Treasurer Jim Chalmers hails ‘consensus' on new tax that will be phased in starting with EV vehicles
Wrapping up the talks in Canberra on Thursday night, the Treasurer confirmed that he will hold further talks with the states on September 5.
Based on a planned NSW road user scheme, a national rollout will depend on your mileage but might cost between $300 and $400 a year.
But there's no clear guidance yet on how much the new tax will cost, whether it will entirely replace petrol excise over time or when it will apply to EV cars and hybrids.
The Treasurer also talked up reforms to harness the power of artificial intelligence, slashing red tape to build more new houses, abolishing nuisance tariffs, establishing a single national market and tax reform.
'There was a lot of support in the room for road user charging,'' the Treasurer said on Thursday night.
'There wasn't a final model settled, but there was a lot of conceptual support for road user charging.'
'There was more than the usual amount of consensus in a conceptual way around road user charging. A lot of reform appetite in that area, which is welcome.
'The states are putting together an options paper and to give you a sense of the considerations that people in the room were grappling with.'
Tax reform
On tax, the Treasurer said that participants had 'a few hours of very welcome conversation and debate about the future of the tax system'
He said that there was support to address three objectives in the tax system.
'The first one is about a fair go for working people and including in intergenerational equity terms,'' he said.
'That's the first category. The second one was about an affordable, responsible way to incentivise business investment, recognising the capital deepening challenge that we have in the economy and what that means for productivity and for growth.
'And then thirdly, how we make the system simpler, more sustainable so that we can fund the services that people need, particularly in the context of the big shifts in our community, including ageing and other pressures as well.
How EV tax could be rolled out
Treasurer Chalmers said he would now hold further talks with state and territory treasurers on September 5.
News.com.au reported earlier this month that Australia's new tax on electric vehicle drivers is set to kick off with a trial period for trucks before it stings cars.
The Albanese Government is looking at a staged rollout to test the proposed new EV tax and trucks will be the first cab off the rank.
It is also interested in a new road user charge that sends price signals on the best time to be on the road, or the freeway.
Over time, it could replace petrol taxes and apply to all cars based on distance travelled and when cars and trucks are on the road to tackle congestion.
Free ride for EVs nearly over
The free ride enjoyed by drivers of electric vehicles is coming to a close with Treasurer Chalmers and state governments finalising plans for a new road-user charge.
All Australian motorists who buy petrol and diesel at the bowser pay 51.6 cents a litre in fuel excise. But drivers of EV vehicles pay nothing.
'The status quo won't be sustainable over the next decade or two,'' Treasurer Jim Chalmers told news.com.au.
'As more and more people get off petrol cars and into EVs we've got to make sure that the tax arrangements support investment in roads.
'But we're in no rush, changes of this nature will be made, because the status quo won't work in 10 or 20 years.'
The Treasurer made no secret of his support for a road user charge before the election, but favours a staged rollout of the changes.
Victorian Treasurer Tim Pallas said that electric vehicles are 'heavier and do more damage to the road network as a consequence than do internal combustion engine vehicles'.
'By giving drivers a clear signal about the cost of infrastructure, they would have an incentive to use it more efficiently,' the Productivity Commission report said.
How does fuel excise work?
The current rate of fuel excise is 51.6 cents in excise for every litre of fuel purchased.
For a typical household with a car running on petrol, the tax costs more than $1200 a year.
But the flat sales tax isn't paid by drivers of pure electric vehicles, who simply need to plug in their cars to recharge.
While registration and driver's licence fees go to state and territory governments, fuel excise is collected by the federal government.
Australian motorists paid an estimated $15.71 billion in net fuel excise in 2023-24, and are expected to pay $67.6 billion over the four years to 2026-27.
However, governments have long-warned that a road-user charge will be required to fill the gap in the budget left by declining revenue from the fuel excise, as the petrol and diesel engines in new cars consume less fuel and Australians adopt hybrid and electric cars.
What does the AAA say?
The Australian Automobile Association (AAA) is calling for a national approach to road-user charging but wants a guarantee the revenue will be earmarked for road upgrades.
The AAA backs a distance-based road-user charging as a fairer and more equitable way to fund land transport infrastructure.
The 2024 federal budget forecasted a reduction in fuel excise receipts by $470 million over four years from 2024-25.
Roadblocks to reform
Currently, New South Wales is the only state with firm plans to introduce a road-user charge from 2027 or when EVs reach 30 per cent of new car sales.
Plug-in hybrid EVs will be charged a fixed 80 per cent proportion of the full road-user charge to reflect their vehicle type.
Western Australia has also stated an intention to implement a road-user charge.
Meanwhile, Victoria's electric vehicle levy had to be scrapped following a ruling from the High Court.
Two Victorian electric car owners launched a legal challenge on the basis the tax was not legal as it was an excise that only a federal government could impose.
They won, with the High Court upholding the legal challenge.
There have been several false starts to enshrine a road-user charge including in South Australia, where the former Liberal Government planned to introduce a charge for plug-in electric and other zero emission vehicles, which included a fixed component and a variable charge based on distance travelled.
It was later pushed back to 2027 due to a backlash before the legislation was ultimately repealed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
Vacuum cleaner makes a break for freedom after developing ‘mind of its own'
It was a daring escape that ended in disaster – a robot vacuum cleaner that made a break for freedom only to be mowed down by a passing car. The Dreame Tech appliance, which costs anywhere between $600 and $3000, met an unfortunate end after exiting from a guesthouse in Montville, Queensland on Monday. Footage shows the vacuum hastily making its way down a driveway before speeding onto the road, only to be wiped out by a grey Subaru. Moments later, a resident can be seen walking over to the now-corpse of the robot vacuum before carrying it back to safety. Snake catcher and owner of the robot, Stuart McKenzie, wrote a heartfelt tribute to his vacuum on social media, following its untimely death. 'Being a 24/7 snake catcher means we don't have a lot of spare time for general chores, so my wife and I got a Robo vacuum,' he wrote. 'Today our hard working Robo vacuum decided to leave its 'Mapped Out Area' and go for a wander out the front door of the house and onto the road and got hit by a car. 'Obviously, it was an accident that the person ran it over as it would have been hard to see in the shadows. (The driver) felt horrible but was also confused about why a Robo vacuum would be on the road. 'Either way, we are now confused why our Robo decided he wanted to leave? We always leave the door open when we are up there, and he has never done this … 'Did we work him too hard? Was he not happy with his working conditions? Did he develop a mind of his own? 'Hopefully Dreame Tech can explain to me why my robot vacuum decided to up and leave for the first time ever in 12 months.' The footage, which has been viewed over 700,000 times, left viewers in stitches over the unfortunate incident. 'I shouldn't laugh but my son had his RoboVac go rogue on him as well. He got an alert to advise him the vac was in trouble. He got home to find it had pushed a screen door open and was hanging over a three metre drop,' one viewer wrote. 'Rest in pieces,' another commented. 'It was gathering intel for the great robot uprising. That lady did us a favour by running it over,' a third joked.
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
The question Bruce Lehrmann was asked after solicitor's bold claim
Bruce Lehrmann has been asked by journalists whether he was okay as he exited court on Thursday afternoon, after his solicitor told an appeal hearing into his defamation suit loss that reporters didn't have anything nice to say about him. Justice Michael Lee last year found that Lehrmann – on the civil standard of the balance of probabilities – had raped his colleague Brittany Higgins inside Parliament House in 2019. Lehrmann sued Lisa Wilkinson and Ten over Higgins' The Project interview but Justice Lee made damning findings against him and he was subsequently ordered to pay $2m in Ten's legal costs. The former Liberal staffer has now appealed Justice Lee's decision and was represented by solicitor Zali Burrows at an appeal hearing before the Full Court of the Federal Court over the last two days. Ten was represented by Dr Matt Collins SC while barrister Sue Chrysanthou SC appeared for Ms Wilkinson. 'Are you okay, Bruce?' Lehrmann emerged from the court complex on Thursday afternoon alongside his solicitor. He had been present in the court, sitting at the bar table next to Burrows, for the first day and a half of the appeal hearing. But was not inside courtroom 21 after the lunch break on Thursday afternoon. Lehrmann remained inside the court complex for the afternoon session and emerged alongside Burrows. Burrows told the court late on Thursday afternoon that the media pack was not 'going to have anything nice to say to him' or 'even ask are you okay?' As he left the court he was peppered with questions by the media including 'Do you think you made your case?' and 'How do you think the last two days went?' He was also asked: 'Are you okay, Bruce?' Lehrmann did not answer questions as he walked through the media pack and down Macquarie St. Nothing nice to say Burrows has ended the hearing by claiming that none of the journalists waiting outside the court for Mr Lehrmann were going to ask if he's okay. The hearing was supposed to go for three days but has wrapped up after two and the court has reserved its decision. Ms Burrows ended by arguing that Justice Lee's findings had taken a toll on him. 'When Mr Lehrmann leaves the court today, I'm pretty sure no one in the back of the court or any of the reporters downstairs are going to have anything nice to say to him,' Ms Burrows said. 'And not even ask are you okay? Justice Craig Colvin interjected: 'Is this a speech or this a submission?' 'If it wasn't so serious' Meanwhile, Brittany Higgins has made a cryptic Instagram post while the case was going on. Ms Higgins has not been present at the Federal Court for the appeal, which is unsurprising given she is not a party to the proceedings. 'I'm struggling to understand' Burrows has been pulled up by a judge after she suggested that Lehrmann was given a 'consolation prize'. She argued that Justice Lee 'made a new case up?' Justice Michael Wigney replied: 'What new case? You tell me what new case?' Burrows continued: 'It was asserted against Mr Lehrmann … that he violently raped, that it was done in a violent nature. Whereas His Honour found a totally different case as if it was, using the phrase, a soft rape.' Wigney: 'I don't think his honour A) said anything about a violent rape or a soft rape. He made findings about what happened and what Mr Lehrmann's state of mind was. I'm struggling to understand by what you mean that it was a new case.' Justice Wigney said Justice Lee made some findings in Lehrmann's favour after he could not be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of some of Ten's and Wilkinson's claims. Burrows said: 'He should have just found 'that did not occur to the way that she (Ms Higgins) said'. Instead it's like he's given a consolation prize.' Judge Craig Colvin: 'The subject matter does not merit that kind of …' Ms Burrows then said: 'Sorry, your honour.' Burrows cut off Burrows has been cut off by one of the justices overseeing the appeal after making a submission about loud music and screaming inside the ministerial suite. She is arguing that Lehrmann had 'no opportunity' to contradict the version of events found by Justice Lee. Burrows said: 'There were no submissions by Ms Wilkinson and Ten on that case. There were no submissions put to the judge on this. Generally, we say that Mr Lehrmann could have conducted the case differently if the version — that the judge had found — against Mr Lehrmann had been put to him at the beginning. Justice Michael Wigney: 'How?' Burrows replied: 'It could have been, depending on the particular type of allegations, what witnesses could have been called.' Wigney said: 'We're talking about while they were alone in the ministerial suite? Now let's put aside the calling of further witnesses, how could he have conducted his case differently? 'Your Honour, going back on that, let's just say (there was) a version of what happened that there was loud music playing and screaming or something else happening, then he could have called …,' Ms Burrows said. Wigney said: 'This appears entirely hypothetical because no one was suggesting that version of events and no one found that version of events.' Lehrmann absent Lehrmann has sat beside Burrows at the bar table for the first day and a half of the appealing hearing. However he was absent from the courtroom after lunch and is nowhere to be seen. Burrows grilled Burrows is being pressed by one of the three judges overseeing the appeal her claim that Lehrmann was not afforded procedural fairness. She has claimed that some of Justice Lee's findings were different from the case put forward by Ten and Wilkinson and it was not cross examined on them. But Justice Michael Wigney argued that the imputations were not important, but the 'defamatory sting' that he raped his colleague was the 'essential' part of the case. 'Yes, but it comes back down to surely it would have been in the realm of the way the case was pleaded as to what the allegations were,' Burrows argued. 'The way it was pleaded, those imputations pleaded different things such as a forceful rape.' 'Additional time' We've had a delay in the hearing on Thursday after Burrows asked the court for an adjournment. Ms Burrows is due to make oral submissions to the court on the topic of Ten and Wilkinson's qualified privilege defence, which failed at trial. Wilkinson is now attempting to have that finding overturned. Ms Burrows on Thursday afternoon asked the court for an adjournment so that she could begin tomorrow morning. 'Can we commence this tomorrow morning at 10.15, we just require some additional time,' Ms Burrows said. 'I'm also instructed that there's been some assertions in respect of the transcript which may not be correct, we need this time to check.' Justice Michael Wigney denied that request. Ms Burrows began her arguments but shortly after asked for an early lunch break. The court will return at 2.15pm. 'Run a red light' Lehrmann's lawyer has questioned whether Wilkinson would have run a red light if her lawyers told her it was legal. In his trial judgment, Justice Lee made adverse findings against Ms Wilkinson and Ten after she made a Logies speech referencing Higgins' allegations on the eve of Lehrmann's criminal trial. The speech resulted in Chief Justice Lucy McCallum delaying the trial by three months. Ms Chrysanthou has told the court that Ms Wilkinson made the speech after being given repeated legal advice by the network's lawyers, as she argued she acted reasonably. But Ms Burrows said that argument raised the question whether Wilkinson would break the law if her lawyer told her it was okay. '(Wilkinson argues) she is not a lawyer and relied upon the advice of lawyers in respect of the program,' Ms Burrows said in her written submissions. 'This raises the question was it reasonable to rely upon legal advice when in the face of it is plainly wrong, which raises the proposition, if a lawyer tells you that you can run a red light, would you do it? 'With respect to Ms Wilkinson, a sophisticated highly intelligent and experienced journalist, it appears disingenuous to claim that she would follow the advice of lawyers notwithstanding it was obviously bad advice.' 'Whodunnit' Bruce Lehrmann's lawyer has argued that he was not named in The Project broadcast because they were trying to create a 'whodunnit'. Ms Wilkinson has argued that she acted reasonably when preparing the broadcast and has challenged Justice Lee's finding that their qualified privilege defence had failed. Ms Chrysanthou has pointed out that Lehrmann was not named by The Project - but accepts he was identifiable to a small number of people. However, in her written submissions — which were published by the court on Thursday — Ms Burrows argues Ten and Wilkinson did not name him for 'disingenuous' purposes. 'Mr Lehrmann does not agree with Ms Wilkinson's assertion it was a factor to consider on assessing reasonableness, that in effect she should be commended for not naming Mr Lehrmann in the program is viewed is disingenuous, and viewed as a crafted strategy to maximise the ratings of a story, to achieve an exciting air of mystery akin to a 'whodunnit', a common phrase used to ask who committed a crime with the effect of provoking a greater public interest to 'create chatter' a 'buzz', placing the primary focus on the identity of the alleged perpetrator, arguably highlighting the sensationalism of a complex plot-driven story involving political scandal cover up of a rape in Parliament,' she wrote. 'Cover up' Ms Chrysanthou has told the court Justice Lee in his finding was 'distracted' by the 'so-called cover-up' allegation. In his judgment, Justice Lee wrote that 'the allegation of rape was the minor theme, and the allegation of cover-up was the major motif' of The Project broadcast. Ms Chrysanthou told the court on Wednesday: 'His Honour should have been more open to the reasonableness finding because that's an acceptance of the fact because the program really wasn't about Mr Lehrmann.' She also disputed Justice Lee's finding that the broadcast made allegations of 'corrupt conduct'. Ms Chrysanthou said the cover-up allegations would be relevant if Ms Wilkinson considered Higgins' rape allegations 'absurd and fanciful'. 'That just wasn't the way His Honour addressed it,' Ms Chrysanthou said. Justice Michael Wigney said: 'It's of some relevance is it not? 'Because His Honour's reasoning was, given the way this story has been initially presented by (Higgins' partner) Mr (David) Sharaz in particular - that is that it was a political bombshell so to speak - that should have caused her to be even more cautious about her underlying allegation. 'You can't completely disassociate the two.' Qualified privilege Justice Lee did make adverse findings against Wilkinson and Ten after their qualified privilege defence failed. Qualified privilege is a defence to defamation but relies on whether the publisher's conduct was 'reasonable'. Wilkinson is appealing against that and Ms Chrysanthou is arguing that her client acted reasonably when preparing the Project broadcast. 'There was a huge amount of communication between the producers that Ms Wilkinson was excluded from,' Ms Chrysanthou told the court on Thursday. Ten say Lehrmann was 'totally unreliable' Lehrmann has asked that Justice Lee's findings be overturned on appeal, arguing that they differed from the case pleaded by Ten and Wilkinson, as well as the oral evidence at trial. However in the written submissions which were, on Thursday, released by the court, Ten's legal team of Dr Collins and Tim Senior argue: 'None of these submissions is correct.' They say it was not an 'exceptional case' where Justice Lee could not have been able to make findings either way about whether Lehrmann and Higgins should be believed. 'Rather, the primary judge found Mr Lehrmann to be a totally unreliable witness, while being forcefully struck by the credibility of Ms Higgins' oral evidence of the sexual assault,' Ten says in their submissions. Lehrmann contends he was denied 'procedural fairness' because some of Justice Lee's findings were never put to him when he was on the witness stand. It's a proposition that Ten attacked, saying that from the outset of the case they had put forth an alternative case that Higgins was too drunk to give consent. 'He was extensively cross-examined as to his knowledge of Ms Higgins' state of intoxication,' they said. During the trial, Dr Collins asked: 'Now, Mr Lehrmann, did you at any time seek Ms Higgins' consent to have sexual intercourse with you?' Lehrmann replied: 'I didn't have sexual intercourse with her.' 'Denial of natural justice' Ms Burrows told the court on Wednesday that Lehrmann was the victim of procedural unfairness because the findings of Justice Lee were different to the case put forward at trial. 'It's a really, serious unfair denial of natural justice if Mr Lehrmann goes through a trial where it's said 'you are accused of A, B, D, E to Ms Higgins, this is the way it happened. And the judge finds 'well I don't find any of those A, B, C, D, E',' Ms Burrows said. However Justice Michael Wigney replied: 'That's not what happened. He did a find … it was A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I … A number of the matters alleged and particularised were found.' Ms Burrows further argued that it was pleaded by Ten and Wilkinson as a 'violent rape' but Justice Lee found it was a 'non-violent rape'. Justice Craig Colvin replied: 'I'm not sure he found a non-violent rape and I'm not sure that's a concept that I understand.' Ms Burrows told the court that Lehrmann was 'taken by surprise' that Justice Lee made findings that differed from Ms Higgins' account and 'he came up with a different version, a softer version.' 'Australia's most hated man' In his judgment, Justice Lee found that Lehrmann could have only been awarded $20,000 had he won the trial. However Ms Burrows said he should be awarded a substantial amount if he had the findings overturned on appeal. She has pointed to media coverage of the trial, 'social media insults he gets' and other 'harassment'. 'He's pretty much become the national joke,' Ms Burrows said. 'As I previously submitted to this court, he's probably Australia's most hated man.' Ten attack's Lehrmann's 'astonishing' claim Dr Collins on Wednesday attacked Lehrmann's argument that he might have given different evidence had he known the findings that Justice Lee was going to make. At trial, Lehrmann told the court that he had no sexual contact with Ms Higgins at Parliament House. Ms Burrows told the court on Wednesday that he was the victim of procedural fairness and was surprised by Justice Lee's findings. But Dr Collins attacked that argument as 'astonishing' given that he has persistently claimed that he did not have sex with Ms Higgins. 'Our learned friend said today at the bar table that well the unfairness resides in the fact they might have called further evidence, although she backed away from that when questioned about that evidence might have been,' Dr Collins said. 'There were only two people in the room. 'But she said Mr Lehrmann's evidence might have been different. 'That's, with respect, an astonishing submission. 'It could only be that had the pleading alleged a sexual assault in which consent was in question, he would have conceded having sexual intercourse with her and argued that he had her consent or thought he had her consent.'
News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
Netanyahu: Albanese's legacy ‘forever tarnished'
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has unleashed a scathing attack on Anthony Albanese, declaring the Prime Minister's legacy will forever be stained by weakness in the face of Hamas. In a fiery 16-minute interview with Sky News host Sharri Markson, Mr Netanyahu revealed the full extent of his anger at Labor's decision to recognise a Palestinian state, accusing Mr Albanese of empowering terrorists and betraying Jewish Australians. 'I'm sure he has a reputable record as a public servant, but I think his record is forever tarnished by the weakness that he showed in the face of these Hamas terrorist monsters,' Mr Netanyahu said. 'When the worst terrorist organisation on earth, these savages who murdered women, raped them, beheaded men, burnt babies alive in front of their parents, took hundreds of hostages, when these people congratulate the Prime Minister of Australia, you know something is wrong.' The Israeli leader said Canberra's decision, alongside Britain, France and Canada and other countries, to support Palestinian recognition at the UN had only emboldened extremism. 'So when Prime Minister Albanese … says 'Oh we'll give them a Palestinian state,' they're actually rewarding terror,' Mr Netanyahu said. 'Last time I looked, Australia was part of the West … it's our common Judaeo-Christian civilisation. They want to tear it down and destroy it. 'It's appeasement. Pure and simple. He referenced Hitler pressuring democracies to force Czechoslovakia to surrender the Sudetenland in exchange for peace, only to 'immediately' start World War II. 'The worst war in the history of humanity, that claimed millions and millions of people, innocent people dead. Well, we're not gonna repeat that,' he said. The diplomatic feud has spiralled in recent days, with Israel revoking visas of Australian diplomats to the Palestinian Authority after Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke cancelled the visa of Israeli MP Simcha Rothman. Mr Albanese has downplayed the attacks, telling reporters earlier this week that he treats leaders with 'respect' and does not take personal offence. 'I don't take these things personally … He has had similar things to say about other leaders,' Mr Albanese said. But Mr Burke was far more blunt in his response, saying, 'Strength is not measured by how many people you can blow up or how many children you can leave hungry.' Speaking from his office in Jerusalem as Israeli forces massed around Gaza City, Mr Netanyahu vowed to press ahead with a complete takeover of the enclave, even if Hamas accepted a last-minute ceasefire proposal. 'We're gonna do that anyway. That there was never a question that we're not going to leave Hamas there,' he said. 'It's like leaving the SS in Germany … you clear out most of Germany, but you leave out Berlin with the SS and the Nazi core there.' Mr Netanyahu said the war could end immediately if Hamas surrendered and released the remaining hostages, but insisted Israel would not tolerate any Hamas stronghold. He said Israel would also never allow the creation of another Palestinian state next to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, describing it as a direct threat to Israel's existence. 'We're not going to commit suicide and put another Palestinian state right next to our doorstep in Tel Aviv or in Jerusalem,' Mr Netanyahu said. 'It's a tiny country and they wanted us to put in the middle of this tiny country another Palestinian state, because we just had one, a de facto Palestinian state in Gaza. 'And what did the Palestinians do with it? They built it down into terror tunnels into for their terrorist monsters. 'They'll do it again, they will kidnap people, they'll rape the women, they'll take the hostages and they'll go to the extermination of Israel. That's their goal.' On accusations that Israel is starving civilians and committing genocide in Gaza, Mr Netanyahu said such claims were 'lies' comparable to medieval blood libels against Jews. 'Israel is starving Palestinian children? What lies?' Mr Netanyahu said. 'I mean, we brought in two million tons of food into Gaza since the beginning of the war. Hamas has been stealing this food and selling the remainder at exorbitant price.' He stressed that Israel had gone further than any army in history to warn civilians before military strikes. 'Israel is doing what no other army has done … the lengths that we go to protect the civilian population has been unheard of, yet Israel is being vilified, just as in the Middle Ages,' he said. Mr Netanyahu said Israel had gone to unprecedented lengths to avoid civilian casualties, sending 'millions and millions of text messages' urging Palestinians to leave areas where Hamas had embedded itself, but claimed many were prevented from escaping because Hamas 'shoots them if they try to get out of harm's way'. Warning to the west Mr Netanyahu drew parallels between today's Western leaders and the 'slumber of democracies' before World War II, warning that appeasement of militant Islam would endanger nations such as Australia. 'The Western leaders, including unfortunately in Australia, are … trying to feed the crocodile of militant Islam … The more you pour fuel into this anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and anti-Western fire, the greater the fire will grow, it will consume you in the end,' he said. He also condemned violent pro-Palestinian rallies in Sydney and Melbourne, urging governments to 'defy' extremist slogans rather than yield to them. 'These people … should be counteracted, they should be opposed, and they should be defied by the leaders,' he said. Trump's support Mr Netanyahu also revealed he had the backing of US president Donald Trump, who he said regarded Australia's position on Palestinian statehood as 'irrelevant'. 'I think President Trump put it best, he says Hamas has to disappear from Gaza,' Mr Netanyahu said, adding that Mr Trump fully supported Israel's goal of eliminating Hamas' last stronghold in Gaza City. Anti-Semitism in Australia Tensions have been further inflamed by a spate of antisemitic attacks across Australia, with synagogues targeted and one subjected to an arson attempt. Mr Netanyahu said he was 'very dismayed' by the rise in anti-Semitic incidents on Australian streets, including the recent burning of a Melbourne synagogue. 'I've seen this tsunami of anti-Semitism, this racism, and this targeting of the innocents … these are horrible things, and you know, if you don't stop them when they're small, they get bigger and bigger and bigger and ultimately they consume your society,' he said. Warning that Western democracies were 'feeding the crocodile' of militant Islam, he urged leaders to show courage rather than bow to pressure. 'It's the weakness of democratic leaders who, at a time of testing, should stand up and show leadership. And leadership means standing up with the truth, standing up for your conviction, standing up for the right side of history and not for the wrong side,' he said. Australia's leading Jewish organisation has also stepped into the dispute, issuing a rare public rebuke of both Mr Netanyahu and Mr Albanese. In letters delivered this week, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) warned that the leaders' escalating 'war of words' was placing the Jewish community in a vulnerable position. The ECAJ described Mr Burke's remarks as 'incendiary and irresponsible', and criticised Mr Albanese's comments as 'excessive and gratuitously insulting', while condemning Mr Netanyahu's attacks on the Prime Minister as 'inflammatory and provocative'. 'The Australian Jewish community will not be left to deal with the fallout of a spat between two leaders who are playing to their respective domestic audiences,' The ECAJ said. In a private letter to Mr Albanese, revealed by Markson on Thursday night, Mr Netanyahu issued a stark warning: 'History will not forgive hesitation. It will honour action.' Despite the diplomatic rift, Mr Netanyahu said Israel would prevail in both the battlefield and propaganda war. 'I want to assure Australians that we will win,' he said. 'They may get away with pushing these lies against us, but we do not succumb on the battlefield. We roll back those who would exterminate us … and we'll secure the peace.' 'It's to free Gaza, free them from Hamas tyranny, free Israel and others from Hamas terrorism, give Gaza and Israel a different future, and I think we're close to doing it.'
