Leaders eye election finish line in final-day sprint
The prime minister and opposition leader will embark on a last-minute blitz of marginal seats across Australia on Friday, the final full day of campaigning before polls open.
Having already visited Western Australia and South Australia, Mr Albanese will look to round off the remaining four states as part of his six-state whistle-stop tour in the election's last days.
Meanwhile, Mr Dutton is hoping to gain ground in battleground electorates during his sweep of 28 marginal seats for the frenetic final week.
The opposition leader will be out to defy history and the polls to become the 32nd prime minister, with no party having formed government after just one term in opposition since 1931.
The coalition has also been trailing in national opinion polls, while a seat-by-seat poll released on Thursday by YouGov revealed the opposition could sink to its lowest seat percentage since the 1940s.
While some campaign techniques have stayed the same, the 2025 election has been defined by a shift of party leaders appearing on podcasts, with new media and online influencers having a large role.
Hannah Ferguson, Cheek Media Co chief executive and co-host of the Big Small Talk podcast, said 2025 was the first election where political parties realised the influence of large online audiences, which had been untapped.
"This is the first time politicians have realised the power of us," she told AAP.
"An influencer has a level of engagement where they are talking politics and have a rapport with a dedicated audience who like and trust them."
Mr Albanese has made several podcast appearances throughout the year, including with Abbie Chatfield and the Betoota Advocate, while Mr Dutton has been on podcasts with businessman Mark Bouris and Olympian Sam Fricker.
Ms Ferguson said podcast appearances were a way to tap into previously unreachable audiences for political candidates.
"It's easy to say Generation Z listen blatantly to information, but it's more complex than that. The politicians who bother to show up want to prove they want different voters," she said.
"(Audiences) feel like they're opting into receiving communications."
The influence of online creators and podcasters has become even more powerful during the traditional media blackout period for election advertising on TV and radio, with online measures not affected.
A day out from polling day, Ms Ferguson said the prime minister had made better use of appealing to voters through podcasts and online platforms than his opponent.
"He has followed suit with the strengths of Greens and teals with engaging in different demographics and new media, and reaching voters he would have lost," she said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
What is productivity? It's one of the biggest topics at this week's round table
The Albanese government's "economic reform round table" will be held in Canberra this week, from Tuesday to Thursday. "Productivity" is on the agenda for the second day. What is productivity? Why is it important? Why are policymakers worried about it? It's a major topic that impacts everyone. When we hear the word "productivity," our eyes can glaze over, but we're talking about something profound. At its heart, productivity is about doing more with less effort to improve everybody's lives. For example, imagine someone hands you a shovel and asks you to dig a long trench from one end of a football field to the other, to lay some underground cables. How long would it take you to dig the trench? (And what would it do to your hands and back?) Now, instead of a shovel, let's say they give you an excavator. The difference in your "output" and the ease with which you could complete the task would be dramatic. It would see a huge improvement in your productivity, and it would be thanks to the investment in machinery and the improvement in the state of technology you had at your disposal (shovel vs excavator). Modern society has been built on constant productivity improvements. They make it much easier and faster to do things compared to the past. That has a deeply personal impact on everybody's lives — it's about our time, and improvements in our lifestyle and material prosperity. Over time, productivity growth can lead to lower prices for goods and services, higher profits for businesses, higher wages for workers, and stronger economic growth. A few years ago, the Productivity Commission explained things this way: "The number of hours a person needs to work in order to buy particular goods has fallen dramatically," it wrote. "In 1901, it would have required several months of work to afford a new bike, but today it requires less than a day of work for a basic model. "[And] these falling costs understate the increased quality of most goods available now compared to what was available at Federation — even the lowest-quality bicycles produced now are much safer and easier to use than their 1901 versions. "[And] more significant for many people are the goods that are cheaply available now that had not been invented at Federation. "Antibiotics, for example, have lowered the mortality from infectious disease from about 30 per 10,000 people in 1907 to 1 per 10,000 people in 2017, all at a fraction of the price." It published a table with more examples to illustrate its point: This is another area where our eyes can glaze over, so we don't want to get bogged down here. But there are two main ways to measure productivity. As the Reserve Bank explains: The RBA has produced this handy little graphic to help us visualise what they're talking about: Yes. There are quite a few challenges. But it depends on the nature of the "economic activity" you are trying to measure. For example, it's far easier to measure the productivity of a manufacturing facility than a childcare worker. How do you measure a childcare worker's "output" when their job is to care for babies and toddlers? What about teachers? Nurses? Police? In the terminology, "non-market" industries are notoriously difficult to measure when it comes to productivity. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) doesn't even provide estimates for multi-factor productivity (MFP) for our three non-market sector industries: public administration and safety, education and training, and healthcare and social assistance. The non-market sectors are characterised by providing goods and services that are either free of charge or heavily subsidised, and are not primarily driven by market forces. The ABS only provides MFP estimates for the 16 "market" industries in our economy that produce goods and services that are sold at market prices, because their output is much more easily measured. But even then, when you run your eye down the list of those 16 industries in the table below, you can see how it might be much easier to measure productivity in some market sectors than others. It's why the growth of the "care economy" in Australia is presenting unique problems for policymakers. As more and more workers enter the "non-market" industries of childcare, aged care, and healthcare, the area of the economy where "productivity" is much harder to measure is growing. But when the Productivity Commission recently tried to estimate non-market "labour productivity" for the three non-market sector industries, by using gross-value added and hours worked, its estimate showed a steep decline over recent years. It found that labour productivity for the "whole economy" has barely risen over the past decade, when averaging labour productivity in the market and non-market sectors combined. Why is productivity growth so slow in Australia at the moment? Why has business investment declined? Lots of people are trying to answer those questions, and there are probably many causes. Participants at the productivity round table will discuss them this week. But here's an interesting hypothesis. In early 2023, Ken Henry, a former treasury secretary (2001 to 2011), gave a speech to the Tax Institute titled "The need for ambitious tax reform." In that speech, Dr Henry said part of the answer to our productivity problems comes from the fact that Australian policymakers mishandled the mining boom of the early 2000s, and we're now living with the consequences. He said if we had properly taxed the super profits of the miners in the early 2000s, we could have used that revenue to re-invest in non-mining parts of Australia's economy to lift non-mining productivity, but we didn't. And now that the mining boom is over, we're left with a hollowed-out economy with woeful rates of productivity. Dr Henry said, historically, much of Australia's productivity growth had been driven by "capital-deepening" (that is, higher capital per worker), thanks to a strong rate of business investment. But two centuries of capital-deepening have stalled. He said Australia has unfortunately experienced "capital-shallowing" in the 21st century, with declining physical investment in the non-mining sectors and more and more non-mining capital heading overseas. He said the positive terms-of-trade shock, caused by soaring commodity prices linked to the China boom, had pushed Australia's dollar higher earlier this century. The strong appreciation that followed in our real exchange caused a "profound loss" of international competitiveness for Australia's trade-exposed industries. He said that pressure could have been released with a resources super profits tax or something similar, with the money reinvested in non-mining parts of the economy to boost productivity there, but it didn't happen. Instead, he said Australian governments just "let it rip." "The collapse in the non-mining investment rate is remarkable," he said in his speech two years ago. "The financial mirror image of declining physical investment and capital-shallowing is that, in recent years, we have recorded net capital exports on the balance of payments. "Many commentators appear to believe that we have become a net capital exporter merely because superannuation has boosted household saving. But I would argue that we are exporting capital because Australia has become an increasingly unattractive destination for doing business, in the eyes of foreign investors and Australian savers alike. "It is truly extraordinary that this country, which stood to gain the most, should be suffering capital-shallowing, and should be a net capital exporter, not withstanding a historic mining boom," he said. Also in 2023, the RBA's Jonathan Hambur and the e61 Institute's Dan Andrews released a paper suggesting another reason why productivity growth may have slowed in Australia. "We find evidence that increasing market power [of powerful companies] has played a role, muting incentives for better firms to invest and grow their capital stock," they wrote. "This finding complements earlier work that found declining competition had limited incumbent firms' incentives to reallocate labour to more productive firms and to innovate and adopt technologies. "It reinforces the need to understand why competitive pressures may be declining, and whether that reflects competition policy or other frictions that prevent new firms from growing and challenging incumbents." Last month, the Productivity Commission supported that thesis, warning that Australia's 21st-century economy is dominated by powerful firms that are extracting above-normal profits from the system, and their power is growing. It said those firms are extracting "economic rent" from our economy, which means they're charging higher prices and collecting higher profits from a lack of competition, and it's crippling investment (and undermining productivity growth) elsewhere in our economy. It said that if we wanted to reform our tax system, we should focus on that issue.
ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
US senator Chris Coons says Australia spending more on defence than given credit for
A senior Democrat senator who led a US congressional delegation to Australia says the Albanese government deserves more credit for its level of defence spending, but should still go further. Senator Chris Coons, who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, said Australia was spending more than it was given credit for once shipyards and other defence infrastructure were taken into account. The delegation of Republican and Democrat members of Congress met Australia's prime minister in Sydney on Friday afternoon after attending the Australian America Leadership Dialogue in Adelaide. "I do think an increased investment in defence would be justified", Senator Coons told the ABC after meeting Anthony Albanese. "Of course, that's a decision for the Australian government, the Australian people", he added. Defence spending currently sits at just over 2 per cent of GDP in Australia and is forecast to reach 2.3 per cent by 2033-'34. Senator Coons said if other defence infrastructure was to be included the figure would be higher. "The way that our NATO allies are counting their percentage of GDP, I'm told, would give Australia credit for north of 2.7 or 2.8 per cent," he said. NATO members have recently committed to lift their defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP. Senator Coons said this figure "might be significantly easier for Australia to reach, given that your accounting doesn't quite give you full credit". He has vowed to spend as required to meet Australia's defence needs. The congressional delegation also strongly backed the AUKUS deal amid an ongoing review of the agreement by the Pentagon. US Defence Under Secretary Elbridge Colby, who is conducting the review, has also called on US allies in the Asia Pacific region to lift defence spending. Senator Coons said Congress would resist any move by the Pentagon to cancel or significantly change the AUKUS agreement. "I think if there were to be some unexpected change in direction there'd be very strong pushback from Republicans and Democrats who I've spoken within the Senate leadership," he said. The prime minister is hoping to meet President Donald Trump during a visit to the United States next month for the UN General Assembly.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
The US has changed. Australia hasn't. It's time to talk about where the relationship goes from here
Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States. The alliance was on the line with Trump's tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on. But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia - affirming the "reciprocal tariffs" of 10 per cent imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50 per cent on both steel and aluminium - Trump has trashed the historic US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US's strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals. There is also far more to come on the future of the US-Australia alliance. Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese's visit to China, whether Australia should "fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region"; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged. The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to "build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform". Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US? A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country. There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US. First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America's posture towards Australia. Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia. Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the Second World War to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The "deals" Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump's imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is, at heart, the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination. What is under profound challenge today - 84 years after prime minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect - is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades. Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented "a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump's turbulent presidency". Fewer than 20 per cent of Australian voters believe Trump's election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be "a good thing" for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35 per cent of Australians believe the US is a top ally. Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over." When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump's insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was "deeply regrettable", with Japan's prime minister adding, "extremely disrespectful". Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad - established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China - be if three of its four members are victims of Trump's tariffs? Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine - issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely. The "soft power" wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN's inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result in the coming years. Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder. Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming - the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency. Since Trump's inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia's need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue for the country's defence capability. Will Trump, during the Pentagon's review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS? But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared? Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian-US alliance and what is in Australia's national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia. US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's where we are. Let's talk about it. Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States. The alliance was on the line with Trump's tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on. But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia - affirming the "reciprocal tariffs" of 10 per cent imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50 per cent on both steel and aluminium - Trump has trashed the historic US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US's strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals. There is also far more to come on the future of the US-Australia alliance. Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese's visit to China, whether Australia should "fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region"; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged. The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to "build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform". Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US? A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country. There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US. First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America's posture towards Australia. Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia. Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the Second World War to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The "deals" Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump's imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is, at heart, the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination. What is under profound challenge today - 84 years after prime minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect - is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades. Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented "a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump's turbulent presidency". Fewer than 20 per cent of Australian voters believe Trump's election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be "a good thing" for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35 per cent of Australians believe the US is a top ally. Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over." When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump's insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was "deeply regrettable", with Japan's prime minister adding, "extremely disrespectful". Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad - established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China - be if three of its four members are victims of Trump's tariffs? Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine - issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely. The "soft power" wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN's inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result in the coming years. Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder. Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming - the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency. Since Trump's inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia's need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue for the country's defence capability. Will Trump, during the Pentagon's review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS? But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared? Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian-US alliance and what is in Australia's national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia. US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's where we are. Let's talk about it. Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States. The alliance was on the line with Trump's tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on. But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia - affirming the "reciprocal tariffs" of 10 per cent imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50 per cent on both steel and aluminium - Trump has trashed the historic US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US's strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals. There is also far more to come on the future of the US-Australia alliance. Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese's visit to China, whether Australia should "fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region"; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged. The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to "build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform". Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US? A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country. There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US. First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America's posture towards Australia. Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia. Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the Second World War to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The "deals" Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump's imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is, at heart, the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination. What is under profound challenge today - 84 years after prime minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect - is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades. Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented "a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump's turbulent presidency". Fewer than 20 per cent of Australian voters believe Trump's election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be "a good thing" for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35 per cent of Australians believe the US is a top ally. Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over." When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump's insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was "deeply regrettable", with Japan's prime minister adding, "extremely disrespectful". Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad - established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China - be if three of its four members are victims of Trump's tariffs? Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine - issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely. The "soft power" wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN's inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result in the coming years. Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder. Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming - the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency. Since Trump's inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia's need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue for the country's defence capability. Will Trump, during the Pentagon's review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS? But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared? Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian-US alliance and what is in Australia's national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia. US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's where we are. Let's talk about it. Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia's foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States. The alliance was on the line with Trump's tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on. But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia - affirming the "reciprocal tariffs" of 10 per cent imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50 per cent on both steel and aluminium - Trump has trashed the historic US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US's strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals. There is also far more to come on the future of the US-Australia alliance. Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese's visit to China, whether Australia should "fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region"; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged. The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to "build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform". Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US? A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country. There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US. First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America's posture towards Australia. Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the Second World War are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape - from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia. Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the Second World War to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The "deals" Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump's imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is, at heart, the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination. What is under profound challenge today - 84 years after prime minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect - is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades. Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented "a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump's turbulent presidency". Fewer than 20 per cent of Australian voters believe Trump's election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be "a good thing" for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35 per cent of Australians believe the US is a top ally. Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, "Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over." When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump's insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was "deeply regrettable", with Japan's prime minister adding, "extremely disrespectful". Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad - established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China - be if three of its four members are victims of Trump's tariffs? Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine - issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely. The "soft power" wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN's inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organisation, the World Trade Organisation, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result in the coming years. Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder. Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming - the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency. Since Trump's inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia's need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue for the country's defence capability. Will Trump, during the Pentagon's review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS? But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared? Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian-US alliance and what is in Australia's national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia. US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." That's where we are. Let's talk about it.
