'Extensive preliminary investigation': Corruption watchdog makes bombshell decision about Brittany Higgins' $2.4 million payout
The National Anti-Corruption Commission has shared a major update about Brittany Higgins' compensation payout by the Albanese government.
Ms Higgins was paid about $2.4 million by the Commonwealth in compensation in 2022 after she was raped by Bruce Lehrmann in Parliament House in 2019.
The multi-million dollar payout by the government was in recognition of lost earnings after she was diagnosed as 'medically unfit' to work due to the impacts of the rape.
It is understood then-Liberal Senator Linda Reynolds, who employed Ms Higgins at the time of the assault, referred the payment to the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
On Thursday, the NACC took the unusual step of addressing the 'scrutiny and speculation' surrounding the payout.
'The National Anti-Corruption Commission (the Commission) conducted an extensive preliminary investigation into the settlement and found no corruption issue,' the NACC said in a statement.
'During the preliminary investigation, the Commission issued multiple notices to produce to the relevant departments and legal representatives, and analysed thousands of documents tracking the claims and negotiation of the settlement.'
Ultimately, the NACC said there was no evidence of corruption or any intervention by either the Coalition or Albanese governments in the mediation process.
'There is no evidence that the settlement process, including the legal advice provided, who was present at the mediation, or the amount, was subject to any improper influence by any Commonwealth public official,' the NACC said.
'To the contrary, the evidence obtained reflected a process that was based on independent external legal advice, without any inappropriate intervention by any minister of either government.
'There is therefore no corruption issue.'
After receiving the payout, the ex-political staffer subsequently married longtime love David Sharaz in a lavish wedding on the Gold Coast last year and welcomed a son earlier this year.
The couple also purchased a chateau in France but have listed the property for sale at a steep discount after relocating to Melbourne.
It is understood that a significant portion of the multi-million dollar payout remains held in a trust managed by an entity called 'Power Blazers Pty Ltd'.
Details about the trust were revealed in court during Ms Higgins' ongoing defamation lawsuit brought by her former employer Linda Reynolds.
Ms Reynolds has alleged that Higgins is using the trust to shield her fortune from potential creditors that might pursue her.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Roundtables aren't really necessary. But productivity serves a higher purpose for Chalmers
Former prime minister Paul Keating famously used to say the resident galah in any pet shop was talking about microeconomic policy. These days, if you encounter a pet shop with a galah, she'll be chattering about productivity. Productivity is currently the hot topic for a conversation on economic reform. Australia, like many other countries, has a serious problem with it. Our productivity hasn't significantly increased for more than a decade (apart from a temporary spike during the pandemic). Now Treasurer Jim Chalmers has named productivity as his priority for Labor's second term; assistant minister Andrew Leigh, part of the government's economic team, has had it inserted into his title; the Productivity Commission has put out 15 potential reform areas for discussion, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a roundtable to canvass the way ahead. The roundtable appears to be a prime ministerial initiative. Announcing it at the National Press Club on Tuesday, Albanese made a point of saying he had asked Chalmers to convene it. Perhaps it's a case of the prime minister emulating his forerunner Bob Hawke, with his penchant for summits, while Chalmers seeks to be a contemporary Keating, as he searches for reforms to promote. It would be a major achievement if people were able to remember the second-term Albanese government for paving the way for a significant lift in Australia's productivity. It would probably also be an economic and political miracle. Let's never knock a summit, but let's not be taken in by the suggestion that the planned August meeting, involving employers, unions and the government, will mark some breakthrough moment. Business representatives are approaching it with a degree of cynicism; they saw the 2022 jobs and skills summit as preparing the ground for the new government to meet union demands. This summit is expected to have fewer participants than the 2022 meeting, and may be briefer. Albanese described it as "a more streamlined dialogue than the jobs and skills summit, dealing with a more targeted set of issues". Chalmers will announce more details next week. We can expect the government will package a collection of initiatives at least for further work, and perhaps a few for early action. While many stakeholders give lip service to improving productivity, there are huge obstacles to actually doing so. There's perennial talk about tax reform - from business and economists, rather than the government. But serious change produces winners and losers, and having "losers" has become a political no-no, especially when there is not enough money to compensate them. The housing crisis could be eased, with more homes built faster, if there were less onerous regulations, notably at state and local level. Governments are working around the edges of this, but attempting to seriously slash regulation immediately runs into opposition from those who, variously, argue that it will harm cityscapes, the environment, safety or the like. Red tape hampers big projects, but interest groups concerned about fauna, flora or the climate defend extensive hurdles and appeals processes as important for other priorities. We'd be more productive if people with skills (whether immigrants or those moving between states) faced fewer complexities in getting their credentials recognised. But critics would point to the risk of underqualified people getting through. Regulations are both barriers and protections. Whether you see particular regulations as negative or positive will depend where you are coming from. Less regulation can enhance productivity - but in certain cases the trade-off can be less protection and/or more risk. We have, for good or ill, become a more risk-averse community. Employers say various industrial relations laws and regulations restrict changes that could boost productivity. A Labor government interlocked with the union movement is going to listen to its industrial base on that one. Asked on Tuesday whether his message to business groups going to the summit was, "don't waste your breath if you're going to raise IR" Albanese said, "People are entitled to raise whatever they want to raise. But I'm a Labor prime minister." Artificial intelligence presents great opportunities to advance productivity. But it will cost some jobs and produce dislocation. Industry Minister Tim Ayres said recently, "I will be looking in particular at how we can strengthen worker voice and agency as technology is diffused into every workplace in the Australian economy. I look forward to working with our trade union movement on all of this." Employers' ears pricked at the union reference. While the government is signalling it wants to do something meaningful on productivity, the prime minister is also highly cautious when it comes to getting ahead of what he considers to be the government's electoral mandate. Nor is he one to gamble political capital. He is not like, for example, John Howard, who before the 1996 election said he would "never ever" have a GST, then brought forward an ambitious GST package that he took to the 1998 election. That package had plenty of compensation for losers but Howard, who had a big parliamentary majority, was nearly booted out of office. Reform is more difficult than it was in the Hawke-Keating era - though it wasn't as easy then as is often portrayed now. The voters are less trusting of government, and less willing to accept the downsides of change. The voices of those wanting to say "no" to various proposed changes are greatly amplified, in a highly professionalised political milieu and ubiquitous media opportunities. In the era of the "permanent campaign", opinion polling has become so constant that politicians are always measuring their support in the moment, making a government hyper-nervous. Progress on productivity is also harder these days because the easier things have been done, and because changes in our economy - especially the growth of the care economy - mean in some sectors efficiencies are not so readily available, or measurable. READ MORE: We don't actually need more inquiries, or a roundtable, to come up with ideas for what could or should be done on productivity. There have been multiple reports and thousands of recommendations. What is required is for the government to devise a bold program, have the will and the skill to implement it, and the ability to sell it to the public. But that runs into the problem of not having sought permission from the voters - which forces the government back to incrementalism. Whatever the problems, it is not too fanciful to see Chalmers hanging his hat on the productivity peg in his longer-term bid to be the next Labor prime minister. We'll see how he goes. Former prime minister Paul Keating famously used to say the resident galah in any pet shop was talking about microeconomic policy. These days, if you encounter a pet shop with a galah, she'll be chattering about productivity. Productivity is currently the hot topic for a conversation on economic reform. Australia, like many other countries, has a serious problem with it. Our productivity hasn't significantly increased for more than a decade (apart from a temporary spike during the pandemic). Now Treasurer Jim Chalmers has named productivity as his priority for Labor's second term; assistant minister Andrew Leigh, part of the government's economic team, has had it inserted into his title; the Productivity Commission has put out 15 potential reform areas for discussion, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a roundtable to canvass the way ahead. The roundtable appears to be a prime ministerial initiative. Announcing it at the National Press Club on Tuesday, Albanese made a point of saying he had asked Chalmers to convene it. Perhaps it's a case of the prime minister emulating his forerunner Bob Hawke, with his penchant for summits, while Chalmers seeks to be a contemporary Keating, as he searches for reforms to promote. It would be a major achievement if people were able to remember the second-term Albanese government for paving the way for a significant lift in Australia's productivity. It would probably also be an economic and political miracle. Let's never knock a summit, but let's not be taken in by the suggestion that the planned August meeting, involving employers, unions and the government, will mark some breakthrough moment. Business representatives are approaching it with a degree of cynicism; they saw the 2022 jobs and skills summit as preparing the ground for the new government to meet union demands. This summit is expected to have fewer participants than the 2022 meeting, and may be briefer. Albanese described it as "a more streamlined dialogue than the jobs and skills summit, dealing with a more targeted set of issues". Chalmers will announce more details next week. We can expect the government will package a collection of initiatives at least for further work, and perhaps a few for early action. While many stakeholders give lip service to improving productivity, there are huge obstacles to actually doing so. There's perennial talk about tax reform - from business and economists, rather than the government. But serious change produces winners and losers, and having "losers" has become a political no-no, especially when there is not enough money to compensate them. The housing crisis could be eased, with more homes built faster, if there were less onerous regulations, notably at state and local level. Governments are working around the edges of this, but attempting to seriously slash regulation immediately runs into opposition from those who, variously, argue that it will harm cityscapes, the environment, safety or the like. Red tape hampers big projects, but interest groups concerned about fauna, flora or the climate defend extensive hurdles and appeals processes as important for other priorities. We'd be more productive if people with skills (whether immigrants or those moving between states) faced fewer complexities in getting their credentials recognised. But critics would point to the risk of underqualified people getting through. Regulations are both barriers and protections. Whether you see particular regulations as negative or positive will depend where you are coming from. Less regulation can enhance productivity - but in certain cases the trade-off can be less protection and/or more risk. We have, for good or ill, become a more risk-averse community. Employers say various industrial relations laws and regulations restrict changes that could boost productivity. A Labor government interlocked with the union movement is going to listen to its industrial base on that one. Asked on Tuesday whether his message to business groups going to the summit was, "don't waste your breath if you're going to raise IR" Albanese said, "People are entitled to raise whatever they want to raise. But I'm a Labor prime minister." Artificial intelligence presents great opportunities to advance productivity. But it will cost some jobs and produce dislocation. Industry Minister Tim Ayres said recently, "I will be looking in particular at how we can strengthen worker voice and agency as technology is diffused into every workplace in the Australian economy. I look forward to working with our trade union movement on all of this." Employers' ears pricked at the union reference. While the government is signalling it wants to do something meaningful on productivity, the prime minister is also highly cautious when it comes to getting ahead of what he considers to be the government's electoral mandate. Nor is he one to gamble political capital. He is not like, for example, John Howard, who before the 1996 election said he would "never ever" have a GST, then brought forward an ambitious GST package that he took to the 1998 election. That package had plenty of compensation for losers but Howard, who had a big parliamentary majority, was nearly booted out of office. Reform is more difficult than it was in the Hawke-Keating era - though it wasn't as easy then as is often portrayed now. The voters are less trusting of government, and less willing to accept the downsides of change. The voices of those wanting to say "no" to various proposed changes are greatly amplified, in a highly professionalised political milieu and ubiquitous media opportunities. In the era of the "permanent campaign", opinion polling has become so constant that politicians are always measuring their support in the moment, making a government hyper-nervous. Progress on productivity is also harder these days because the easier things have been done, and because changes in our economy - especially the growth of the care economy - mean in some sectors efficiencies are not so readily available, or measurable. READ MORE: We don't actually need more inquiries, or a roundtable, to come up with ideas for what could or should be done on productivity. There have been multiple reports and thousands of recommendations. What is required is for the government to devise a bold program, have the will and the skill to implement it, and the ability to sell it to the public. But that runs into the problem of not having sought permission from the voters - which forces the government back to incrementalism. Whatever the problems, it is not too fanciful to see Chalmers hanging his hat on the productivity peg in his longer-term bid to be the next Labor prime minister. We'll see how he goes. Former prime minister Paul Keating famously used to say the resident galah in any pet shop was talking about microeconomic policy. These days, if you encounter a pet shop with a galah, she'll be chattering about productivity. Productivity is currently the hot topic for a conversation on economic reform. Australia, like many other countries, has a serious problem with it. Our productivity hasn't significantly increased for more than a decade (apart from a temporary spike during the pandemic). Now Treasurer Jim Chalmers has named productivity as his priority for Labor's second term; assistant minister Andrew Leigh, part of the government's economic team, has had it inserted into his title; the Productivity Commission has put out 15 potential reform areas for discussion, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a roundtable to canvass the way ahead. The roundtable appears to be a prime ministerial initiative. Announcing it at the National Press Club on Tuesday, Albanese made a point of saying he had asked Chalmers to convene it. Perhaps it's a case of the prime minister emulating his forerunner Bob Hawke, with his penchant for summits, while Chalmers seeks to be a contemporary Keating, as he searches for reforms to promote. It would be a major achievement if people were able to remember the second-term Albanese government for paving the way for a significant lift in Australia's productivity. It would probably also be an economic and political miracle. Let's never knock a summit, but let's not be taken in by the suggestion that the planned August meeting, involving employers, unions and the government, will mark some breakthrough moment. Business representatives are approaching it with a degree of cynicism; they saw the 2022 jobs and skills summit as preparing the ground for the new government to meet union demands. This summit is expected to have fewer participants than the 2022 meeting, and may be briefer. Albanese described it as "a more streamlined dialogue than the jobs and skills summit, dealing with a more targeted set of issues". Chalmers will announce more details next week. We can expect the government will package a collection of initiatives at least for further work, and perhaps a few for early action. While many stakeholders give lip service to improving productivity, there are huge obstacles to actually doing so. There's perennial talk about tax reform - from business and economists, rather than the government. But serious change produces winners and losers, and having "losers" has become a political no-no, especially when there is not enough money to compensate them. The housing crisis could be eased, with more homes built faster, if there were less onerous regulations, notably at state and local level. Governments are working around the edges of this, but attempting to seriously slash regulation immediately runs into opposition from those who, variously, argue that it will harm cityscapes, the environment, safety or the like. Red tape hampers big projects, but interest groups concerned about fauna, flora or the climate defend extensive hurdles and appeals processes as important for other priorities. We'd be more productive if people with skills (whether immigrants or those moving between states) faced fewer complexities in getting their credentials recognised. But critics would point to the risk of underqualified people getting through. Regulations are both barriers and protections. Whether you see particular regulations as negative or positive will depend where you are coming from. Less regulation can enhance productivity - but in certain cases the trade-off can be less protection and/or more risk. We have, for good or ill, become a more risk-averse community. Employers say various industrial relations laws and regulations restrict changes that could boost productivity. A Labor government interlocked with the union movement is going to listen to its industrial base on that one. Asked on Tuesday whether his message to business groups going to the summit was, "don't waste your breath if you're going to raise IR" Albanese said, "People are entitled to raise whatever they want to raise. But I'm a Labor prime minister." Artificial intelligence presents great opportunities to advance productivity. But it will cost some jobs and produce dislocation. Industry Minister Tim Ayres said recently, "I will be looking in particular at how we can strengthen worker voice and agency as technology is diffused into every workplace in the Australian economy. I look forward to working with our trade union movement on all of this." Employers' ears pricked at the union reference. While the government is signalling it wants to do something meaningful on productivity, the prime minister is also highly cautious when it comes to getting ahead of what he considers to be the government's electoral mandate. Nor is he one to gamble political capital. He is not like, for example, John Howard, who before the 1996 election said he would "never ever" have a GST, then brought forward an ambitious GST package that he took to the 1998 election. That package had plenty of compensation for losers but Howard, who had a big parliamentary majority, was nearly booted out of office. Reform is more difficult than it was in the Hawke-Keating era - though it wasn't as easy then as is often portrayed now. The voters are less trusting of government, and less willing to accept the downsides of change. The voices of those wanting to say "no" to various proposed changes are greatly amplified, in a highly professionalised political milieu and ubiquitous media opportunities. In the era of the "permanent campaign", opinion polling has become so constant that politicians are always measuring their support in the moment, making a government hyper-nervous. Progress on productivity is also harder these days because the easier things have been done, and because changes in our economy - especially the growth of the care economy - mean in some sectors efficiencies are not so readily available, or measurable. READ MORE: We don't actually need more inquiries, or a roundtable, to come up with ideas for what could or should be done on productivity. There have been multiple reports and thousands of recommendations. What is required is for the government to devise a bold program, have the will and the skill to implement it, and the ability to sell it to the public. But that runs into the problem of not having sought permission from the voters - which forces the government back to incrementalism. Whatever the problems, it is not too fanciful to see Chalmers hanging his hat on the productivity peg in his longer-term bid to be the next Labor prime minister. We'll see how he goes. Former prime minister Paul Keating famously used to say the resident galah in any pet shop was talking about microeconomic policy. These days, if you encounter a pet shop with a galah, she'll be chattering about productivity. Productivity is currently the hot topic for a conversation on economic reform. Australia, like many other countries, has a serious problem with it. Our productivity hasn't significantly increased for more than a decade (apart from a temporary spike during the pandemic). Now Treasurer Jim Chalmers has named productivity as his priority for Labor's second term; assistant minister Andrew Leigh, part of the government's economic team, has had it inserted into his title; the Productivity Commission has put out 15 potential reform areas for discussion, and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a roundtable to canvass the way ahead. The roundtable appears to be a prime ministerial initiative. Announcing it at the National Press Club on Tuesday, Albanese made a point of saying he had asked Chalmers to convene it. Perhaps it's a case of the prime minister emulating his forerunner Bob Hawke, with his penchant for summits, while Chalmers seeks to be a contemporary Keating, as he searches for reforms to promote. It would be a major achievement if people were able to remember the second-term Albanese government for paving the way for a significant lift in Australia's productivity. It would probably also be an economic and political miracle. Let's never knock a summit, but let's not be taken in by the suggestion that the planned August meeting, involving employers, unions and the government, will mark some breakthrough moment. Business representatives are approaching it with a degree of cynicism; they saw the 2022 jobs and skills summit as preparing the ground for the new government to meet union demands. This summit is expected to have fewer participants than the 2022 meeting, and may be briefer. Albanese described it as "a more streamlined dialogue than the jobs and skills summit, dealing with a more targeted set of issues". Chalmers will announce more details next week. We can expect the government will package a collection of initiatives at least for further work, and perhaps a few for early action. While many stakeholders give lip service to improving productivity, there are huge obstacles to actually doing so. There's perennial talk about tax reform - from business and economists, rather than the government. But serious change produces winners and losers, and having "losers" has become a political no-no, especially when there is not enough money to compensate them. The housing crisis could be eased, with more homes built faster, if there were less onerous regulations, notably at state and local level. Governments are working around the edges of this, but attempting to seriously slash regulation immediately runs into opposition from those who, variously, argue that it will harm cityscapes, the environment, safety or the like. Red tape hampers big projects, but interest groups concerned about fauna, flora or the climate defend extensive hurdles and appeals processes as important for other priorities. We'd be more productive if people with skills (whether immigrants or those moving between states) faced fewer complexities in getting their credentials recognised. But critics would point to the risk of underqualified people getting through. Regulations are both barriers and protections. Whether you see particular regulations as negative or positive will depend where you are coming from. Less regulation can enhance productivity - but in certain cases the trade-off can be less protection and/or more risk. We have, for good or ill, become a more risk-averse community. Employers say various industrial relations laws and regulations restrict changes that could boost productivity. A Labor government interlocked with the union movement is going to listen to its industrial base on that one. Asked on Tuesday whether his message to business groups going to the summit was, "don't waste your breath if you're going to raise IR" Albanese said, "People are entitled to raise whatever they want to raise. But I'm a Labor prime minister." Artificial intelligence presents great opportunities to advance productivity. But it will cost some jobs and produce dislocation. Industry Minister Tim Ayres said recently, "I will be looking in particular at how we can strengthen worker voice and agency as technology is diffused into every workplace in the Australian economy. I look forward to working with our trade union movement on all of this." Employers' ears pricked at the union reference. While the government is signalling it wants to do something meaningful on productivity, the prime minister is also highly cautious when it comes to getting ahead of what he considers to be the government's electoral mandate. Nor is he one to gamble political capital. He is not like, for example, John Howard, who before the 1996 election said he would "never ever" have a GST, then brought forward an ambitious GST package that he took to the 1998 election. That package had plenty of compensation for losers but Howard, who had a big parliamentary majority, was nearly booted out of office. Reform is more difficult than it was in the Hawke-Keating era - though it wasn't as easy then as is often portrayed now. The voters are less trusting of government, and less willing to accept the downsides of change. The voices of those wanting to say "no" to various proposed changes are greatly amplified, in a highly professionalised political milieu and ubiquitous media opportunities. In the era of the "permanent campaign", opinion polling has become so constant that politicians are always measuring their support in the moment, making a government hyper-nervous. Progress on productivity is also harder these days because the easier things have been done, and because changes in our economy - especially the growth of the care economy - mean in some sectors efficiencies are not so readily available, or measurable. READ MORE: We don't actually need more inquiries, or a roundtable, to come up with ideas for what could or should be done on productivity. There have been multiple reports and thousands of recommendations. What is required is for the government to devise a bold program, have the will and the skill to implement it, and the ability to sell it to the public. But that runs into the problem of not having sought permission from the voters - which forces the government back to incrementalism. Whatever the problems, it is not too fanciful to see Chalmers hanging his hat on the productivity peg in his longer-term bid to be the next Labor prime minister. We'll see how he goes.
Sky News AU
3 hours ago
- Sky News AU
NSW Premier Chris Minns confirms talks to save Australia's biggest aluminium producer Tomago amid crippling power bills
The NSW government is in discussions to stave off the potential collapse of the nation's largest aluminium smelter as it struggles with crippling power bills and poor availability of renewable energy. Rio Tinto-owned Tomago, located north of Newcastle, is reportedly seeking billions of dollars in public funds to prevent collapse. The producer uses about 10 per cent of NSW's power supply and makes about 37 per cent of Australia's primary aluminium. Its collapse could lead to more than 1,000 people losing their jobs, while 5,000 indirect workers could suffer. NSW Premier Chris Minns on Thursday stressed Tomago was a 'big employer in NSW, it's a dynamic part of the state, the Hunter and manufacturing is a big part of its future'. 'It's difficult for me to speculate about what the next steps are,' Mr Minns told reporters. 'In order for us to have an effective intervention, we need to have commercial discussions with the owners and operators of (Tomago). That's what we're doing.' Tomago executives have reportedly asked the NSW and federal governments for assistance amid crippling power prices and as cost-effective and consistent renewable alternatives remain largely unavailable. Rio Tinto's chief executive Jakob Stausholm earlier this year flagged concerns about the producer's electricity costs where he warned power price contracts beyond 2028 would render Tomago unviable. The Premier acknowledged there remains 'challenges when it comes to big industries in manufacturing like aluminium and steel'. He cited the soaring energy costs which hurt Australian manufacturers, but also noted the Trump Administration's decision to hit foreign-made steel and aluminium with a 50 per cent tariff. 'Part of it is energy costs, there's no doubt about it, part of it is also rapid and dramatic changes to the global trading system, particularly when it comes to (the United States') decision to slap initially a 50 per cent then 10 per cent hit on inbound steel and aluminium,' Mr Minns said. 'It may well be Australian aluminium and Australian steel is used domestically, or used in other markets across south-east Asia, South America and other places. 'The problem is that if Chinese steel and Chinese aluminium move to a third country and are dumped on another market, even if it's not Australia, it affects our trading partners. 'It's a complicated web, it's probably not going to be solved overnight. But we recognise it's an important employer, and we are having discussions with the owners.' Tomago's struggle with power bills comes as the Albanese government has vowed to make the nation a 'renewable energy superpower' with an energy mix of 82 per cent renewables by 2030 and green energy driving local manufacturing. Labor is looking to boost this through production tax credits for leading Australian aluminium smelters, including Tomago, and give $2 billion back to help with the energy transition. A federal government source told the AFR it was involved in discussions with Tomago over the details of the tax credit design as it looks to alleviate the impacts of soaring power costs. The Centre for Independent Studies' senior policy analyst Zoe Hilton said the government's energy policy was crippling the aluminium sector. 'With power prices in Australia rising higher and higher, it simply doesn't make financial sense to run a smelter here,' Ms Hilton told 'Tomago's current predicament is a direct result of state and federal government plans to shift our grid to mostly intermittent energy sources.'
Perth Now
5 hours ago
- Perth Now
‘High price': Grim warning after AUKUS move
Australia will have 'a very high price to pay if AUKUS fails', opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor says. The warning came after the US Department of Defence launched a review of the pact to ensure it aligned with Donald Trump's 'America First' agenda. The Albanese government has brushed off concerns the move signals waning US support for the alliance with Canberra, with Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles saying it was 'natural that the (Trump) administration would want to examine this major undertaking'. But with AUKUS the centrepiece of Australia's defence strategy over the first half of this century, it has offered little reassurance. Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor says Australia will have 'a very high price to pay if AUKUS fails'. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia 'This is an incredibly important alliance,' Mr Taylor said on Friday. 'It's an incredibly important capability, both in terms of the submarine capability and the technology capability … and this must be a top priority of the government.' He said the Albanese government had 'many questions to answer'. 'What discussions has Richard Marles already had? To what extent is our lack of defence spending a driver of this review? When will the Prime Minister meet with the President to actually discuss this face-to-face?' he queried. 'These are questions we need answers to, and they're questions that go to the heart of making sure that AUKUS is a success and that we ensure that we have peace through deterrence in our region.' NewsWire understands Anthony Albanese was set to meet the US President on the sidelines of the upcoming G7. But US State Department sources said a time had not been set and the situation was 'fluid'. More to come.
