This week's actions were bizarre. But the Nationals are built a little different
If the decision of the National Party to leave the Coalition seems perplexing, the party's decision to restart negotiations with the Liberal Party a few days later is bizarre.
Throughout Australian political history, there have been many minor parties which have contested federal elections but only a very small number of them have ever won seats in parliament.
The National Party, however, has been different. Thanks to its capacity to win the support of voters in rural and regional electorates across Queensland, NSW and Victoria, it has been able to win seats in the House of Representatives with a very small national vote.
To demonstrate the resilience of the National Party, and how it overachieves in electoral contests, consider the 2025 election results. The Greens won 12.2 per cent of the primary vote in the House of Representatives. This netted them a total of just one seat.
The Nationals, on the other hand, achieved a primary vote of 3.8 per cent yet won nine seats.
In fact, the party's primary vote went up slightly compared to the 2022 election and it lost just one seat (Calare), which was won by Andrew Gee who had previously been elected as a National but contested this election as an independent.
The Nationals have also made the most of their opportunities when the Coalition has been in government. The party held ministerial positions, something other minor parties in the post-war period have been unable to do.
Aside from the deputy prime ministership, the Coalition agreement meant the party also held portfolios relevant to their constituency, including primary industries.
While the Coalition between the two parties has been resilient, there has been no shortage of those within the Nationals who have been sceptical of remaining united with the Liberal Party.
In one of the most famous instances of where this came to a head was in 1987 when the then Queensland premier and leader of the National Party, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, ran a campaign to become prime minister.
The Coalition lost the 1987 election and made it very easy for Labor prime ,inister Bob Hawke to argue that the Coalition was not ready for government. Hawke used the simple, yet devastating, line "that if you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country" ahead of the 1990 poll which the Coalition also lost.
Since then, the National Party has faced powerful challengers appealing to similar constituencies, including Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party and the Katter Australia Party yet has remained in positions of power that neither challenger has ever experienced.
The National Party's initial decision to leave the Coalition was not unanimous and breaking away from the Liberal Party could be risky. There were already reports about the party losing valuable staff and resources if they left the Coalition.
But there may also be some very important benefits for the Nationals to go it alone.
A break from the Coalition will allow the National Party to determine its policy direction. The party has seemingly conflicted with the more progressive-oriented Liberal MPs on a range of issues.
In recent years, there have been tensions on the topic of same sex marriage, and some Nationals have appeared to support Donald Trump's recognition of only two sexes.
The Liberal Party's hesitation to commit to nuclear energy in the future is also a sore point as does its unwillingness to support divesture laws.
Having some time apart will allow the Nationals to reconnect with their constituents and members.
Reports about the National Party demanding the capacity to be in the shadow cabinet but then speak out against it when it suited them was troublesome.
The Westminster convention of cabinet solidarity is about keeping governments accountable as a whole, and that a minister must resign or be dismissed by the PM if they publicly disagree with the decisions of their colleagues. Similar principles would be expected for the opposition.
Politically, it would have been fraught with danger for Sussan Ley, as leader of the opposition, to have one eye on National Party shadow ministers in the hope they did not publicly condemn the decisions of the alternative government.
READ MORE:
Such a situation would have made it too easy for the Albanese government to argue that the opposition was divided and not ready for government.
Australian political history demonstrates that Labor benefits when the Coalition is misfiring. With Labor's massive victory in 2025, the Coalition parties cannot afford to show any divisions.
Having a leaky shadow cabinet with publicly visible divisions over policy would be more damaging for both Coalition parties at this stage than if they were to have a bit of time apart to get their houses in order.
The initial decision for the National Party to break out of the Coalition doesn't seem like a perplexing decision after all.
If the decision of the National Party to leave the Coalition seems perplexing, the party's decision to restart negotiations with the Liberal Party a few days later is bizarre.
Throughout Australian political history, there have been many minor parties which have contested federal elections but only a very small number of them have ever won seats in parliament.
The National Party, however, has been different. Thanks to its capacity to win the support of voters in rural and regional electorates across Queensland, NSW and Victoria, it has been able to win seats in the House of Representatives with a very small national vote.
To demonstrate the resilience of the National Party, and how it overachieves in electoral contests, consider the 2025 election results. The Greens won 12.2 per cent of the primary vote in the House of Representatives. This netted them a total of just one seat.
The Nationals, on the other hand, achieved a primary vote of 3.8 per cent yet won nine seats.
In fact, the party's primary vote went up slightly compared to the 2022 election and it lost just one seat (Calare), which was won by Andrew Gee who had previously been elected as a National but contested this election as an independent.
The Nationals have also made the most of their opportunities when the Coalition has been in government. The party held ministerial positions, something other minor parties in the post-war period have been unable to do.
Aside from the deputy prime ministership, the Coalition agreement meant the party also held portfolios relevant to their constituency, including primary industries.
While the Coalition between the two parties has been resilient, there has been no shortage of those within the Nationals who have been sceptical of remaining united with the Liberal Party.
In one of the most famous instances of where this came to a head was in 1987 when the then Queensland premier and leader of the National Party, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, ran a campaign to become prime minister.
The Coalition lost the 1987 election and made it very easy for Labor prime ,inister Bob Hawke to argue that the Coalition was not ready for government. Hawke used the simple, yet devastating, line "that if you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country" ahead of the 1990 poll which the Coalition also lost.
Since then, the National Party has faced powerful challengers appealing to similar constituencies, including Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party and the Katter Australia Party yet has remained in positions of power that neither challenger has ever experienced.
The National Party's initial decision to leave the Coalition was not unanimous and breaking away from the Liberal Party could be risky. There were already reports about the party losing valuable staff and resources if they left the Coalition.
But there may also be some very important benefits for the Nationals to go it alone.
A break from the Coalition will allow the National Party to determine its policy direction. The party has seemingly conflicted with the more progressive-oriented Liberal MPs on a range of issues.
In recent years, there have been tensions on the topic of same sex marriage, and some Nationals have appeared to support Donald Trump's recognition of only two sexes.
The Liberal Party's hesitation to commit to nuclear energy in the future is also a sore point as does its unwillingness to support divesture laws.
Having some time apart will allow the Nationals to reconnect with their constituents and members.
Reports about the National Party demanding the capacity to be in the shadow cabinet but then speak out against it when it suited them was troublesome.
The Westminster convention of cabinet solidarity is about keeping governments accountable as a whole, and that a minister must resign or be dismissed by the PM if they publicly disagree with the decisions of their colleagues. Similar principles would be expected for the opposition.
Politically, it would have been fraught with danger for Sussan Ley, as leader of the opposition, to have one eye on National Party shadow ministers in the hope they did not publicly condemn the decisions of the alternative government.
READ MORE:
Such a situation would have made it too easy for the Albanese government to argue that the opposition was divided and not ready for government.
Australian political history demonstrates that Labor benefits when the Coalition is misfiring. With Labor's massive victory in 2025, the Coalition parties cannot afford to show any divisions.
Having a leaky shadow cabinet with publicly visible divisions over policy would be more damaging for both Coalition parties at this stage than if they were to have a bit of time apart to get their houses in order.
The initial decision for the National Party to break out of the Coalition doesn't seem like a perplexing decision after all.
If the decision of the National Party to leave the Coalition seems perplexing, the party's decision to restart negotiations with the Liberal Party a few days later is bizarre.
Throughout Australian political history, there have been many minor parties which have contested federal elections but only a very small number of them have ever won seats in parliament.
The National Party, however, has been different. Thanks to its capacity to win the support of voters in rural and regional electorates across Queensland, NSW and Victoria, it has been able to win seats in the House of Representatives with a very small national vote.
To demonstrate the resilience of the National Party, and how it overachieves in electoral contests, consider the 2025 election results. The Greens won 12.2 per cent of the primary vote in the House of Representatives. This netted them a total of just one seat.
The Nationals, on the other hand, achieved a primary vote of 3.8 per cent yet won nine seats.
In fact, the party's primary vote went up slightly compared to the 2022 election and it lost just one seat (Calare), which was won by Andrew Gee who had previously been elected as a National but contested this election as an independent.
The Nationals have also made the most of their opportunities when the Coalition has been in government. The party held ministerial positions, something other minor parties in the post-war period have been unable to do.
Aside from the deputy prime ministership, the Coalition agreement meant the party also held portfolios relevant to their constituency, including primary industries.
While the Coalition between the two parties has been resilient, there has been no shortage of those within the Nationals who have been sceptical of remaining united with the Liberal Party.
In one of the most famous instances of where this came to a head was in 1987 when the then Queensland premier and leader of the National Party, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, ran a campaign to become prime minister.
The Coalition lost the 1987 election and made it very easy for Labor prime ,inister Bob Hawke to argue that the Coalition was not ready for government. Hawke used the simple, yet devastating, line "that if you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country" ahead of the 1990 poll which the Coalition also lost.
Since then, the National Party has faced powerful challengers appealing to similar constituencies, including Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party and the Katter Australia Party yet has remained in positions of power that neither challenger has ever experienced.
The National Party's initial decision to leave the Coalition was not unanimous and breaking away from the Liberal Party could be risky. There were already reports about the party losing valuable staff and resources if they left the Coalition.
But there may also be some very important benefits for the Nationals to go it alone.
A break from the Coalition will allow the National Party to determine its policy direction. The party has seemingly conflicted with the more progressive-oriented Liberal MPs on a range of issues.
In recent years, there have been tensions on the topic of same sex marriage, and some Nationals have appeared to support Donald Trump's recognition of only two sexes.
The Liberal Party's hesitation to commit to nuclear energy in the future is also a sore point as does its unwillingness to support divesture laws.
Having some time apart will allow the Nationals to reconnect with their constituents and members.
Reports about the National Party demanding the capacity to be in the shadow cabinet but then speak out against it when it suited them was troublesome.
The Westminster convention of cabinet solidarity is about keeping governments accountable as a whole, and that a minister must resign or be dismissed by the PM if they publicly disagree with the decisions of their colleagues. Similar principles would be expected for the opposition.
Politically, it would have been fraught with danger for Sussan Ley, as leader of the opposition, to have one eye on National Party shadow ministers in the hope they did not publicly condemn the decisions of the alternative government.
READ MORE:
Such a situation would have made it too easy for the Albanese government to argue that the opposition was divided and not ready for government.
Australian political history demonstrates that Labor benefits when the Coalition is misfiring. With Labor's massive victory in 2025, the Coalition parties cannot afford to show any divisions.
Having a leaky shadow cabinet with publicly visible divisions over policy would be more damaging for both Coalition parties at this stage than if they were to have a bit of time apart to get their houses in order.
The initial decision for the National Party to break out of the Coalition doesn't seem like a perplexing decision after all.
If the decision of the National Party to leave the Coalition seems perplexing, the party's decision to restart negotiations with the Liberal Party a few days later is bizarre.
Throughout Australian political history, there have been many minor parties which have contested federal elections but only a very small number of them have ever won seats in parliament.
The National Party, however, has been different. Thanks to its capacity to win the support of voters in rural and regional electorates across Queensland, NSW and Victoria, it has been able to win seats in the House of Representatives with a very small national vote.
To demonstrate the resilience of the National Party, and how it overachieves in electoral contests, consider the 2025 election results. The Greens won 12.2 per cent of the primary vote in the House of Representatives. This netted them a total of just one seat.
The Nationals, on the other hand, achieved a primary vote of 3.8 per cent yet won nine seats.
In fact, the party's primary vote went up slightly compared to the 2022 election and it lost just one seat (Calare), which was won by Andrew Gee who had previously been elected as a National but contested this election as an independent.
The Nationals have also made the most of their opportunities when the Coalition has been in government. The party held ministerial positions, something other minor parties in the post-war period have been unable to do.
Aside from the deputy prime ministership, the Coalition agreement meant the party also held portfolios relevant to their constituency, including primary industries.
While the Coalition between the two parties has been resilient, there has been no shortage of those within the Nationals who have been sceptical of remaining united with the Liberal Party.
In one of the most famous instances of where this came to a head was in 1987 when the then Queensland premier and leader of the National Party, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, ran a campaign to become prime minister.
The Coalition lost the 1987 election and made it very easy for Labor prime ,inister Bob Hawke to argue that the Coalition was not ready for government. Hawke used the simple, yet devastating, line "that if you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country" ahead of the 1990 poll which the Coalition also lost.
Since then, the National Party has faced powerful challengers appealing to similar constituencies, including Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party and the Katter Australia Party yet has remained in positions of power that neither challenger has ever experienced.
The National Party's initial decision to leave the Coalition was not unanimous and breaking away from the Liberal Party could be risky. There were already reports about the party losing valuable staff and resources if they left the Coalition.
But there may also be some very important benefits for the Nationals to go it alone.
A break from the Coalition will allow the National Party to determine its policy direction. The party has seemingly conflicted with the more progressive-oriented Liberal MPs on a range of issues.
In recent years, there have been tensions on the topic of same sex marriage, and some Nationals have appeared to support Donald Trump's recognition of only two sexes.
The Liberal Party's hesitation to commit to nuclear energy in the future is also a sore point as does its unwillingness to support divesture laws.
Having some time apart will allow the Nationals to reconnect with their constituents and members.
Reports about the National Party demanding the capacity to be in the shadow cabinet but then speak out against it when it suited them was troublesome.
The Westminster convention of cabinet solidarity is about keeping governments accountable as a whole, and that a minister must resign or be dismissed by the PM if they publicly disagree with the decisions of their colleagues. Similar principles would be expected for the opposition.
Politically, it would have been fraught with danger for Sussan Ley, as leader of the opposition, to have one eye on National Party shadow ministers in the hope they did not publicly condemn the decisions of the alternative government.
READ MORE:
Such a situation would have made it too easy for the Albanese government to argue that the opposition was divided and not ready for government.
Australian political history demonstrates that Labor benefits when the Coalition is misfiring. With Labor's massive victory in 2025, the Coalition parties cannot afford to show any divisions.
Having a leaky shadow cabinet with publicly visible divisions over policy would be more damaging for both Coalition parties at this stage than if they were to have a bit of time apart to get their houses in order.
The initial decision for the National Party to break out of the Coalition doesn't seem like a perplexing decision after all.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Trump's military parade is out of step with reality
I was staggered by the sight of Donald Trump saluting the US military as they passed him in a parade supposedly celebrating the US armed forces (' Trump celebrates birthday with grand military parade ', June 14). The hypocrisy of a person who avoided the Vietnam War draft when his father got some dodgy doctor to say Donald had 'heel spurs' is remarkable. Trump's hide in even turning up for this parade, in my mind, was the ultimate insult to American servicemen and women. This is the person who stood in an American war cemetery above the D-Day beaches and called those buried there 'losers and suckers'. Perhaps the fact that so many of the marching troops were hopelessly out of step as they passed Trump was their way of protesting. Kevin Farrell, Beelbangera As a retired Australian serviceman who served in Vietnam alongside the US forces, may I say how disgusted I was by the so-called 'parade' of current US Army troops 'marching' in Washington today. I have never seen a worse, more dejected, poorly trained, slump-shouldered group, except perhaps a gang of condemned prisoners. They were a disgrace to themselves and their country. On the other hand, I salute the people of LA and other US cities who are refusing to kowtow to the dictator in the White House. If they overcome the current tyranny, perhaps the US can again claim to be 'the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave'. Ian Usman Lewis, Armidale Perhaps some more billions could have been spent to get the troops to march in step. The armies of Russia, China and North Korea will play repeats of Trump's parade to display the lack of discipline in the 'Great Marines'. I imagine that even top UK regiments will replace the breakfast News with this show as entertainment ahead of the magnificent parades for King Charles. Wolf Kempa, Lithgow The United States may have military capabilities that far outweigh the potential of 'little Britain', but a comparison of their foot soldiers reveals a significant difference. At the weekend, television images of the Washington parade showed American soldiers sauntering along as if they were out for an afternoon stroll, while images of a parade in London showcased the UK military's discipline and precision. Perhaps Trump's lack of discipline is being reflected in the nation's military. Derrick Mason, Boorowa He managed to avoid service himself but presided over a parade in which soldiers appeared to be strolling casually down Constitution Avenue. The same man recently set military forces against his own citizens. Meanwhile, a world-threatening situation has developed in the Middle East. Something is not quite right here. Bill Forbes, Medowie Trump's military parade is, I think, a poor imitation of those by dictators Putin, Kim, Hitler and Mussolini. John Harris, Goulburn Point-scoring fails Does Angus Taylor really believe that if a meeting between Anthony Albanese and Trump does not occur at the G7 it will be the fault of Albanese and not the capriciousness and malignity of Trump (' Taylor targets Albanese over Trump meeting', June 14)? The Liberal Party will not recover when point scoring is prioritised over truth. Salvatore Sorbello, Campsie Coalition parliamentarians are everywhere in the 'old' media of late. Doesn't anybody else want to be interviewed? They have been delivering loud opinions on everything and anything, enough to make you think they are in government. They're not. Ninety-four Labor seats say so. Labor won by shifting away from traditional media outlets to talk to a different crowd. Political interviews from Coalition has-beens are irrelevant, hence the demise of many political panel shows. Wendy Atkins, Cooks Hill Nuclear balance sheet Israel has between 90 and 400 nuclear warheads. The actual number is uncertain due a lack of transparency by the Israeli state (' Israel strikes Iran nuclear facilities ', June 14). This is a deliberate policy of nuclear ambiguity by Israel, something no other nation is allowed to get away with. The country has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The US has never formally acknowledged the existence of Israel's nuclear weapons, allowing it to keep supplying arms and aid to Israel. Yet despite the world knowing of Israel's arsenal, Israel refuses to countenance Iran possessing such weapons, describing them as an existential threat. Whatever our views of Israel or Iran, the question of why it is considered acceptable for one nation to possess nuclear weapons but not another needs urgent examining in light of Israel's latest air strikes on Iran. Judy Hungerford, Kew (Vic) It's difficult to comprehend the reason for Israel's attacks. The country has between 90 and 400 nuclear weapons, produced in its nuclear facilities in Dimona since the late 1960s. However, it consistently attacks Iran's nuclear facilities although Iran does not have a single nuclear weapon. This maintains a major strategic imbalance of power in the Middle East. The balance of power in the West arose from both US and the Soviet Union having roughly equal numbers of nuclear weapons. Israel has also refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, putting it at odds with other nuclear powers in the West and the Indian subcontinent. Martin Walton, Upper Kedron (Qld) With backing from the US, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues a devastating assault on Gaza. Now US President Donald Trump, frustrated by the lack of progress in talks with Iran, has turned to Netanyahu as a proxy, unleashing strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. These attacks have killed a number of Iranian nuclear scientists and military commanders. Iran obviously had no option but to strike back. This is a dangerous escalation with far-reaching consequences. If regional powers join in, the conflict could quickly morph into a broader and uncontrollable crisis in the Middle East and beyond. For the sake of the world, let us hope sane decisions will prevail to de-escalate this dangerous situation. Bipin Johri, Epping Israel's excuse for attacking Iran is a bit rich. It has told the world that Iran is ready to launch nuclear warheads, despite the US director of national intelligence telling the Senate in March 2025 that the US intelligence community had assessed that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program. This has all the hallmarks of George W. Bush's weapons of mass destruction lie, which started the Iraqi war in 2003. Western nations, including Australia, should demand Israel stops attacking countries on rumours and innuendo and start providing verifiable evidence. It seems to me that Iran has every right to demand nuclear weapons to stop Israel attacking it with no evidence. John Rome, Mt Lawley (WA) We are assured that our embassy staff in Tel Aviv and Tehran are safe, or as safe as can be with rockets raining down. Which begs the question of why they are there at all. Why are our diplomats put at risk in Iran, a known supporter of terrorists, and Israel, which is currently committing atrocities against Palestinian civilians? Their withdrawal would send a strong message of Australian dissent. Stephanie Edwards, Leichhardt Here we go again: the world's ego-tripping military, political and religious leaders are getting their jollies around the war tables by sending more death and destruction to the citizens of this planet. Isn't it time they paid a high price for their insane prejudices, dogmas and actions? We have to find a way to neutralise these rogues before their murderous agendas are played out. Dave Watts, Avalon Why does Israel not allow any international news agencies into Gaza? That's a clear sign that they're breaking international laws. Vera Yee, Waverton Fighting words Perhaps the most significant sentence in all the thousands that have been written about AUKUS and our foreign policy agenda is contained in Peter Hartcher's piece (' To defend itself, Australia mustn't kowtow to its rivals. Or its allies ', June 14) – 'with or without AUKUS, Australia's priority should be to prepare itself to stand on its own'. Peter Thomas, Rose Bay Actually, Peter Hartcher (and other dreamers), I'm sure what most Australians want the PM to do in any defence-spending chats is to stop swaggering, as in, 'we'll spend what we see fit on defence, not what another country tells us to spend'. That's all fine and dandy if you're holding the whip hand, but not very smart when you're requesting a guarantee on a possible need for future defence support. When the ally you want at the party spends $997 billion a year on defence, while you're spending about $53 billion, it's best to have your cap somewhere near your hand. It's called a facing reality moment. Rosemary O'Brien, Ashfield Defence procurement by successive governments of Australia has been abysmal (' AUKUS is a disaster for Australia. Trump has given us an out – let's take it ', June 13). Second-hand Abrams tanks, Sea King helicopters, clunking submarines, all of which never fired an angry shot even when at war in Afghanistan. The Hunter-class frigate program is seven years behind schedule and has limited firepower. We now have the ludicrous purchase of second-hand nuclear-powered submarines, which may never eventuate but if they do will probably be superseded by drone technology in the air and sea. If we wish to build our defences quickly, we should look towards Europe and Japan for reliable supply, on time and on budget. Greg Thomas, Annandale Despite our ridicule, perhaps Trump is a master negotiator. His tariffs cause world chaos, and nations flock to appease him. He rattles our cage with a shallow AUKUS review, and we rush to sweeten the deal to support his 'America First' agenda. Peter Hill, East Ballina In an increasingly volatile world, young Australians are urged to choose a career in our armed forces. Wouldn't it be more proactive, and make more sense, to urge a career in our diplomatic corps? John Black, Anna Bay Glover's pick-me-up Richard Glover's column in Spectrum was just what the doctor ordered (' I had a car accident the other day. It couldn't have gone any better ', June 13). I picked up the paper this weekend thinking 'I find it too hard to read the paper now, always bad news about wars.' Then I read Richard's column and it brightened up my day. So thank you, Richard. Roslynne Hunt, Riverview While I am a devout follower of Richard Glover (and Clancy), I must take issue with a few words in Richard's latest column that 'we tend to think crime is getting worse when the opposite is true'. I think, Richard, you might have fallen into one of the holes Clancy has dug in your backyard if you really believe this. While I, too, thankfully have had many of the positive experiences with other people that you have mentioned, crime is most definitely increasing and becoming more violent in our country. We would be foolish to take our eyes off Clancy's ball and believe otherwise (as much as I would like to). Christine Helby, Forbes As each day brings the world closer to going to hell in a handbasket, I find a smile on my face and a renewed pleasure in life on reading Richard Glover's column, and Saturday's was no exception. Thank you, Richard, and please keep writing. Kathryn Lai, Heathcote Old gold Listen up ABC, you belong to the older generation. Forget trying to entice the really young ones; they have plenty to choose from on the internet. You don't do funny well, so forget trying to amuse us with spelling bees and silly game shows. We like your newsreaders, sensible commentary, 7.30 and the National Press Club coverage. We love the restoration shows, wildlife and Landline. We like old-fashioned sitcoms. The Piano was lovely, so well done. How about the odd symphony concert or some fabulous jazz? Oh, to have another Michael Parkinson. Please find one. We like to feel some things stay the same when the world is on fire and crashing about our ears. Stay with what you do well. You must know it keeps us sane. Jill Power, Narrabeen Nice work Riches abound as a contractor for government bodies (' Manning tells ICAC he ought to have disclosed friendship', June 14). One contractor was paid $1920 a day just to review the school building procurement policy. Poor old PM Albo only gets $1608 a day. Rather than focus on individuals, a review of the hiring policy for contractors would serve us better. It seems the frequent calls by governments to cut back-room public service jobs was unwise. Who'd have thought? Paul Doyle, Glenbrook Funny money The cartoon with Millie Muroi's article about 'good debt' and 'bad debt' sums it up best (' Canberra can print more money – so, why can't it keep borrowing? ', June 14). If government buys current account items, they must be paid for through taxation – that's good fiscal policy. It's also good fiscal policy to borrow funds to spend on useful things, such as essential infrastructure and durable assets. This century, Commonwealth net debt has burgeoned from zero to a rather gigantic sum, and regrettably there's not much to show for it. Borrowing by printing money is a banana republic approach that relies on inflation to bring debt ratios under control. Already the government benefits from our wishy-washy 2 to 3 per cent a year target for inflation. The Swiss reckon they can keep it no higher than 1 per cent a year. Mike Bush, Port Macquarie Oceans of hope Thank you, Caitlin Fitzsimmons (' The simple fixes that have saved the lives of sea lions and turtles', 14 June) for drawing attention to David Attenborough's documentary Ocean, arguably his most powerful production in his nearly 100 years on earth, in terms of the triumph of hope over despair at the destructive power of us humans. It is to be hoped Environment Minister Murray Watt, who attended the UN Oceans Conference in Paris last week, had viewed the never-before-seen footage of bottom-trawling techniques, which surely would have given him impetus to legislate for more sustainable seafood-harvesting globally and stem the terrible tide of industrial fishing. Undoubtedly, Attenborough himself would agree with Fitzsimmons – simple fixes can save marine life. Joy Nason, Mona Vale True childcare reform It's encouraging to see debate about how we improve access to early childhood education and care (' I'm a working mum. Here's why I oppose Labor's universal childcare', June 13) . But let's be clear, the Productivity Commission's report did not model the most compelling version of universal reform being proposed. It didn't consider what would happen if quality early learning was made free for low-income families, with a fixed daily fee for everyone else – a model backed by economists and educators. That omission underestimates the equity and economic benefits of reform. The commission also failed to account for the productivity gains of creating access where early education simply doesn't exist. One in four Australians lives in a childcare desert. For these families, there is no choice to make – care isn't available, no matter their budget or work preferences. Universal early learning means families that need it can depend on it being there. That reliability is a critical piece of our economic and social infrastructure. When early education costs more than $150 a day, the idea of 'choice' is a mirage for many families. Denying mothers the opportunity of paid work denies them the chance to build economic security, independence and stability. A fair, universal model would unlock genuine choices and deliver benefits for children, families and the broader economy. Georgie Dent, CEO, The Parenthood
West Australian
4 hours ago
- West Australian
Amazon mega deal underscores economic relationship with US, minister says
Amazon's $20bn investment into Australian data centre infrastructure underscores the economic relationship with the US ahead of Anthony Albanese's first face-to-face with Donald Trump, Labor's industry tsar says. The Prime Minister announced the mega deal with Amazon at the tech giant's headquarters in Seattle overnight. Speaking to media, Mr Albanese also said he and the US President had 'scheduled' a meeting on the sidelines of the G7 in Canada after Mr Trump confirmed he would attend the summit. Pressure has been mounting on Mr Albanese to secure a carve out from sweeping US tariffs and shore up Washington's support for AUKUS after the Trump administration launched a review of the $368bn defence pact. Industry and Innovation Minister Tim Ayres said on Sunday the deal was 'not designed' to send a message to Mr Trump but that 'it certainly does underscore the depth of the economic and strategic and technological relationship' with the US. 'It's not just about trading in goods and services,' Senator Ayres told Sky News. 'It's about collaboration around science and research and development and in industrial terms.' He singled out AUKUS as 'offering opportunities for Australian and United States firms … to invest in each other's economy', highlighting it as 'a real counterpoint to the position that the United States has adopted around tariff announcements'. 'They are not the act of a friend, as has been said repeatedly by me and my colleagues,' Senator Ayres said. 'They are not in Australia's interest, but they're not in the United States' interest either. 'Australian steel, for example, exported to the United States, feeds into American supply chains and supports competitive industry that provides good jobs for American workers. 'Why on Earth would anybody want to make Australian steel in the United States more expensive? 'That's what the tariff measures do.' He said Mr Albanese would be putting that 'position directly to the President of the United States' when they meet next week. 'But the Amazon announcement does underscore how vital the direct economic relationship really is,' Senator Ayres said. At his Seattle press conference announcing the deal, Mr Albanese said he would raise tariffs and AUKUS with Mr Trump. Though he stopped short of saying the Amazon announcement was a message to the US leader. 'The US (Free Trade Agreement) has been important,' Mr Albanese told reporters. 'It's enjoyed bipartisan support in Australia and indeed in the United States. 'And so we welcome very much American investment in Australia.' He added it was 'important to recognise as well that the United States has a two for one surplus when it comes to the trading relationship in not just in goods, but in services as well'. 'And we want to grow the economic relationship between our two countries,' Mr Albanese said. 'And I'm sure that when I have the opportunity to have discussions with President Trump, we will speak about the important economic relationship between our two countries, which is in the interests of both Australia and the United States.' Under the deal, Amazon has committed to pumping cash into developing data centres in Melbourne and Sydney over the next five years, focusing on storage, networking, analytics, and secure services supporting cloud and AI. The firm will build renewable energy sources to support its operations. Speaking alongside Mr Albanese, Amazon Web Services chief executive Matt Garman dismissed concerns Australia's grid lacked the power needed for AI. 'I think definitely the explosion of AI requires a lot of power, so that's one of the things we're thinking about,' Mr Garman told reporters. 'I think here in the United States, we see nuclear as part of that portfolio. 'Our investments in Australia are wind and solar, but I think depending on the local setup and economies and other things, it's a global question, but there's no question that we will continue to need more and more power going forward.'
Perth Now
4 hours ago
- Perth Now
Albo's $20bn boon ahead of Trump meet
Amazon's $20bn investment into Australian data centre infrastructure underscores the economic relationship with the US ahead of Anthony Albanese's first face-to-face with Donald Trump, Labor's industry tsar says. The Prime Minister announced the mega deal with Amazon at the tech giant's headquarters in Seattle overnight. Speaking to media, Mr Albanese also said he and the US President had 'scheduled' a meeting on the sidelines of the G7 in Canada after Mr Trump confirmed he would attend the summit. Pressure has been mounting on Mr Albanese to secure a carve out from sweeping US tariffs and shore up Washington's support for AUKUS after the Trump administration launched a review of the $368bn defence pact. Industry and Innovation Minister Tim Ayres said on Sunday the deal was 'not designed' to send a message to Mr Trump but that 'it certainly does underscore the depth of the economic and strategic and technological relationship' with the US. Industry and Innovation Minister Tim Ayres says Amazon's $20bn investment underscores Australia's economic relationship with the US. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia 'It's not just about trading in goods and services,' Senator Ayres told Sky News. 'It's about collaboration around science and research and development and in industrial terms.' He singled out AUKUS as 'offering opportunities for Australian and United States firms … to invest in each other's economy', highlighting it as 'a real counterpoint to the position that the United States has adopted around tariff announcements'. 'They are not the act of a friend, as has been said repeatedly by me and my colleagues,' Senator Ayres said. 'They are not in Australia's interest, but they're not in the United States' interest either. 'Australian steel, for example, exported to the United States, feeds into American supply chains and supports competitive industry that provides good jobs for American workers. 'Why on Earth would anybody want to make Australian steel in the United States more expensive? 'That's what the tariff measures do.' He said Mr Albanese would be putting that 'position directly to the President of the United States' when they meet next week. 'But the Amazon announcement does underscore how vital the direct economic relationship really is,' Senator Ayres said. At his Seattle press conference announcing the deal, Mr Albanese said he would raise tariffs and AUKUS with Mr Trump. Though he stopped short of saying the Amazon announcement was a message to the US leader. 'The US (Free Trade Agreement) has been important,' Mr Albanese told reporters. 'It's enjoyed bipartisan support in Australia and indeed in the United States. 'And so we welcome very much American investment in Australia.' He added it was 'important to recognise as well that the United States has a two for one surplus when it comes to the trading relationship in not just in goods, but in services as well'. 'And we want to grow the economic relationship between our two countries,' Mr Albanese said. 'And I'm sure that when I have the opportunity to have discussions with President Trump, we will speak about the important economic relationship between our two countries, which is in the interests of both Australia and the United States.' Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (left) and Amazon Web Services chief executive Matt Garman (right) announced the data centre investment. NewsWire / PMO Credit: News Corp Australia Under the deal, Amazon has committed to pumping cash into developing data centres in Melbourne and Sydney over the next five years, focusing on storage, networking, analytics, and secure services supporting cloud and AI. The firm will build renewable energy sources to support its operations. Speaking alongside Mr Albanese, Amazon Web Services chief executive Matt Garman dismissed concerns Australia's grid lacked the power needed for AI. 'I think definitely the explosion of AI requires a lot of power, so that's one of the things we're thinking about,' Mr Garman told reporters. 'I think here in the United States, we see nuclear as part of that portfolio. 'Our investments in Australia are wind and solar, but I think depending on the local setup and economies and other things, it's a global question, but there's no question that we will continue to need more and more power going forward.'
