Albanese has shied from culture wars. This one waits for him when parliament resumes
A renewed fight over religious freedoms awaits the re-elected Labor government as faith groups and LGBTQ advocates push Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to resolve the thorny issue after he abandoned it last year to avoid culture wars.
Albanese has been reluctant to engage in controversial social debates, but this will be tested when he returns to parliament, as Labor's increased majority raises expectations that the government will use its authority to progress difficult issues such as a Religious Discrimination Act.
A group of 19 religious organisations have sought a meeting with Albanese and Attorney-General Michelle Rowland to escalate their concerns, while equality advocates want Labor to fulfil its promise from the last election to stop discrimination against LGBTQ students and staff in religious schools.
Rowland, who started the role this week, will inherit the task of navigating their demands. Religious freedom laws were first proposed in 2017 but have been delayed for years because both Coalition and Labor governments have been unable to strike a working balance between the rights of religious people and LGBTQ Australians.
Albanese promised to resolve the issue at the 2022 election, and former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus drafted a bill after receiving advice from the Australian Law Reform Commission.
But Albanese shelved it last year because he wanted to avoid divisive debates. While the Greens and progressive crossbenchers offered to work with Labor to push the laws through, Albanese insisted on the Coalition's support, which was not forthcoming and meant shelving the laws.
Loading
A central point of disagreement has been how to treat staff in religious schools, who can be fired over their sexuality, gender identity or pregnancy status under current laws. Equality groups want the rule scrapped, but schools say they must be able to preference faith in staffing decisions.
Faith groups who wrote to Albanese this week said they were grateful he had insisted on a bipartisan approach. 'We agree that a consensus between the two major parties is required to produce 'enduring, unifying' reforms that will provide a 'long-term solution that will advance' the religious freedom rights of all Australians 'in a way that brings Australians together',' they said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Hearing voices: why the Nats should be watching their backs
The community independent movement did not begin in Sydney or Melbourne, but in the bush. It was in the rural Victorian seat of Indi, encompassing Wodonga and Wangaratta, that independent Cathy McGowan was drafted by community group Voices of Indi. In 2013, McGowan delivered the Liberal Party its only loss when she won the formerly safe seat from Sophie Mirabella. The subsequent success of inner city "teals" - community independents like Zali Steggall, Monique Ryan and Kate Chaney - is evidence that Liberal neglect of classical-liberal and metropolitan voters has come back to haunt them. But soul searching is due in the bush as well, particularly among Nationals. So far, they have been criticised for unforced errors (like quitting the Liberal-National Coalition only to rejoin it days later) rather than structural weaknesses, like their preference of mining interests over agricultural ones and their inability to win back seats lost since the 1990s. Conditions are ripe for the Nationals to face challenges from independents on the same scale as those already faced by the Liberals. And while Indi's "Voices of" model of community organising and drafting candidates was an innovation, the country has long been friendly to independents. Father of the House of Representatives Bob Katter is a rural independent, as were Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who negotiated minority government with Julia Gillard in 2010. Windsor and Oakeshott sat in the NSW Parliament before the jump to Commonwealth politics, and today the NSW crossbench boasts 10 independent MPs, mostly from regional and rural parts of the state. Many independent-held NSW seats overlap with federal seats held by Nationals (like Riverina and Parkes) or regional Liberals (like Farrer and Hume). And at the last two federal elections, independent candidates have turned National and Liberal-National seats like Cowper and Groom marginal. There is a perception that the junior National Party has been the tail wagging the dog, with the Liberals taking up the obsessions of National MPs - in particular nuclear energy. And while Coalition Governments dutifully "pork-barrelled" public money for safe regional seats, they neglected apparently safe urban seats held by Liberals. This helps explain why Liberals now hold mostly regional and rural seats, and barely exists in the inner-city. But big spending programs disguise how country interests have become diluted. Being in Coalition with the Liberal Party has weakened the ability of the National Party to advocate forcefully for the interests of those in regional and rural Australia. Famously, former National leader Michael McCormack could not name one time the Nationals had taken the side of farmers over that of miners. Similarly, in the last Coalition government, Nationals spruiked and voted for Scott Morrison's original stage three tax cuts - even though Nationals electorates had the least to gain. When the Albanese Labor government reformed stage three, the biggest winners were Australians living in Nationals seats. Regional and rural areas would benefit from increased public spending on education, health, public transport and infrastructure; all of which are harder to fund after the tax cuts eagerly pursued by Liberal-National governments. They are most at risk from climate change, and bear the brunt of disasters amplified by a warming earth. Independents like Cathy McGowan, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have recognised this, as have those running in more recent elections like Helen Haines. It is true that the Nationals still hold about as many lower house seats today as they did at the height of the Howard Coalition Government, and many are still nominally safe seats. But in recent elections, both Liberal and Labor Party MPs have learned the hard way that there is no such thing as a safe seat against the right challenger. Australia Institute research shows Australians are unique among Western democracies in their willingness to elect independents. Regional challengers to the major parties will not be cut from the same cloth as community independents in the cities, the so-called "teals". Regional and rural Australians have responded to somewhat different arguments, from somewhat different candidates. We could call these candidates "tans" - from the colour of their pants, and because it is "Nat" in reverse. Of course, none of this is predestined - nor was the Liberal Party doomed to veer to the right and leave behind moderate and classically liberal voters. These are the result of choices made by voters, by party rank-and-file and by elected representatives. A couple of weeks ago, the Nationals made a choice - to quit the Coalition - which suggested a willingness to rethink the old saws. Unfortunately, the reason was not to give the Nationals freedom to consider new ways of representing the country, but to allow them to hold onto failed policies like nuclear power. These policies failed to resonate with voters. And the united front of Liberals and Nationals held back rural candidates. Mia Davies, former leader of the WA Nationals (a more independently minded branch than those in NSW or Victoria) and a candidate in the federal election, thought her job was made harder by the opposition of Liberal shadow ministers to Labor's resources production tax credit scheme. READ MORE: What Angus Taylor called "billions for billionaires", Davies called "good policy". But Davies was a rare Coalition candidate who went against the party line. The effect is a decimated Liberal-National Coalition. And while it is mostly the Liberals who have lost seats, the Nationals have re-attached to the Coalition, which means their future relevance depends on the Liberals recovering 30-odd seats, and the Nationals winning a couple themselves off Labor - something the Nationals haven't managed to do since 2013. Once, National candidates could promise their electorate a voice in the government. With that looking a long way away, it is now independent and minor party candidates who can promise relevance: starting national debates, probing the government in question time and perhaps being at the heart of negotiations in the event of a future power-sharing Parliament. If the Nats are not interested in serving the interests of those in rural and regional Australia, they will find no shortage of "tans" willing to throw their Akubras in the ring. The community independent movement did not begin in Sydney or Melbourne, but in the bush. It was in the rural Victorian seat of Indi, encompassing Wodonga and Wangaratta, that independent Cathy McGowan was drafted by community group Voices of Indi. In 2013, McGowan delivered the Liberal Party its only loss when she won the formerly safe seat from Sophie Mirabella. The subsequent success of inner city "teals" - community independents like Zali Steggall, Monique Ryan and Kate Chaney - is evidence that Liberal neglect of classical-liberal and metropolitan voters has come back to haunt them. But soul searching is due in the bush as well, particularly among Nationals. So far, they have been criticised for unforced errors (like quitting the Liberal-National Coalition only to rejoin it days later) rather than structural weaknesses, like their preference of mining interests over agricultural ones and their inability to win back seats lost since the 1990s. Conditions are ripe for the Nationals to face challenges from independents on the same scale as those already faced by the Liberals. And while Indi's "Voices of" model of community organising and drafting candidates was an innovation, the country has long been friendly to independents. Father of the House of Representatives Bob Katter is a rural independent, as were Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who negotiated minority government with Julia Gillard in 2010. Windsor and Oakeshott sat in the NSW Parliament before the jump to Commonwealth politics, and today the NSW crossbench boasts 10 independent MPs, mostly from regional and rural parts of the state. Many independent-held NSW seats overlap with federal seats held by Nationals (like Riverina and Parkes) or regional Liberals (like Farrer and Hume). And at the last two federal elections, independent candidates have turned National and Liberal-National seats like Cowper and Groom marginal. There is a perception that the junior National Party has been the tail wagging the dog, with the Liberals taking up the obsessions of National MPs - in particular nuclear energy. And while Coalition Governments dutifully "pork-barrelled" public money for safe regional seats, they neglected apparently safe urban seats held by Liberals. This helps explain why Liberals now hold mostly regional and rural seats, and barely exists in the inner-city. But big spending programs disguise how country interests have become diluted. Being in Coalition with the Liberal Party has weakened the ability of the National Party to advocate forcefully for the interests of those in regional and rural Australia. Famously, former National leader Michael McCormack could not name one time the Nationals had taken the side of farmers over that of miners. Similarly, in the last Coalition government, Nationals spruiked and voted for Scott Morrison's original stage three tax cuts - even though Nationals electorates had the least to gain. When the Albanese Labor government reformed stage three, the biggest winners were Australians living in Nationals seats. Regional and rural areas would benefit from increased public spending on education, health, public transport and infrastructure; all of which are harder to fund after the tax cuts eagerly pursued by Liberal-National governments. They are most at risk from climate change, and bear the brunt of disasters amplified by a warming earth. Independents like Cathy McGowan, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have recognised this, as have those running in more recent elections like Helen Haines. It is true that the Nationals still hold about as many lower house seats today as they did at the height of the Howard Coalition Government, and many are still nominally safe seats. But in recent elections, both Liberal and Labor Party MPs have learned the hard way that there is no such thing as a safe seat against the right challenger. Australia Institute research shows Australians are unique among Western democracies in their willingness to elect independents. Regional challengers to the major parties will not be cut from the same cloth as community independents in the cities, the so-called "teals". Regional and rural Australians have responded to somewhat different arguments, from somewhat different candidates. We could call these candidates "tans" - from the colour of their pants, and because it is "Nat" in reverse. Of course, none of this is predestined - nor was the Liberal Party doomed to veer to the right and leave behind moderate and classically liberal voters. These are the result of choices made by voters, by party rank-and-file and by elected representatives. A couple of weeks ago, the Nationals made a choice - to quit the Coalition - which suggested a willingness to rethink the old saws. Unfortunately, the reason was not to give the Nationals freedom to consider new ways of representing the country, but to allow them to hold onto failed policies like nuclear power. These policies failed to resonate with voters. And the united front of Liberals and Nationals held back rural candidates. Mia Davies, former leader of the WA Nationals (a more independently minded branch than those in NSW or Victoria) and a candidate in the federal election, thought her job was made harder by the opposition of Liberal shadow ministers to Labor's resources production tax credit scheme. READ MORE: What Angus Taylor called "billions for billionaires", Davies called "good policy". But Davies was a rare Coalition candidate who went against the party line. The effect is a decimated Liberal-National Coalition. And while it is mostly the Liberals who have lost seats, the Nationals have re-attached to the Coalition, which means their future relevance depends on the Liberals recovering 30-odd seats, and the Nationals winning a couple themselves off Labor - something the Nationals haven't managed to do since 2013. Once, National candidates could promise their electorate a voice in the government. With that looking a long way away, it is now independent and minor party candidates who can promise relevance: starting national debates, probing the government in question time and perhaps being at the heart of negotiations in the event of a future power-sharing Parliament. If the Nats are not interested in serving the interests of those in rural and regional Australia, they will find no shortage of "tans" willing to throw their Akubras in the ring. The community independent movement did not begin in Sydney or Melbourne, but in the bush. It was in the rural Victorian seat of Indi, encompassing Wodonga and Wangaratta, that independent Cathy McGowan was drafted by community group Voices of Indi. In 2013, McGowan delivered the Liberal Party its only loss when she won the formerly safe seat from Sophie Mirabella. The subsequent success of inner city "teals" - community independents like Zali Steggall, Monique Ryan and Kate Chaney - is evidence that Liberal neglect of classical-liberal and metropolitan voters has come back to haunt them. But soul searching is due in the bush as well, particularly among Nationals. So far, they have been criticised for unforced errors (like quitting the Liberal-National Coalition only to rejoin it days later) rather than structural weaknesses, like their preference of mining interests over agricultural ones and their inability to win back seats lost since the 1990s. Conditions are ripe for the Nationals to face challenges from independents on the same scale as those already faced by the Liberals. And while Indi's "Voices of" model of community organising and drafting candidates was an innovation, the country has long been friendly to independents. Father of the House of Representatives Bob Katter is a rural independent, as were Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who negotiated minority government with Julia Gillard in 2010. Windsor and Oakeshott sat in the NSW Parliament before the jump to Commonwealth politics, and today the NSW crossbench boasts 10 independent MPs, mostly from regional and rural parts of the state. Many independent-held NSW seats overlap with federal seats held by Nationals (like Riverina and Parkes) or regional Liberals (like Farrer and Hume). And at the last two federal elections, independent candidates have turned National and Liberal-National seats like Cowper and Groom marginal. There is a perception that the junior National Party has been the tail wagging the dog, with the Liberals taking up the obsessions of National MPs - in particular nuclear energy. And while Coalition Governments dutifully "pork-barrelled" public money for safe regional seats, they neglected apparently safe urban seats held by Liberals. This helps explain why Liberals now hold mostly regional and rural seats, and barely exists in the inner-city. But big spending programs disguise how country interests have become diluted. Being in Coalition with the Liberal Party has weakened the ability of the National Party to advocate forcefully for the interests of those in regional and rural Australia. Famously, former National leader Michael McCormack could not name one time the Nationals had taken the side of farmers over that of miners. Similarly, in the last Coalition government, Nationals spruiked and voted for Scott Morrison's original stage three tax cuts - even though Nationals electorates had the least to gain. When the Albanese Labor government reformed stage three, the biggest winners were Australians living in Nationals seats. Regional and rural areas would benefit from increased public spending on education, health, public transport and infrastructure; all of which are harder to fund after the tax cuts eagerly pursued by Liberal-National governments. They are most at risk from climate change, and bear the brunt of disasters amplified by a warming earth. Independents like Cathy McGowan, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have recognised this, as have those running in more recent elections like Helen Haines. It is true that the Nationals still hold about as many lower house seats today as they did at the height of the Howard Coalition Government, and many are still nominally safe seats. But in recent elections, both Liberal and Labor Party MPs have learned the hard way that there is no such thing as a safe seat against the right challenger. Australia Institute research shows Australians are unique among Western democracies in their willingness to elect independents. Regional challengers to the major parties will not be cut from the same cloth as community independents in the cities, the so-called "teals". Regional and rural Australians have responded to somewhat different arguments, from somewhat different candidates. We could call these candidates "tans" - from the colour of their pants, and because it is "Nat" in reverse. Of course, none of this is predestined - nor was the Liberal Party doomed to veer to the right and leave behind moderate and classically liberal voters. These are the result of choices made by voters, by party rank-and-file and by elected representatives. A couple of weeks ago, the Nationals made a choice - to quit the Coalition - which suggested a willingness to rethink the old saws. Unfortunately, the reason was not to give the Nationals freedom to consider new ways of representing the country, but to allow them to hold onto failed policies like nuclear power. These policies failed to resonate with voters. And the united front of Liberals and Nationals held back rural candidates. Mia Davies, former leader of the WA Nationals (a more independently minded branch than those in NSW or Victoria) and a candidate in the federal election, thought her job was made harder by the opposition of Liberal shadow ministers to Labor's resources production tax credit scheme. READ MORE: What Angus Taylor called "billions for billionaires", Davies called "good policy". But Davies was a rare Coalition candidate who went against the party line. The effect is a decimated Liberal-National Coalition. And while it is mostly the Liberals who have lost seats, the Nationals have re-attached to the Coalition, which means their future relevance depends on the Liberals recovering 30-odd seats, and the Nationals winning a couple themselves off Labor - something the Nationals haven't managed to do since 2013. Once, National candidates could promise their electorate a voice in the government. With that looking a long way away, it is now independent and minor party candidates who can promise relevance: starting national debates, probing the government in question time and perhaps being at the heart of negotiations in the event of a future power-sharing Parliament. If the Nats are not interested in serving the interests of those in rural and regional Australia, they will find no shortage of "tans" willing to throw their Akubras in the ring. The community independent movement did not begin in Sydney or Melbourne, but in the bush. It was in the rural Victorian seat of Indi, encompassing Wodonga and Wangaratta, that independent Cathy McGowan was drafted by community group Voices of Indi. In 2013, McGowan delivered the Liberal Party its only loss when she won the formerly safe seat from Sophie Mirabella. The subsequent success of inner city "teals" - community independents like Zali Steggall, Monique Ryan and Kate Chaney - is evidence that Liberal neglect of classical-liberal and metropolitan voters has come back to haunt them. But soul searching is due in the bush as well, particularly among Nationals. So far, they have been criticised for unforced errors (like quitting the Liberal-National Coalition only to rejoin it days later) rather than structural weaknesses, like their preference of mining interests over agricultural ones and their inability to win back seats lost since the 1990s. Conditions are ripe for the Nationals to face challenges from independents on the same scale as those already faced by the Liberals. And while Indi's "Voices of" model of community organising and drafting candidates was an innovation, the country has long been friendly to independents. Father of the House of Representatives Bob Katter is a rural independent, as were Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who negotiated minority government with Julia Gillard in 2010. Windsor and Oakeshott sat in the NSW Parliament before the jump to Commonwealth politics, and today the NSW crossbench boasts 10 independent MPs, mostly from regional and rural parts of the state. Many independent-held NSW seats overlap with federal seats held by Nationals (like Riverina and Parkes) or regional Liberals (like Farrer and Hume). And at the last two federal elections, independent candidates have turned National and Liberal-National seats like Cowper and Groom marginal. There is a perception that the junior National Party has been the tail wagging the dog, with the Liberals taking up the obsessions of National MPs - in particular nuclear energy. And while Coalition Governments dutifully "pork-barrelled" public money for safe regional seats, they neglected apparently safe urban seats held by Liberals. This helps explain why Liberals now hold mostly regional and rural seats, and barely exists in the inner-city. But big spending programs disguise how country interests have become diluted. Being in Coalition with the Liberal Party has weakened the ability of the National Party to advocate forcefully for the interests of those in regional and rural Australia. Famously, former National leader Michael McCormack could not name one time the Nationals had taken the side of farmers over that of miners. Similarly, in the last Coalition government, Nationals spruiked and voted for Scott Morrison's original stage three tax cuts - even though Nationals electorates had the least to gain. When the Albanese Labor government reformed stage three, the biggest winners were Australians living in Nationals seats. Regional and rural areas would benefit from increased public spending on education, health, public transport and infrastructure; all of which are harder to fund after the tax cuts eagerly pursued by Liberal-National governments. They are most at risk from climate change, and bear the brunt of disasters amplified by a warming earth. Independents like Cathy McGowan, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have recognised this, as have those running in more recent elections like Helen Haines. It is true that the Nationals still hold about as many lower house seats today as they did at the height of the Howard Coalition Government, and many are still nominally safe seats. But in recent elections, both Liberal and Labor Party MPs have learned the hard way that there is no such thing as a safe seat against the right challenger. Australia Institute research shows Australians are unique among Western democracies in their willingness to elect independents. Regional challengers to the major parties will not be cut from the same cloth as community independents in the cities, the so-called "teals". Regional and rural Australians have responded to somewhat different arguments, from somewhat different candidates. We could call these candidates "tans" - from the colour of their pants, and because it is "Nat" in reverse. Of course, none of this is predestined - nor was the Liberal Party doomed to veer to the right and leave behind moderate and classically liberal voters. These are the result of choices made by voters, by party rank-and-file and by elected representatives. A couple of weeks ago, the Nationals made a choice - to quit the Coalition - which suggested a willingness to rethink the old saws. Unfortunately, the reason was not to give the Nationals freedom to consider new ways of representing the country, but to allow them to hold onto failed policies like nuclear power. These policies failed to resonate with voters. And the united front of Liberals and Nationals held back rural candidates. Mia Davies, former leader of the WA Nationals (a more independently minded branch than those in NSW or Victoria) and a candidate in the federal election, thought her job was made harder by the opposition of Liberal shadow ministers to Labor's resources production tax credit scheme. READ MORE: What Angus Taylor called "billions for billionaires", Davies called "good policy". But Davies was a rare Coalition candidate who went against the party line. The effect is a decimated Liberal-National Coalition. And while it is mostly the Liberals who have lost seats, the Nationals have re-attached to the Coalition, which means their future relevance depends on the Liberals recovering 30-odd seats, and the Nationals winning a couple themselves off Labor - something the Nationals haven't managed to do since 2013. Once, National candidates could promise their electorate a voice in the government. With that looking a long way away, it is now independent and minor party candidates who can promise relevance: starting national debates, probing the government in question time and perhaps being at the heart of negotiations in the event of a future power-sharing Parliament. If the Nats are not interested in serving the interests of those in rural and regional Australia, they will find no shortage of "tans" willing to throw their Akubras in the ring.
SBS Australia
2 hours ago
- SBS Australia
Europe, Indonesia or Japan? Can Australia find other allies to rely on if the US disappears?
Donald Trump's comments, in particular, that Canada should become America's 51st state and threatening to abandon European allies over defence spending have raised concerns about the US' reliability. Source: SBS, AAP For decades, the United States has been a reliable ally to Australia, whose protection has helped to ensure peace in the region. But US President Donald Trump's unpredictable and tough treatment of his nation's allies has raised questions about whether Australia can still afford to lean so heavily on America as a security partner. On Tuesday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters the government will make decisions in Australia's national interest and fund the defence capability it needs . The comments came after US defence secretary Pete Hegseth requested Australia increase its defence budget to 3.5 per cent of its gross domestic product (GDP) in a conversation with Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last weekend. Australia's defence budget makes up roughly 2 per cent of GDP, which the government plans to increase to 2.35 per cent by 2034. While most experts do not believe the US will withdraw from the Indo-Pacific, Trump's actions raise questions about whether Australia should be seeking to cooperate more with other nations. In May, Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, raised the prospect of a formal defence agreement between the trading bloc and Australia. In response, Albanese said he would consider the proposal but noted a similar agreement was already in place with other European countries such as Germany. Without the US alliance, Peter Dean, director of foreign policy and defence at the United States Studies Centre at The University of Sydney, says Australia would need to massively increase its defence spending or accept it can't defend its own sovereignty. "If you look at the mismatch between the scale of our territory and the scale of our ability to defend it — it's one of the most glaring mismatches in the world," he says. "[You would] effectively be just hoping for the best." Dean says Australia needs to work hard to maintain its security and that a "community of nations" is necessary to support open and free trade, promote a rules-based international order, and counter the use of coercion, aggression, and military force to achieve political objectives. "If you don't have that community of nations, the example of what's happening in Ukraine is very poignant to everybody," he says. [Russia believes] in a 'might is right' world and they believe in a world where they get to shape those rules and that order, and that is not going to be favourable or in Australia's interests ... or for the majority of states in our region. Dean says Trump is more brutally transactional than previous presidents and an example of the adage in international relations that "you have no friends, you only have common interests". Although it's not always clear what Trump's interests are, Dean believes there's still a common alignment between Australia and the US, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region, and in the overall aims and objectives of their security policies. "That simply boils down to — we don't want an Indo-Pacific that's dominated by one particular power — especially China," Dean says. "That is an Australian view clearly articulated in our strategy, and that is a US view, clearly articulated by the US — even under this president." One of the potential problems with a China-dominated region, Dean says, is its desire to "rule by law" and the way in which China would go about setting and enforcing laws. "China particularly wants a hierarchical order where it sits on top and everyone else sits underneath," he says. In contrast, Australia and other like-minded countries support a "rule of law" system in which a community of nations jointly sets the rules through treaties, such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. But Sam Roggeveen, the director of the international security program at the Lowy Institute, says the US has done very little to address China's dramatic military modernisation since the end of the Cold War. No matter who's in charge in the US, I don't think that will rescue Australia from having to think much more independently about its security. "The harsh truth for Australia and for other allies in the region is that the Americans aren't going to do the heavy lifting for us, and want us to do it ourselves." Dean says the alliance with the US is critical for national security, and forming an agreement with other countries would be very difficult. A strategic alliance involves countries committing to help each other out during a crisis, or to act in accord to address a common threat. This would preferably be set out in a treaty. Australia has an alliance with the US and New Zealand, but despite being part of the British Commonwealth, it does not have a formal agreement with the United Kingdom. Given the geographical distance, Dean believes military support from the UK would likely depend on what other conflicts are happening in its part of the world. When it comes to international alliances, arguably the most important is NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), which commits Europe and North America to protecting each other from any threat. Rory Medcalf, head of the National Security College at The Australian National University, says there are three crucial elements to establish in alliances. Firstly, there must be clear interests in common. Secondly, the parties must articulate some shared values or political will to provide a foundation for trust. "If their security is threatened, then you have interests engaged," he says. And there must also be mutual capability. "There's not much point being an ally of someone if you bring nothing to the table and they bring everything," he says. Dean says no other state can replace the size, power and influence of the US, which is the world's number one military power. Dean says the US — by partnering with South Korea, Australia, Japan and other states — can aggregate enough power to balance China's influence and there is no "ready-made state" that could easily replace it. Without the US, Medcalf says China would likely seek to dominate countries one by one and break any alliance-like relationships. Even if Australia did more for its own defence, there would still be a good argument for maintaining a close relationship with the US because its military technology is among, if not the best in the world. But Roggeveen says Australia has to accept the US alliance is going to become less important over time. "With that in mind, we have to look geographically much closer to home," he says. While forming a new alliance may prove difficult, Medcalf says it would be possible for Australia to build coalitions with other nations to discourage things like coercive behaviour if there was some degree of confidence the US would still back them up. "It's really about using strategic partnership to make ourselves stronger, rather than building a kind of alliance where we expect to be standing shoulder to shoulder in war," he says. Australia is already part of several small groupings of nations with common interests in the Indo-Pacific, such as The Quad (a diplomatic partnership among the US, India, Japan and Australia) and AJUS (a trilateral partnership among Australia, Japan and the US). Defence cooperation has deepened via AJUS, while the security partnership AUKUS, which exists between Australia, the UK and the US, has laid the groundwork for Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines and other advanced capabilities. Australia has also entered into limited bilateral agreements with Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea, Singapore and others. Medcalf, who is undertaking nationwide consultations to understand Australian attitudes to security, says most of these countries have no prospect of being treaty allies of Australia. But partnerships with countries like Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Vietnam may be possible. All of these countries, apart from Vietnam, are already American allies. "They have different levels of capability that they would bring to the table," he says. "But the ultimate question is how much risk are we all going to take for each other?" Due to the number of member states that would need to agree to it, Medcalf suspects an agreement with the EU would likely be quite vague in its language and commitment. It may focus on increased technology sharing, access to defence industry resources and possibly some intelligence sharing. There could also be some aspirational statements about the rules-based order, or the intent to discourage and oppose aggressive action. "But it would fall far short of anything resembling a treaty commitment," Medcalf says. Dean agrees it's more likely Australia and the EU would support each other diplomatically to uphold rules and standards both in Europe and the Indo-Pacific. Medcalf points out Australia and many northern European countries share common values, including freedom of expression, the rule of law and secularism in politics. "[Australia's political values] are much closer to countries like Denmark, Sweden and Finland than to any of our neighbours except New Zealand," he says. Australia has previously manufactured a Norwegian-designed naval strike missile and German-designed armoured fighting vehicles. The EU could offer access to other sophisticated capabilities such as warships, drones and sensors. "The risk is obviously an expectation that Australia becomes more involved in Europe security problems ... obviously that's about confronting Russia," he says. While Medcalf believes Australia should be helping countries like Ukraine to defend themselves, there are limitations. What we shouldn't be doing is ever raising the expectation that we could be a frontline military actor on the other side of the world. Medcalf says Europe is in a different region to Australia, and it would be difficult to deploy troops or aircraft to each other's front lines. But Europe is highly trade-dependent and large countries like Germany and France, in particular, have an interest in maintaining the security of shipping in the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea, he says, adding that a significant number of shipping companies are also European. Roggeveen says countries in Europe and other parts of Asia are so far away they are never going to share the same vital interests as Australia. But Indonesia's interests are largely the same as Australia's, given they are neighbours. He says Indonesia is also predicted to be a great power by the middle of the century and likely the fourth or fifth biggest economy in the world. "We've never had a great power on our doorstep before, and we want Indonesia to be on our side when that happens," he says. "We have no more important relationship than Indonesia just to our north," he told ABC's 7.30 show. Other experts are sceptical about the potential for a quasi-alliance with Indonesia. While Medcalf agrees Australia should do more with Indonesia — including to help strengthen its navy and air force, and its ability to monitor what's happening in its waters — he notes its policy is to be "friends to all, enemies to none". "Which sounds great but in practice means that Indonesia is working very hard to be as neutral as it can be in future crisis situations." He says Indonesia has not been willing to speak out about China's behaviour in the South China Sea and doesn't have the capability to help Australia build its own defence technology base. Australia also has to accept that China already has a strong influence in Indonesia, he says. "If you're looking for a country that can partly fill the gap that the US may leave — I'd be looking to Japan before Indonesia. But if Indonesia ends up getting closer to our point of view, that would be wonderful," he says. Medcalf says some experts already characterise Japan's relationship with Australia as a quasi-alliance, and it is the most likely country to form an actual alliance with Australia, although the chances of this happening in the short term remain unlikely. He says both Japan and Australia share a strong belief in a rules-based system, and have different strengths they could bring to the table. They need the resources that we have. We need their technology, we need their investment. Medcalf doesn't think Japan's peace constitution — put in place at the end of World War Two to maintain its military for defensive purposes only — would be an impediment because politicians have been reinterpreting it over the last 20 years or so. "Japan is already moving away from 1 per cent, to 2 per cent of GDP, as its military budget," he says, adding that Japanese forces are increasingly training in Australia. However, Dean believes legal and cultural barriers still make it unlikely Japan will form an alliance with Australia. "But I think if the region was to have some type of strategic shock, or it was to really start to deteriorate, that would drive that alignment even closer together," he says. Medcalf says Vietnam is very good at maintaining a balanced relationship with China because it knows how to stand up to China, while also keeping the peace. "They've been doing both for about 1,000 years," he says. "[Vietnam] can defend itself, but it can also do diplomacy well." However, Medcalf says the Southeast Asian country would be very reluctant to enter into a treaty-like commitment with Australia, although there is potential for more cooperation in areas such as military training. Singapore has long been a valuable diplomatic partner for Australia and already cooperates on military training and exchanging information, Medcalf says. "But Singapore is ultimately a very self-interested and neutral country and I think we would work with them as much as we could without the expectation that either would actually take a risk on the other's behalf." He says he would put Malaysia in a similar camp. South Korea is a militarily significant country because it has a lot of capability, Medcalf says. "They now export defence equipment to Europe," he says. "South Korea is one of the few countries in the world that is genuinely able to do rapid military manufacturing at scale." But the problem is it's overwhelmingly focused on defending itself against North Korea. "Yes, they're slightly concerned about ensuring that China doesn't dominate the region. Yes, they're a US ally but they would probably be reluctant to project much further beyond the peninsula," he says. Medcalf says South Korea also has quite deep-seated political problems domestically, and its politics can be unpredictable. Medcalf says Australia's relationship with India has advanced significantly over the past decade — with each country's navy training together frequently and sharing information. Both countries' air forces jointly monitor the Indian Ocean. "[India] will probably be — within the next few decades — one of the three biggest powers in the world militarily, alongside the US and China." However, Medcalf says India is diplomatically very neutral and greatly values its autonomy. They're not going to be forming permanent alliance-like relationships with anyone. While India does not want to witness China dominate the Indian Ocean and would likely align with other countries in the region to balance against China, Medcalf says if it came to war, there would be only very limited circumstances under which it would get involved. "I guess they would certainly contribute to patrolling the Indian Ocean and potentially limiting China's ability to operate there, but I don't think India is going to be taking a lot of risk on behalf of others," he says. India may also expect other countries to come to its aid if there were a conflict with China on its border. "And that would be something that I think would be difficult for other countries to think about." The Philippines is one of the countries that claim parts of the South China Sea, which has led to clashes with China over issues such as fishing rights, islands and territories, Medcalf says. "The Philippines has traditionally been quite a weak military power but they're beginning to modernise their forces and their location is strategically very important — they're right at the heart of the sea lanes of Asia." While the Philippines is an American treaty ally, under former president Rodrigo Duterte, it became closer to China. Medcalf says it would make sense for Australia to have the Philippines as a partner, but caution is needed when considering the limits of its power and whether another change in government could alter dynamics. It's yet another example of how it's a nice idea to try and stitch all of these relationships together into something larger but without the Americans involved somewhere along the line, it still becomes quite flimsy. Like Australia, Canada is a middle-sized power but in some ways, it is militarily weaker. It's also a long way away. But Medcalf points out Canada is technically part of the broader Pacific region as its western coastline borders the Pacific Ocean. It's also surprisingly active in the region — supporting the UN efforts in East Asia to prevent illegal trade with North Korea and the smuggling of parts or precursors for weapons of mass destruction. "There's something to work with there but all of this stuff is only going to work if it's more than simply putting all your reliance on one country — they would be a small part of a much bigger puzzle."
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘Get over there PM': Anthony Albanese urged to visit Trump
Nationals Senator Matt Canavan highlights Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's lack of engagement with US President Donald Trump amid China's increased presence in the region. 'Why hasn't he gone over to Washington, DC, to meet the leader of our most important ally,' Mr Canavan told Sky News host Rowan Dean. 'Only a few months ago, we had the Chinese navy circumnavigate our continent, we had the Chinese navy conduct live fire exercises under a civilian flight path. 'And the Prime Minister's had zero engagement with our most important ally. 'Get over there PM.'
