PM's Trump strategy ‘very risky' as he mulls snap NATO summit trip
The opposition has slammed Anthony Albanese's approach to Donald Trump as 'very risky', as the Prime Minister mulls following the US President to a NATO summit in Europe next week.
Mr Albanese was set to have his first face-to-face meeting with Mr Trump at the G7 in Canada earlier this week.
But it fell through after the US leader bailed on the summit due to the escalating conflict in the Middle East.
Senior Coalition senator James Paterson said on Friday Mr Albanese should attend next week's NATO summit in the Netherlands even if his chances of chatting with Mr Trump were slim.
'If he meets with President Trump on the sidelines, that would be a bonus,' Senator Paterson told Seven.
'But frankly, I think his approach of now waiting seven months to go and see the President and not going to see him in Washington DC, relying on a chance meeting on the sidelines of international forum, is a very risky strategy, as we saw at the G7.'
Though, he added, Australia and Europe had many shared interests that would also make the trip worthwhile.
'The first is, we have a strong interest in the outcome of Russia's war on Ukraine,' Senator Paterson said.
'We want Ukraine to win and we should be co-ordinating closely with our allies about the things we can do to support them.
'Secondly, we have a strong shared interest with our European partners on the outcome of what's happening in Iran right now.
'We want Iran's nuclear enrichment program to come to an end, as do they and we should be co-ordinating on that.
'And thirdly, it will give the Prime Minister an opportunity to consult with European partners on the importance of increasing defence spending, and they can tell him what the consequences are of failing to invest adequately in defence industry in peacetime, and hopefully he can heed that advice.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
13 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Disgraced former MP Maguire guilty of lying to ICAC probe
Former MP Daryl Maguire is facing the prospect of being jailed after he was found guilty of giving misleading evidence to ICAC. Maguire, 66, fronted a Sydney court on Friday where he was found guilty by a magistrate of one count of giving false or misleading evidence at a public inquiry. Maguire, who was the MP for Wagga Wagga from 1999 to 2018, faced a hearing in the Downing Centre Local Court earlier this year where he pleaded not guilty to the lone count. The case centred on Maguire's evidence before the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in July 2018. During the ICAC probe, he denied asking to receive a financial benefit for brokering a property deal at Canterbury. However, recorded phone conversations led him to admit he had asked for a slice of the profits if the multimillion-dollar deal with a Chinese developer was finalised. Maguire had argued that he had not given misleading evidence and he answered questions to the best of his ability. Magistrate Clare Farnan on Friday handed down her judgment, finding him guilty of one count of giving false or misleading evidence at a public inquiry. Maguire faces a maximum penalty of two years in jail. The magistrate also rejected an application by Maguire's legal team on Friday afternoon for a non-publication order which would have kept the verdict under wraps. Maguire's lawyers applied for the non-publication order to protect against the possible prejudice to a jury ahead of a separate upcoming trial. Maguire is also fighting allegations relating to an alleged visa and migration fraud. He has pleaded not guilty to one count of conspiracy and is due to face a District Court trial later this year. Confusion reigned at the Downing Centre John Maddison Tower court complex on Friday. Maguire was listed in one courtroom and when his legal team and the prosecution arrived at court, they were told that the matter had to be adjourned until October. Maguire and his lawyers then left the court complex. However, they were later called back to another court where Ms Farnan handed down her judgment. The court was told that there was confusion because the Downing Centre court complex has been closed for four weeks due to damage to electrical infrastructure after the basement was flooded earlier this week, which has thrown thousands of legal matters into turmoil. Maguire returns to court in August. The former Wagga Wagga MP resigned from the NSW parliament in 2018 after ICAC launched a separate investigation into his conduct while in office. The inquiry revealed he had been in a secret five-year 'close personal relationship' with ex-Premier Gladys Berejiklian. She resigned from her position in September 2021 after ICAC announced it would investigate whether she breached the ministerial code of conduct. The commission found in July 2023 that both Maguire and Ms Berejiklian engaged in serious corrupt conduct.
ABC News
16 minutes ago
- ABC News
Israel is targeting Iran's nuclear uranium enrichment plants. Here are the contamination risks
Israel has been targeting Iran from the air since last Friday in what it has described as an effort to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), five nuclear facilities have been struck, sparking fears the air strikes could raise health risks across the region. Here's what damage has been caused so far and the safety risks of attacking nuclear sites. Several military and nuclear sites in Iran. Israel says the attacks are to block Iran from developing atomic weapons. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the operations were to "strike the head of Iran's nuclear weaponization program". Iran denies ever having pursued a plan to build nuclear weapons and is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It says the nuclear sites it does have are for peaceful purposes. If Israel continues attacking Iran until it removes the country's nuclear capability, destroying the Fordow enrichment plant is central to its plan. While another important facility, Natanz, has been hit, the Fordow site would be much harder to target. This is because it's located inside a mountain, 90-metres underground and can only be reached by American "bunker-buster" bombs, which Israel does not possess. Because Israel believes Iran is enriching uranium to levels that could allow it to build a nuclear weapon, despite the Islamic Republic's claims its nuclear work is for "peaceful purposes". Enriched uranium, specifically uranium-235, is an essential component in many nuclear weapons. "When you dig uranium out of the ground, 99.3 per cent of it is uranium-238, and 0.7 per cent of it is uranium-235," Kaitlin Cook says, a nuclear physicist at the Australian National University. "The numbers 238 and 235 relate to its weight — uranium-235 is slightly lighter than uranium-238." To enrich uranium, basically means increasing the proportion of uranium-235, while removing the uranium-238. This is typically done with a centrifuge, a kind of "scientific salad spinner" which rotates uranium thousands of times a minute, separating the lighter uranium-235 from the base uranium. For civilian nuclear power, Dr Cook says uranium-235 is usually enriched to about 3 to 5 per cent. But once uranium is enriched to 90 per cent, it is deemed weapons-grade. According to the IAEA, Iran's uranium has reached about 60 per cent enrichment, well on its way to being concentrated enough for a nuclear weapon. Dr Cook says the process for enriching uranium from 60 per cent to weapons-grade is much easier than it is to get to the initial 60 per cent. That's because there's less uranium-238 to get rid of. According to the US Institute for Science and International Security, "Iran can convert its current stock of 60 per cent enriched uranium into 233kg of weapon-grade uranium in three weeks at the Fordow plant", which it said would be enough for nine nuclear weapons. In the hours after Israel attacked Iran last Friday, Netanyahu said Iran was just days away from being able to build nuclear weapons. In a White House briefing, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Iran has all it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon. "It would take a couple of weeks to complete the production of that weapon, which would, of course, pose an existential threat not just to Israel, but to the United States and to the entire world." But there has been some back and forth between US authorities on whether Iran was really that close to producing nuclear weapons. In March, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told members of Congress that Iran was not moving towards building nuclear weapons. "The IC [intelligence community] continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons programme he suspended in 2003," she said. On Air Force One on Monday night, after hastily leaving the G7 summit, President Donald Trump offered a direct contradiction to Ms Gabbard's claims. "I don't care what she said," Mr Trump said. "I think they were very close to having it." The IAEA said Israel had directly hit the underground enrichment halls at the Natanz facility, leaving them "severely damaged, if not destroyed all together". According to the IAEA, the Natanz site was one of the facilities at which Iran was producing uranium enriched up to 60 per cent U-235. After the attack, the IAEA found radioactive contamination at the site, but it said the levels of radioactivity outside remained unchanged and at normal levels. Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Effie Defrin said: "We've struck deep, hitting Iran's nuclear, ballistic and command capabilities." A nuclear complex at Isfahan and centrifuge production facilities in Karaj and Tehran were also damaged. Israel said on Wednesday it had targeted Arak, also known as Khondab, the location of a partially built heavy-water research reactor. The IAEA said it had information that the heavy-water reactor had been hit, but that it was not operating and reported no radiological effects. Experts say attacks on enrichment facilities are mainly a "chemical problem", not radiological. Darya Dolzikova, a senior research fellow at London think tank RUSI, says the main concern from destroying an enrichment plant is releasing the harmful uranium hexafluoride gas — highly corrosive and toxic — that's contained in centrifuges. "When UF6 interacts with water vapour in the air, it produces harmful chemicals," Ms Dolzikova said. The extent to which any material is dispersed would depend on factors including weather conditions, she added. "In low winds, much of the material can be expected to settle in the vicinity of the facility; in high winds, the material will travel farther, but is also likely to disperse more widely." Peter Bryant, a professor at the University of Liverpool who specialises in radiation protection science and nuclear energy policy, says nuclear facilities are designed to prevent the release of radioactive materials into the environment. "Uranium is only dangerous if it gets physically inhaled or ingested or gets into the body at low enrichments," Professor Bryant said. While there so far has been no major radiological incidents as a result of the attacks, IAEA director-general Rafael Mariano Grossi stressed the possible nuclear safety and security risks. "There is a lot of nuclear material in Iran in different places, which means that the potential for a radiological accident with the dispersion in the atmosphere of radioactive materials and particles does exist," he said. In a post on X, World Health Organization chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus also voiced his concern about the potential "immediate and long-term impacts on the environment and health of people in Iran and across the region". Well that's a different story. A strike on Iran's nuclear reactor at Bushehr could cause an "absolute radiological catastrophe", says James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. While most reactor vessels are protected by steel and concrete containment structures, Dr Cook says the surrounding infrastructure, like spent fuel pools and cooling equipment, would "definitely be a concern" if targeted. For Gulf states, the impact of any strike on Bushehr would be worsened by the potential contamination of Gulf waters, jeopardising a critical source of desalinated potable water. In the UAE, desalinated water accounts for more than 80 per cent of drinking water. While Bahrain and Qatar are fully reliant on desalinated water. "If a natural disaster, oil spill, or even a targeted attack were to disrupt a desalination plant, hundreds of thousands could lose access to freshwater almost instantly," said Nidal Hilal, professor of engineering and director of New York University Abu Dhabi's Water Research Center. "Coastal desalination plants are especially vulnerable to regional hazards like oil spills and potential nuclear contamination," he said. On Thursday, an Israeli military spokesperson said the military has struck the Bushehr nuclear site in Iran. However, an Israeli military official later said that comment "was a mistake". The official would only confirm that Israel had hit the Natanz, Isfahan, and Arak nuclear sites in Iran. Pressed further on Bushehr, the official said he could neither confirm or deny that Israel had struck the location. Bushehr is Iran's only operating nuclear power plant, which sits on the Gulf coast, and uses Russian fuel that Russia then takes back when it is spent to reduce proliferation risk. Heavy water is H20 made up of hydrogen-2 instead of hydrogen-1. Dr Cook says it's a little heavier than normal water. "When you use heavy water, you can run your reactor on non-enriched uranium, avoiding the expense of enriching it in the first place, though the water does cost more. "But the problem is that heavy-water reactors can also be used to produce plutonium, which can be used in nuclear weapons." Israel's military said its fighter jets targeted the Arak facility and its reactor core seal to halt it from being used to produce plutonium. "The strike targeted the component intended for plutonium production, in order to prevent the reactor from being restored and used for nuclear weapons development." India and Pakistan, both nuclear-armed states, have heavy-water reactors. So does Israel, but it has never acknowledged having atomic weapons but is widely believed to have them. ABC with wires
News.com.au
22 minutes ago
- News.com.au
NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey confirms Sydney's housing ‘Plan B' won't be in Tuesday's budget
NSW Treasurer Daniel Mookhey has definitely ruled out any announcement on the government's 'Plan B' for housing in next week's budget, after a $5bn proposal to turn Rosehill racecourse into 25,000 homes was shot down. Mr Mookhey will hand down his third budget since Labor's 2022 election on Tuesday, as NSW continues to grapple with a worsening housing crisis and the fallout from a summer marred by anti-Semitic attacks. Billions of dollars in spending has already been announced ahead of the budget, expected to feature the same fiscal restraint as the previous two years, including in housing, justice reform, and Western Sydney airport. The budget comes after a majority of members from the Australian Turf Club voted down plans in May to turn the historic Rosehill racecourse in Sydney's west into a first-of-its-kind mini-city with a Metro station. Premier Chris Minns has since said the state government was working on its 'Plan B', with reports the port of Glebe Island was being eyed for housing, but has so far remained mum on what that project would be. Asked about whether the 'Plan B' for housing near Sydney's CBD would feature in the budget, Mr Mookhey on Friday told NewsWire '(in) next week's budget, we will make progress in dealing with the housing challenge'. 'We will not be sort of announcing Plan B on budget day. But we're pretty clear that we need to build more homes.' Mr Mookhey said he was 'disappointed' in the failed sale of Rosehill. 'What it means for the state is that we do need to build more homes,' he said. A raft of policy measures has already been announced ahead of the budget to target housing, including making tax cuts to build-to-rent schemes indefinite and draft guidelines for the 'build-in-kind' scheme. Despite a damaging few weeks for the Treasurer, whose workers compensation reform measures were sent back for another inquiry amid fierce push back from the Liberals, Greens, and the unions, Mr Mookhey was optimistic. Asked about the message of the 2025-26 budget, Mr Mookhey said it was about the 'future of our essential services and the future of our economy', and touted the work of the NSW Labor government until now. 'It is about making sure that we are making the right investments to deliver the world class public services that people will expect, and to make sure that the NSW economy continues to grow so we can lift people's living standards, improve their wages and create jobs,' Mr Mookhey said. 'That's been what this budget has been about, and the reason why we can now make these investments is because we've made real progress in stabilising the state's finances. 'We've inherited a $15bn deficit, which we've made good progress in turning around. We can report now for the first time in years, the NSW government is back into cash surplus. 'We can say that the debt is stabilising. We've kept our promise to keep debt at below $187bn at this point in time. So, that gives us that platform for more progress.' The budget comes after the Western Australian budget on Thursday reported a $2.5bn surplus off the back of a 2018 deal that gave it an guaranteed share of the country's GST carve-up. Mr Mookhey previously said he would advocate to the Albanese government to reform the tax allocation, which he said cost the state government $12.6bn last year – for which the state was 'still recovering'. 'It's undoubtedly the case that that remains a challenge for NSW, and it doesn't matter whether there's a Labor treasurer or a Liberal treasurer, the state would have to be dealing with that. 'Which is why I am glad that here in NSW, we do have bipartisanship about the need for GST reform. 'But, in arguing for NSW's position, I don't talk down any other states and I accept the fact that every state will always argue for what they consider to be their interest. 'I'm simply saying that there's a simpler system, that more predictable system, a more certain system that is available, and we'll continue to argue our case for change.'
