logo
South Australian high school trad wife debate question divides

South Australian high school trad wife debate question divides

Herald Suna day ago

A hot button topic put forward for Year 9 students to discuss during a statewide debate competition has caused a stir online.
Debating SA, a non-profit organisation that runs debating competitions in South Australia, revealed its latest topics ahead of next week's debates. However, it was the topic for round three — 'The 'Trad Wife' movement is good for women' — that has raised eyebrows and sparked fierce discussion.
The 'Trad Wife' movement has been popularised by the likes of influencer Hannah Neeleman, also known as Ballerina Farm, who has more than 10 million followers on Instagram, and Nara Smith, a US-based model and influencer with nearly 5 million followers.
The movement is often rooted in 'traditional' values, based on the idea of a woman looking after the home and children while the woman's husband goes off to work and earn money.
Typically, it is associated with conservative values where the woman is seen as submissive, however defenders say those who follow it, do so as a matter of personal choice.
The topic will start being debated next week as part of the third round of Debating SA's competition, for which all schools in the state are eligible. Picture: Getty Images
Debating SA's topic choice left many questioning whether it was appropriate for Year 9 students to research and discuss, let alone be aware of the phrase 'Trad Wife'.
'Personally I think being able to debate around a topic even one that is clearly terrible is still an important skill,' one social media user said.
'But the point of contention is that tradwife stuff promotes not only staying at home, but actual straight up misogyny. And it would always be controversial to debate 'is it okay to hate women?'.'
Nara Smith is one of the biggest faces in the 'tradwife' movement. Picture: Instagram/Nara Smith
Another said: 'This is a huge misstep by the debating orgs (and I'm saying this as a former high school debater and coach).'
'Sounds like those who champion 'critical thinking, cultural nous and debate' to set this topic have NFI of the current cultural implications of the 'tradwife' movement online, especially its direct pipeline to white supremacy and misogyny,' another added.
But others argued there was no real issue.
'I thought one of the points of debating was arguing for a side you don't necessarily agree with. My son recently was involved with a school debate where the topic was 'Is the current climate change man made?'. I don't see a trad wife debate being much different,' one parent wrote.
Another weighed in: 'Honestly, if the goal is to teach kids how to think critically about the content they're bombarded with online, this isn't the worst topic to explore.
'The tradwife movement is something they'll run into on TikTok or YouTube eventually, so better to unpack it in a guided, moderated classroom than leave them to figure it out through algorithm-fed echo chambers. Context and intent matter. If this was framed as a critical discussion — not an endorsement — then it's literally education doing its job.'
Students are set to debate whether the 'trad wife' movement is 'good for women'.
Following the outrage, Debating SA sent a clarification to schools, saying that students 'must look critically at sources'.
'It goes without saying that any websites that denigrate women (or any person) are not a good source of information and are not relevant to the topic,' the clarification, which also appeared on its website, said.
'To avoid any confusion about the topic, the following definitions for the purpose of the debate apply:
'Tradwife is a portmanteau for 'traditional wife', a woman who embraces traditional gender roles, primarily focusing on home making and family care, while her husband is the primary breadwinner. This can include cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, and maintaining the home. 'This term is intended to be synonymous with the idea of a stay at home parent.'
It caused uproar, and the organisation has since clarified that it meant 'stay at home' mum. Picture: Instagram/@ballerinafarm
'The tradwife movement is therefore a group of people who support a lifestyle such as the above. Note that this does not include any concept of 'submission' as some sources may define.
'Good for women generally refers to something that has a positive impact on women's lives and wellbeing. Note specifically that the definition does not infer 'all women'.'
In a further email provided to news.com.au, Sonja Lowen, the chairman of Debating SA, said: 'The positive response to the topic and our organisation [has] been well expressed by a number of people in the mainstream media.
'The negative response from some of the public has been very illuminating in the way in which they chose to express not only their views. but also the idea that there can be no debate about this subject. It seems that thinking about a subject that they don't agree with has become a radical act. Shutting down discussion is not a good idea and is the antithesis of a free society.'
Ms Lowen said it made her realise debate provides a regulated forum for students to be able to present a case in a measured way, 'something some of the public would do well to emulate'.
'We expect our debaters to present their case with evidence and reasoning. It is very necessary for young people to be able to develop the skills to navigate their way in what is now a very complicated social landscape and those skills are perfected and refined by debating,' she said.
'Debating is an intellectual and academic discipline that allows the participants to examine both sides of a topic regardless of their own personal beliefs. This ability to explore both sides makes us tolerant of other views. Thinking is hard work and we should not surrender our intellectual independence because a topic may be difficult or in this case deemed unacceptable by some of the public.'
But some were not satisfied with the reasoning from Debating SA.
'This isn't moderated in class discussion, it's a discussion topic for a Debating Competition, and the organisers have said that they used trad-wife as a synonym for 'stay at home parent',' one said.
'Honestly, their excuse sounds pretty pathetic – trad-wife is not a synonym for stay at home parent, it's a controversial social movement with significant connections to right-wing politics and influencers.'
Another added: 'They're engaged enough to know the term, but not the context. 'Tradwife' is absolutely not a synonym for 'stay at home parent'. They've gone awry from the outset.'
'The issue is them conflating SAHM with Trad Wife. Trad wife is a social movement. They are vastly not the same thing. And the Trad Wife may not necessarily have children,' another said.
Originally published as High school 'Tradwife' debate topic divides

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US judge rejects release of pro-Palestinian activist
US judge rejects release of pro-Palestinian activist

The Advertiser

timean hour ago

  • The Advertiser

US judge rejects release of pro-Palestinian activist

A US judge has denied Mahmoud Khalil's request to be released from detention after federal prosecutors changed their rationale for holding the Columbia graduate student as part of its crackdown on pro-Palestinian activists. Newark, New Jersey-based US District Judge Michael Farbiarz on Wednesday said the government could not use foreign policy interests to justify Khalil's detention. On Friday the government said it was also holding Khalil, a legal permanent resident of the United States, on a charge of immigration fraud. In response, Farbiarz said Khalil's lawyers had not successfully argued why it was unlawful for the government to hold him on the charge, which he has denied. The ruling marked the latest turn in Khalil's fight to be freed from a Louisiana detention centre after his March arrest for involvement in the pro-Palestinian protest movement, which President Donald Trump has called anti-Semitic. His detention was condemned by civil rights groups as an attack on protected political speech. Marc Van Der Hout, a lawyer for Khalil, said the government practically never detained people for immigration fraud and the Syrian-born student was being punished for opposing Israel's US-backed war in Gaza following Hamas' October 2023 attack. "Detaining someone on a charge like this is highly unusual and frankly outrageous," Van Der Hout said. "There continues to be no constitutional basis for his detention." Farbiarz had previously suggested legal residents like Khalil were rarely detained on the basis of immigration fraud. On Friday, he said Khalil should seek bail from the immigration lawyer in his case. As lawyers for the Syrian-born activist sought his release, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, another immigrant targeted by the Trump administration, pleaded not guilty to migrant smuggling charges after his wrongful deportation. Khalil, a graduate student at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, was arrested by immigration agents in the lobby of his university residence in Manhattan on March 8. His US citizen wife, Dr Noor Abdalla, gave birth to the couple's first child while Khalil was detained in April. A US judge has denied Mahmoud Khalil's request to be released from detention after federal prosecutors changed their rationale for holding the Columbia graduate student as part of its crackdown on pro-Palestinian activists. Newark, New Jersey-based US District Judge Michael Farbiarz on Wednesday said the government could not use foreign policy interests to justify Khalil's detention. On Friday the government said it was also holding Khalil, a legal permanent resident of the United States, on a charge of immigration fraud. In response, Farbiarz said Khalil's lawyers had not successfully argued why it was unlawful for the government to hold him on the charge, which he has denied. The ruling marked the latest turn in Khalil's fight to be freed from a Louisiana detention centre after his March arrest for involvement in the pro-Palestinian protest movement, which President Donald Trump has called anti-Semitic. His detention was condemned by civil rights groups as an attack on protected political speech. Marc Van Der Hout, a lawyer for Khalil, said the government practically never detained people for immigration fraud and the Syrian-born student was being punished for opposing Israel's US-backed war in Gaza following Hamas' October 2023 attack. "Detaining someone on a charge like this is highly unusual and frankly outrageous," Van Der Hout said. "There continues to be no constitutional basis for his detention." Farbiarz had previously suggested legal residents like Khalil were rarely detained on the basis of immigration fraud. On Friday, he said Khalil should seek bail from the immigration lawyer in his case. As lawyers for the Syrian-born activist sought his release, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, another immigrant targeted by the Trump administration, pleaded not guilty to migrant smuggling charges after his wrongful deportation. Khalil, a graduate student at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, was arrested by immigration agents in the lobby of his university residence in Manhattan on March 8. His US citizen wife, Dr Noor Abdalla, gave birth to the couple's first child while Khalil was detained in April. A US judge has denied Mahmoud Khalil's request to be released from detention after federal prosecutors changed their rationale for holding the Columbia graduate student as part of its crackdown on pro-Palestinian activists. Newark, New Jersey-based US District Judge Michael Farbiarz on Wednesday said the government could not use foreign policy interests to justify Khalil's detention. On Friday the government said it was also holding Khalil, a legal permanent resident of the United States, on a charge of immigration fraud. In response, Farbiarz said Khalil's lawyers had not successfully argued why it was unlawful for the government to hold him on the charge, which he has denied. The ruling marked the latest turn in Khalil's fight to be freed from a Louisiana detention centre after his March arrest for involvement in the pro-Palestinian protest movement, which President Donald Trump has called anti-Semitic. His detention was condemned by civil rights groups as an attack on protected political speech. Marc Van Der Hout, a lawyer for Khalil, said the government practically never detained people for immigration fraud and the Syrian-born student was being punished for opposing Israel's US-backed war in Gaza following Hamas' October 2023 attack. "Detaining someone on a charge like this is highly unusual and frankly outrageous," Van Der Hout said. "There continues to be no constitutional basis for his detention." Farbiarz had previously suggested legal residents like Khalil were rarely detained on the basis of immigration fraud. On Friday, he said Khalil should seek bail from the immigration lawyer in his case. As lawyers for the Syrian-born activist sought his release, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, another immigrant targeted by the Trump administration, pleaded not guilty to migrant smuggling charges after his wrongful deportation. Khalil, a graduate student at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, was arrested by immigration agents in the lobby of his university residence in Manhattan on March 8. His US citizen wife, Dr Noor Abdalla, gave birth to the couple's first child while Khalil was detained in April. A US judge has denied Mahmoud Khalil's request to be released from detention after federal prosecutors changed their rationale for holding the Columbia graduate student as part of its crackdown on pro-Palestinian activists. Newark, New Jersey-based US District Judge Michael Farbiarz on Wednesday said the government could not use foreign policy interests to justify Khalil's detention. On Friday the government said it was also holding Khalil, a legal permanent resident of the United States, on a charge of immigration fraud. In response, Farbiarz said Khalil's lawyers had not successfully argued why it was unlawful for the government to hold him on the charge, which he has denied. The ruling marked the latest turn in Khalil's fight to be freed from a Louisiana detention centre after his March arrest for involvement in the pro-Palestinian protest movement, which President Donald Trump has called anti-Semitic. His detention was condemned by civil rights groups as an attack on protected political speech. Marc Van Der Hout, a lawyer for Khalil, said the government practically never detained people for immigration fraud and the Syrian-born student was being punished for opposing Israel's US-backed war in Gaza following Hamas' October 2023 attack. "Detaining someone on a charge like this is highly unusual and frankly outrageous," Van Der Hout said. "There continues to be no constitutional basis for his detention." Farbiarz had previously suggested legal residents like Khalil were rarely detained on the basis of immigration fraud. On Friday, he said Khalil should seek bail from the immigration lawyer in his case. As lawyers for the Syrian-born activist sought his release, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, another immigrant targeted by the Trump administration, pleaded not guilty to migrant smuggling charges after his wrongful deportation. Khalil, a graduate student at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, was arrested by immigration agents in the lobby of his university residence in Manhattan on March 8. His US citizen wife, Dr Noor Abdalla, gave birth to the couple's first child while Khalil was detained in April.

US judge rejects release of pro-Palestinian activist
US judge rejects release of pro-Palestinian activist

Perth Now

time2 hours ago

  • Perth Now

US judge rejects release of pro-Palestinian activist

A US judge has denied Mahmoud Khalil's request to be released from detention after federal prosecutors changed their rationale for holding the Columbia graduate student as part of its crackdown on pro-Palestinian activists. Newark, New Jersey-based US District Judge Michael Farbiarz on Wednesday said the government could not use foreign policy interests to justify Khalil's detention. On Friday the government said it was also holding Khalil, a legal permanent resident of the United States, on a charge of immigration fraud. In response, Farbiarz said Khalil's lawyers had not successfully argued why it was unlawful for the government to hold him on the charge, which he has denied. The ruling marked the latest turn in Khalil's fight to be freed from a Louisiana detention centre after his March arrest for involvement in the pro-Palestinian protest movement, which President Donald Trump has called anti-Semitic. His detention was condemned by civil rights groups as an attack on protected political speech. Marc Van Der Hout, a lawyer for Khalil, said the government practically never detained people for immigration fraud and the Syrian-born student was being punished for opposing Israel's US-backed war in Gaza following Hamas' October 2023 attack. "Detaining someone on a charge like this is highly unusual and frankly outrageous," Van Der Hout said. "There continues to be no constitutional basis for his detention." Farbiarz had previously suggested legal residents like Khalil were rarely detained on the basis of immigration fraud. On Friday, he said Khalil should seek bail from the immigration lawyer in his case. As lawyers for the Syrian-born activist sought his release, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, another immigrant targeted by the Trump administration, pleaded not guilty to migrant smuggling charges after his wrongful deportation. Khalil, a graduate student at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, was arrested by immigration agents in the lobby of his university residence in Manhattan on March 8. His US citizen wife, Dr Noor Abdalla, gave birth to the couple's first child while Khalil was detained in April.

Crossbenchers pressure Labor to launch 'urgent' AUKUS inquiry
Crossbenchers pressure Labor to launch 'urgent' AUKUS inquiry

The Advertiser

time21 hours ago

  • The Advertiser

Crossbenchers pressure Labor to launch 'urgent' AUKUS inquiry

ACT senator David Pocock and an alliance of parliamentary crossbenchers are calling on the Albanese government to urgently establish a formal inquiry into the AUKUS submarine deal. It comes after revelations the Trump administration will review the terms of the trilateral pact to ensure it meets "American First criteria", which has sparked doubts about the future of the landmark deal. Eight crossbench MPs wrote to Defence Minister Richard Marles on Friday, raising concerns about the $368 billion deal that could see Australia buy at least three Virginia-class nuclear-attack submarines from the US by the 2030s. The MPs said there has been insufficient parliamentary oversight of the pact and said Australians wanted to know more about its strategic and financial implications. "With the UK and now the US reviewing AUKUS, Australia is now the only country not actively considering whether the agreement in its current form best serves our national interest," Senator Pocok said in a statement. "Given the scale and cost of this deal, a transparent review is not just sensible; it's overdue." Australia is investing billions of dollars to support the US's submarine production base under AUKUS, which is estimated to be 20 years behind schedule. Independent MP Allegra Spender said there needed to be an open discussion about the "very clear risk" that the US will not be able to guarantee the transfer of the boats without diminishing its naval capabilities. "AUKUS is the centrepiece of our defence and foreign policy strategy, but it's been adopted by the major parties with very poor public engagement," Ms Spender said. "AUKUS will shape Australia's future for decades with enormous implications both financially, economically, and strategically, but in discussions at the community level, there are consistent questions and concerns that have not been addressed." Defence Minister Richard Marles has said he remains confident the deal will go ahead and that the US review was a "perfectly natural" thing for a new administration to do. "We've always known that increasing the production and sustainment rate in the United States is a challenge, but we're confident that we can meet that challenge," Mr Marles said on Friday. The Canberra Times has contacted a spokesperson for comment. A parliamentary inquiry into the ratification of the AUKUS treaty last year heard that a provision allowing the US and the UK to withdraw with a year's notice could have "significant implications" for Australia. The inquiry heard there were no specified terms in the treaty or in agreement documents to suggest Australia would have full ownership of the second-hand US-built boats, which are due to be sold and delivered by 2032. Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said he was concerned about the future of AUKUS and called on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to meet with Donald Trump to secure its terms. "We'll continue to make the case for AUKUS, and we must. It is a good arrangement and the right arrangement to ensure we get peace in our region through deterrence," Mr Taylor said on Friday. Mr Albanese is expected to hold his first in-person meeting with the US president on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada next week, which has yet to be confirmed. The potential meeting comes after Labor rebuffed US Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth's call for Australia to increase its military spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP from the current level of just over 2 per cent. ACT senator David Pocock and an alliance of parliamentary crossbenchers are calling on the Albanese government to urgently establish a formal inquiry into the AUKUS submarine deal. It comes after revelations the Trump administration will review the terms of the trilateral pact to ensure it meets "American First criteria", which has sparked doubts about the future of the landmark deal. Eight crossbench MPs wrote to Defence Minister Richard Marles on Friday, raising concerns about the $368 billion deal that could see Australia buy at least three Virginia-class nuclear-attack submarines from the US by the 2030s. The MPs said there has been insufficient parliamentary oversight of the pact and said Australians wanted to know more about its strategic and financial implications. "With the UK and now the US reviewing AUKUS, Australia is now the only country not actively considering whether the agreement in its current form best serves our national interest," Senator Pocok said in a statement. "Given the scale and cost of this deal, a transparent review is not just sensible; it's overdue." Australia is investing billions of dollars to support the US's submarine production base under AUKUS, which is estimated to be 20 years behind schedule. Independent MP Allegra Spender said there needed to be an open discussion about the "very clear risk" that the US will not be able to guarantee the transfer of the boats without diminishing its naval capabilities. "AUKUS is the centrepiece of our defence and foreign policy strategy, but it's been adopted by the major parties with very poor public engagement," Ms Spender said. "AUKUS will shape Australia's future for decades with enormous implications both financially, economically, and strategically, but in discussions at the community level, there are consistent questions and concerns that have not been addressed." Defence Minister Richard Marles has said he remains confident the deal will go ahead and that the US review was a "perfectly natural" thing for a new administration to do. "We've always known that increasing the production and sustainment rate in the United States is a challenge, but we're confident that we can meet that challenge," Mr Marles said on Friday. The Canberra Times has contacted a spokesperson for comment. A parliamentary inquiry into the ratification of the AUKUS treaty last year heard that a provision allowing the US and the UK to withdraw with a year's notice could have "significant implications" for Australia. The inquiry heard there were no specified terms in the treaty or in agreement documents to suggest Australia would have full ownership of the second-hand US-built boats, which are due to be sold and delivered by 2032. Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said he was concerned about the future of AUKUS and called on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to meet with Donald Trump to secure its terms. "We'll continue to make the case for AUKUS, and we must. It is a good arrangement and the right arrangement to ensure we get peace in our region through deterrence," Mr Taylor said on Friday. Mr Albanese is expected to hold his first in-person meeting with the US president on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada next week, which has yet to be confirmed. The potential meeting comes after Labor rebuffed US Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth's call for Australia to increase its military spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP from the current level of just over 2 per cent. ACT senator David Pocock and an alliance of parliamentary crossbenchers are calling on the Albanese government to urgently establish a formal inquiry into the AUKUS submarine deal. It comes after revelations the Trump administration will review the terms of the trilateral pact to ensure it meets "American First criteria", which has sparked doubts about the future of the landmark deal. Eight crossbench MPs wrote to Defence Minister Richard Marles on Friday, raising concerns about the $368 billion deal that could see Australia buy at least three Virginia-class nuclear-attack submarines from the US by the 2030s. The MPs said there has been insufficient parliamentary oversight of the pact and said Australians wanted to know more about its strategic and financial implications. "With the UK and now the US reviewing AUKUS, Australia is now the only country not actively considering whether the agreement in its current form best serves our national interest," Senator Pocok said in a statement. "Given the scale and cost of this deal, a transparent review is not just sensible; it's overdue." Australia is investing billions of dollars to support the US's submarine production base under AUKUS, which is estimated to be 20 years behind schedule. Independent MP Allegra Spender said there needed to be an open discussion about the "very clear risk" that the US will not be able to guarantee the transfer of the boats without diminishing its naval capabilities. "AUKUS is the centrepiece of our defence and foreign policy strategy, but it's been adopted by the major parties with very poor public engagement," Ms Spender said. "AUKUS will shape Australia's future for decades with enormous implications both financially, economically, and strategically, but in discussions at the community level, there are consistent questions and concerns that have not been addressed." Defence Minister Richard Marles has said he remains confident the deal will go ahead and that the US review was a "perfectly natural" thing for a new administration to do. "We've always known that increasing the production and sustainment rate in the United States is a challenge, but we're confident that we can meet that challenge," Mr Marles said on Friday. The Canberra Times has contacted a spokesperson for comment. A parliamentary inquiry into the ratification of the AUKUS treaty last year heard that a provision allowing the US and the UK to withdraw with a year's notice could have "significant implications" for Australia. The inquiry heard there were no specified terms in the treaty or in agreement documents to suggest Australia would have full ownership of the second-hand US-built boats, which are due to be sold and delivered by 2032. Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said he was concerned about the future of AUKUS and called on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to meet with Donald Trump to secure its terms. "We'll continue to make the case for AUKUS, and we must. It is a good arrangement and the right arrangement to ensure we get peace in our region through deterrence," Mr Taylor said on Friday. Mr Albanese is expected to hold his first in-person meeting with the US president on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada next week, which has yet to be confirmed. The potential meeting comes after Labor rebuffed US Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth's call for Australia to increase its military spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP from the current level of just over 2 per cent. ACT senator David Pocock and an alliance of parliamentary crossbenchers are calling on the Albanese government to urgently establish a formal inquiry into the AUKUS submarine deal. It comes after revelations the Trump administration will review the terms of the trilateral pact to ensure it meets "American First criteria", which has sparked doubts about the future of the landmark deal. Eight crossbench MPs wrote to Defence Minister Richard Marles on Friday, raising concerns about the $368 billion deal that could see Australia buy at least three Virginia-class nuclear-attack submarines from the US by the 2030s. The MPs said there has been insufficient parliamentary oversight of the pact and said Australians wanted to know more about its strategic and financial implications. "With the UK and now the US reviewing AUKUS, Australia is now the only country not actively considering whether the agreement in its current form best serves our national interest," Senator Pocok said in a statement. "Given the scale and cost of this deal, a transparent review is not just sensible; it's overdue." Australia is investing billions of dollars to support the US's submarine production base under AUKUS, which is estimated to be 20 years behind schedule. Independent MP Allegra Spender said there needed to be an open discussion about the "very clear risk" that the US will not be able to guarantee the transfer of the boats without diminishing its naval capabilities. "AUKUS is the centrepiece of our defence and foreign policy strategy, but it's been adopted by the major parties with very poor public engagement," Ms Spender said. "AUKUS will shape Australia's future for decades with enormous implications both financially, economically, and strategically, but in discussions at the community level, there are consistent questions and concerns that have not been addressed." Defence Minister Richard Marles has said he remains confident the deal will go ahead and that the US review was a "perfectly natural" thing for a new administration to do. "We've always known that increasing the production and sustainment rate in the United States is a challenge, but we're confident that we can meet that challenge," Mr Marles said on Friday. The Canberra Times has contacted a spokesperson for comment. A parliamentary inquiry into the ratification of the AUKUS treaty last year heard that a provision allowing the US and the UK to withdraw with a year's notice could have "significant implications" for Australia. The inquiry heard there were no specified terms in the treaty or in agreement documents to suggest Australia would have full ownership of the second-hand US-built boats, which are due to be sold and delivered by 2032. Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said he was concerned about the future of AUKUS and called on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to meet with Donald Trump to secure its terms. "We'll continue to make the case for AUKUS, and we must. It is a good arrangement and the right arrangement to ensure we get peace in our region through deterrence," Mr Taylor said on Friday. Mr Albanese is expected to hold his first in-person meeting with the US president on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada next week, which has yet to be confirmed. The potential meeting comes after Labor rebuffed US Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth's call for Australia to increase its military spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP from the current level of just over 2 per cent.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

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