social science studies have shown for a long time, that even in advanced democracies a minority often supports some form of authoritarianism, and that this support tends to increase when people feel heightened economic stress, security threats or rapid social and cultural upheaval. It seems to me that Australia, able thus far to draw down on its vast reservoir of wealth, robust institutions and high social trust, is weathering these conditions better than most Western democracies. We still have an opportunity to shore up a fairer, safer, more convivial and democratic society, but it will require courage and leadership. We are lucky enough to have been gifted a cautionary vision of where the status quo is leading. China has just opened a direct railway connection with Iran – the Iran-China freight corridor – which reduces transit time from approximately 30 days to 15 compared to sea routes. Does this mean the West's control of one of the biggest trade routes on Earth will weaken, undermining Western sanctions? For several centuries, the British and then the Americans exercised geopolitical dominance through maritime power and their ability to control key sea lines of communication. Modern methods of overland trade and economic infrastructure like vast networks of pipelines and high-speed rail are effective tools to circumvent this strategy. While they cannot totally replace maritime trade, this infrastructure certainly makes the societies that it connects more resilient to external forces. Indonesia has just joined the BRICS [which includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa] group of nations. BRICS now eclipses the G7 group in terms of GDP by purchasing power parity. Trump has suggested he wants to break up BRICS. Has he got any chance? BRICS, although today still a very loose association of states, would be a formidable opponent should it ever really solidify around shared political, economic and strategic goals. Trump has abandoned the notion of an American-led liberal rules-based order, which would have once held out the promise of prosperity and security through compliance to these states. He is now likely to seek to pit them against each other using combined methods of realpolitik, bullying and bluster. I think BRICS will continue to grow in size and importance, but American pressure, along with their own considerable internal conflicts of interest, may put a dampener on deeper integration and unified cohesive opposition to American hegemony. The greenback has been the lifeblood of global finance for over 80 years. Is a time approaching when the US dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency? Whether the greenback declines precipitously in coming years or continues on for decades without an alternative emerging largely depends on American actions. If the US continues to use access to the global financial system as a cudgel, it will prompt countries serious about protecting their long-term interests and sovereignty to plan for alternatives. If dollar hegemony does begin to fall apart rapidly, it would be catastrophic for the US. The massive budget deficits that finance the American military colossus would be totally unsustainable due to inflation and a collapse of confidence without the constant underwritten demand for US dollars from the global economy. Loading Notwithstanding his recent resupply of weapons to Ukraine and his apparent falling-out with Putin, Trump has basically switched sides on Russia. Should this be a major warning to Australia about the reliability of the US as a security partner? Trump seems eager to wind the war up on terms favourable to Russia and leave the Europeans and Ukrainian rump state to work out a balance of power in the region while he turns his attention to China. This is, of course, a major tragedy for the Ukrainian people. Australia should be building strong cooperation with the US where our interests clearly align, and making plans for scenarios and situations where they may diverge. Beijing cannot allow Russia to lose the war in Ukraine because it needs the US to be focused on Russia and Europe rather than the Pacific, China's top diplomat reportedly told his EU counterpart in July. Also last month, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte told The New York Times that if China attacks Taiwan, Beijing may ask Moscow to open a second front against NATO to deflect resources away from the Pacific. What does this say about China's long-term intentions? China's intentions towards Taiwan have been very clear for decades. It sees Taiwan as an inalienable part of Chinese territory, and seeks to reintegrate it into the Chinese state. Peacefully if possible, through force if necessary. This goes against the wishes of the vast majority of Taiwanese people. While the US supports on paper a One China policy under the Beijing government, Taiwan is a critical piece of America's regional security architecture. Should it be lost, the first island chain of bases containing China would be broken. Given this, it does not surprise me at all that Beijing is formulating a range of strategies for expanding a war over Taiwan. Needless to say, the Taiwanese themselves are in a perilous strategic position. Last month, Australia quietly paid the US another $800 million towards the AUKUS submarine deal, bringing the deposit so far to $1.6 billion, even though AUKUS is now under review by the US. Would the $368 billion being spent on nuclear submarines be put to better use on a range of anti-ship and anti-air defensive systems? Yes, and our national arsenal should also include a much more affordable submarine capability tailored towards our own national defence and aligned with national capabilities to operate and maintain it, much like the original deal with France that was abandoned in favour of AUKUS. China dominates the rare earth market, mineral supplies that are critical for the technologies of the 21st century such as digital communications, renewable energy, and electric vehicles. Australia has significant deposits of rare earth minerals: is it vital for us to begin processing these, rather than just ship them overseas? I don't know if it is 'vital' but it is certainly good policy. Developing a domestic critical minerals processing industry would be good for Australia both for the sensible hedging against Chinese dominance of the sector internationally, and for the technological, industrial, and commercial benefits that would come with it and flow on elsewhere. Loading In your book you describe how, in the 1990s and early 2000s, it was widely believed in the West that the Chinese economic boom would turbocharge democratic reform. Why were so many experts and commentators wrong? This was a major liberal fantasy that emerged after the fall of the Soviet Union. Many across the West believed in the simplistic formula that free markets would bring prosperity to China, which would in turn bring a growing middle class that would be inherently oppositional to authoritarian one-party rule. This conveniently allowed American corporations and bankers to make fortunes doing business in China while believing that they were contributing to democratisation and the downfall of the Communist Party. Ironically, quite the opposite has happened. Sociological research has shown that China's entrepreneurial middle class is overwhelmingly opposed to political liberalisation, fearing that it could unleash social forces from below that would threaten their recently won wealth and comfort. In June Prabowo Subianto, the new president of Indonesia, snubbed the G7 to meet with Vladimir Putin in St Petersburg, where he praised Russia and China, saying both never had double standards and always fought for global justice. Subianto's speech came after reports that Moscow was lobbying Jakarta to house long-range bombers in Indonesia's Papua province. Shouldn't these statements make us anxious about our largest nearest neighbour? I'm a foreign policy realist, so I think that serious countries should always be concerned by the growing power of their neighbours. That isn't a call to man the barricades against Indonesia but we should, of course, pay close attention to their military capabilities and agreements with other powerful states, much as they do to ours. Indonesia and Australia have been described as 'strange neighbours' – a conservative Islamic country very close to a liberal Western country with strong links to Europe. Will this forever be a source of difference between the countries? Culturally, socially, geographically, demographically, economically, and almost any other way you might want to slice it, Australia and Indonesia are profoundly different. Given this difference, and some considerable historical low points in the relationship, both states have done a remarkably good job of quietly and effectively managing our relations. We should build on things like our mutual security interests and forge closer cultural and economic ties, while maintaining the ability to disagree civilly but vigorously. Loading Historian Geoffrey Blainey has argued Australia is less prepared for war than it was just before World War I. Europe appears to be preparing – should we as well? We should be prepared to defend Australia and contribute to the maintenance of a sustainable system of balanced deterrence in our region. Professor Blainey is right to point to our domestic industrial vulnerability, and call for the acceleration of modern manufacturing development and preparedness programs, but the analogy between Australia's situation vis-à-vis China and the Europeans' with Russia is inaccurate. World War I was a tragic and unnecessary war. We should be doing everything we can to avoid similar mistakes closer to home today, not simply accepting an incalculable catastrophe as a fait accompli. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate Trump's economic performance so far? Trump is running a very high-risk, high-reward economic strategy, cannibalising as much of the global economic system as possible in an attempt to shore up declining American national strength. I believe that the short-term, mostly paper, successes that he has enjoyed so far are likely to fail spectacularly in the long run: 3/10.
