Petals of love: Three million blooms for mums this Mother's Day
Hermina Bevilacqua has handwritten countless Mother's Day messages on behalf of customers during her decades as a florist.
'When I'm reading all the messages, I feel privileged,' said Bevilacqua.
So, what do they say? ''You're truly amazing. Thank you for everything you do for our family'.'
Australians are predicted to spend about $1 billion on Mother's Day presents this year, with flowers far and away the top pick.
Wholesale flower traders at the National Flower Centre expect to sell more than 3 million flowers, predominantly chrysanthemums, roses, tulips and oriental lilies.
Mother's Day is like Christmas for the flower industry. 'There's certainly a lot more work at this time of the year because demand is tenfold,' said Michael van der Zwet, who grows hydrangeas and anthuriums with his family in Phillip Island.
Preparations start early, with growers starting to plant bulbs for the big day from January.
Anna Jabour, chief executive of Flower Industry Australia, says locally grown flowers have been harvested in the past week and sent off to wholesalers in time for florists to work their magic.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
28 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Crossbenchers pressure Labor to launch 'urgent' AUKUS inquiry
ACT senator David Pocock and an alliance of parliamentary crossbenchers are calling on the Albanese government to urgently establish a formal inquiry into the AUKUS submarine deal. It comes after revelations the Trump administration will review the terms of the trilateral pact to ensure it meets "American First criteria", which has sparked doubts about the future of the landmark deal. Eight crossbench MPs wrote to Defence Minister Richard Marles on Friday, raising concerns about the $368 billion deal that could see Australia buy at least three Virginia-class nuclear-attack submarines from the US by the 2030s. The MPs said there has been insufficient parliamentary oversight of the pact and said Australians wanted to know more about its strategic and financial implications. "With the UK and now the US reviewing AUKUS, Australia is now the only country not actively considering whether the agreement in its current form best serves our national interest," Senator Pocok said in a statement. "Given the scale and cost of this deal, a transparent review is not just sensible; it's overdue." Australia is investing billions of dollars to support the US's submarine production base under AUKUS, which is estimated to be 20 years behind schedule. Independent MP Allegra Spender said there needed to be an open discussion about the "very clear risk" that the US will not be able to guarantee the transfer of the boats without diminishing its naval capabilities. "AUKUS is the centrepiece of our defence and foreign policy strategy, but it's been adopted by the major parties with very poor public engagement," Ms Spender said. "AUKUS will shape Australia's future for decades with enormous implications both financially, economically, and strategically, but in discussions at the community level, there are consistent questions and concerns that have not been addressed." Defence Minister Richard Marles has said he remains confident the deal will go ahead and that the US review was a "perfectly natural" thing for a new administration to do. "We've always known that increasing the production and sustainment rate in the United States is a challenge, but we're confident that we can meet that challenge," Mr Marles said on Friday. The Canberra Times has contacted a spokesperson for comment. A parliamentary inquiry into the ratification of the AUKUS treaty last year heard that a provision allowing the US and the UK to withdraw with a year's notice could have "significant implications" for Australia. The inquiry heard there were no specified terms in the treaty or in agreement documents to suggest Australia would have full ownership of the second-hand US-built boats, which are due to be sold and delivered by 2032. Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said he was concerned about the future of AUKUS and called on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to meet with Donald Trump to secure its terms. "We'll continue to make the case for AUKUS, and we must. It is a good arrangement and the right arrangement to ensure we get peace in our region through deterrence," Mr Taylor said on Friday. Mr Albanese is expected to hold his first in-person meeting with the US president on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada next week, which has yet to be confirmed. The potential meeting comes after Labor rebuffed US Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth's call for Australia to increase its military spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP from the current level of just over 2 per cent. ACT senator David Pocock and an alliance of parliamentary crossbenchers are calling on the Albanese government to urgently establish a formal inquiry into the AUKUS submarine deal. It comes after revelations the Trump administration will review the terms of the trilateral pact to ensure it meets "American First criteria", which has sparked doubts about the future of the landmark deal. Eight crossbench MPs wrote to Defence Minister Richard Marles on Friday, raising concerns about the $368 billion deal that could see Australia buy at least three Virginia-class nuclear-attack submarines from the US by the 2030s. The MPs said there has been insufficient parliamentary oversight of the pact and said Australians wanted to know more about its strategic and financial implications. "With the UK and now the US reviewing AUKUS, Australia is now the only country not actively considering whether the agreement in its current form best serves our national interest," Senator Pocok said in a statement. "Given the scale and cost of this deal, a transparent review is not just sensible; it's overdue." Australia is investing billions of dollars to support the US's submarine production base under AUKUS, which is estimated to be 20 years behind schedule. Independent MP Allegra Spender said there needed to be an open discussion about the "very clear risk" that the US will not be able to guarantee the transfer of the boats without diminishing its naval capabilities. "AUKUS is the centrepiece of our defence and foreign policy strategy, but it's been adopted by the major parties with very poor public engagement," Ms Spender said. "AUKUS will shape Australia's future for decades with enormous implications both financially, economically, and strategically, but in discussions at the community level, there are consistent questions and concerns that have not been addressed." Defence Minister Richard Marles has said he remains confident the deal will go ahead and that the US review was a "perfectly natural" thing for a new administration to do. "We've always known that increasing the production and sustainment rate in the United States is a challenge, but we're confident that we can meet that challenge," Mr Marles said on Friday. The Canberra Times has contacted a spokesperson for comment. A parliamentary inquiry into the ratification of the AUKUS treaty last year heard that a provision allowing the US and the UK to withdraw with a year's notice could have "significant implications" for Australia. The inquiry heard there were no specified terms in the treaty or in agreement documents to suggest Australia would have full ownership of the second-hand US-built boats, which are due to be sold and delivered by 2032. Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said he was concerned about the future of AUKUS and called on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to meet with Donald Trump to secure its terms. "We'll continue to make the case for AUKUS, and we must. It is a good arrangement and the right arrangement to ensure we get peace in our region through deterrence," Mr Taylor said on Friday. Mr Albanese is expected to hold his first in-person meeting with the US president on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada next week, which has yet to be confirmed. The potential meeting comes after Labor rebuffed US Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth's call for Australia to increase its military spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP from the current level of just over 2 per cent. ACT senator David Pocock and an alliance of parliamentary crossbenchers are calling on the Albanese government to urgently establish a formal inquiry into the AUKUS submarine deal. It comes after revelations the Trump administration will review the terms of the trilateral pact to ensure it meets "American First criteria", which has sparked doubts about the future of the landmark deal. Eight crossbench MPs wrote to Defence Minister Richard Marles on Friday, raising concerns about the $368 billion deal that could see Australia buy at least three Virginia-class nuclear-attack submarines from the US by the 2030s. The MPs said there has been insufficient parliamentary oversight of the pact and said Australians wanted to know more about its strategic and financial implications. "With the UK and now the US reviewing AUKUS, Australia is now the only country not actively considering whether the agreement in its current form best serves our national interest," Senator Pocok said in a statement. "Given the scale and cost of this deal, a transparent review is not just sensible; it's overdue." Australia is investing billions of dollars to support the US's submarine production base under AUKUS, which is estimated to be 20 years behind schedule. Independent MP Allegra Spender said there needed to be an open discussion about the "very clear risk" that the US will not be able to guarantee the transfer of the boats without diminishing its naval capabilities. "AUKUS is the centrepiece of our defence and foreign policy strategy, but it's been adopted by the major parties with very poor public engagement," Ms Spender said. "AUKUS will shape Australia's future for decades with enormous implications both financially, economically, and strategically, but in discussions at the community level, there are consistent questions and concerns that have not been addressed." Defence Minister Richard Marles has said he remains confident the deal will go ahead and that the US review was a "perfectly natural" thing for a new administration to do. "We've always known that increasing the production and sustainment rate in the United States is a challenge, but we're confident that we can meet that challenge," Mr Marles said on Friday. The Canberra Times has contacted a spokesperson for comment. A parliamentary inquiry into the ratification of the AUKUS treaty last year heard that a provision allowing the US and the UK to withdraw with a year's notice could have "significant implications" for Australia. The inquiry heard there were no specified terms in the treaty or in agreement documents to suggest Australia would have full ownership of the second-hand US-built boats, which are due to be sold and delivered by 2032. Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said he was concerned about the future of AUKUS and called on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to meet with Donald Trump to secure its terms. "We'll continue to make the case for AUKUS, and we must. It is a good arrangement and the right arrangement to ensure we get peace in our region through deterrence," Mr Taylor said on Friday. Mr Albanese is expected to hold his first in-person meeting with the US president on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada next week, which has yet to be confirmed. The potential meeting comes after Labor rebuffed US Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth's call for Australia to increase its military spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP from the current level of just over 2 per cent. ACT senator David Pocock and an alliance of parliamentary crossbenchers are calling on the Albanese government to urgently establish a formal inquiry into the AUKUS submarine deal. It comes after revelations the Trump administration will review the terms of the trilateral pact to ensure it meets "American First criteria", which has sparked doubts about the future of the landmark deal. Eight crossbench MPs wrote to Defence Minister Richard Marles on Friday, raising concerns about the $368 billion deal that could see Australia buy at least three Virginia-class nuclear-attack submarines from the US by the 2030s. The MPs said there has been insufficient parliamentary oversight of the pact and said Australians wanted to know more about its strategic and financial implications. "With the UK and now the US reviewing AUKUS, Australia is now the only country not actively considering whether the agreement in its current form best serves our national interest," Senator Pocok said in a statement. "Given the scale and cost of this deal, a transparent review is not just sensible; it's overdue." Australia is investing billions of dollars to support the US's submarine production base under AUKUS, which is estimated to be 20 years behind schedule. Independent MP Allegra Spender said there needed to be an open discussion about the "very clear risk" that the US will not be able to guarantee the transfer of the boats without diminishing its naval capabilities. "AUKUS is the centrepiece of our defence and foreign policy strategy, but it's been adopted by the major parties with very poor public engagement," Ms Spender said. "AUKUS will shape Australia's future for decades with enormous implications both financially, economically, and strategically, but in discussions at the community level, there are consistent questions and concerns that have not been addressed." Defence Minister Richard Marles has said he remains confident the deal will go ahead and that the US review was a "perfectly natural" thing for a new administration to do. "We've always known that increasing the production and sustainment rate in the United States is a challenge, but we're confident that we can meet that challenge," Mr Marles said on Friday. The Canberra Times has contacted a spokesperson for comment. A parliamentary inquiry into the ratification of the AUKUS treaty last year heard that a provision allowing the US and the UK to withdraw with a year's notice could have "significant implications" for Australia. The inquiry heard there were no specified terms in the treaty or in agreement documents to suggest Australia would have full ownership of the second-hand US-built boats, which are due to be sold and delivered by 2032. Opposition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said he was concerned about the future of AUKUS and called on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to meet with Donald Trump to secure its terms. "We'll continue to make the case for AUKUS, and we must. It is a good arrangement and the right arrangement to ensure we get peace in our region through deterrence," Mr Taylor said on Friday. Mr Albanese is expected to hold his first in-person meeting with the US president on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada next week, which has yet to be confirmed. The potential meeting comes after Labor rebuffed US Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth's call for Australia to increase its military spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP from the current level of just over 2 per cent.
The Advertiser
28 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Best EOFY year deals for home office and tech - get in quick before you miss it
These items are hand-picked to make your shopping experience easier. ACM may be provided with compensation from affiliate partners if you click through. End-of-financial-year sales coincide with the end of the tax year, which means Australians have the chance to buy work-related items like computers, tools, or office equipment that can be claimed as deductions. If you work remotely or own a business, EOFY sales mark the perfect time to make the most of office and tech discounts, as retailers clear stock before the financial year resets on June 30. Amid rising cost of living pressures, 71 per cent of Australians are planning to shop EOFY sales to make the most of the savings. With major brands like HP, Lenovo, Kogan, Samsung and Nespresso are all offering attractive deals across their product ranges, the hunt is on for the next best deal. Below, we've collated a list of the top retailers and discounts on offer in the home office and tech categories - to save you time surfing the web. Save $930 on HP Envy x360 16 inch 2-in-1 Laptop 16-ac0014TU, Silver Save $700 on HP Laptop 17.3 inch 17-cn3030TU, Silver Save $250 on HP Laptop 14 inch 14-em0073AU, Black Save $200 on HP Laptop 15.6 inch 15-fd0233TU, Black Save up to 40 per cent off select LG Products and free removal of old appliances Save up to 40 per cent off Galaxy Smartphones Save up to 35 per cent off Samsung OLED TVs Save up to 30 per cent off fridges, laundry and vacuums 30 per cent off RRP Galaxy Bud3 I Buds3 Pro* 30 per cent off RRP Galaxy Watch Ultra I Watch7* Save up to $1,000 on gaming monitors Save 15 per cent on laundry bundles 20 per cent off sitewide Get up to 50% off JBL, from powerful speakers to premium headphones Up to 43 per cent off Shop the EOFY sale Up to 50 per cent off Up to 60 per cent off Up to 65 per cent off rugs Up to 40 per cent off sofas Extra 30 per cent off clearance homewares Up to 30 per cent off Up to 50 per cent off sale Buy one kettle or toaster and get one for 25 per cent off Up to 30 per cent off Up to 50 per cent off sale 20 to 50 per cent off selected styles Up to 30 per cent off sale Up to 40 per cent off sitewide Shop the EOFY final sale Read more EOFY sale articles: EOFY stands for End of Financial Year. In Australia, EOFY sales usually take place throughout June as businesses offer major discounts to clear stock before the financial year ends on June 30. It's a popular time to score deals on tech, fashion, beauty, furniture, and more - and in some cases, it may offer tax-deductible benefits for eligible purchases. Most EOFY sales in 2025 will run from early June through to June 30, 2025. However, some retailers may begin promotions as early as late May. Keep an eye on your favourite brands for early access or exclusive member offers. If you're buying items for work or business purposes - like a laptop, printer, or ergonomic chair - you may be eligible to claim them as tax deductions. Always check with your accountant or the ATO (Australian Taxation Office) to confirm what qualifies. EOFY sales are a great time for sole traders and small business owners to make smart purchases. EOFY sales can be just as competitive as Black Friday or Boxing Day - especially for big-ticket items or business-related purchases. While Black Friday is focused more on pre-holiday retail, EOFY deals often appeal to practical spending, upgrades, and tax-time shopping. Yes, many businesses offer EOFY discounts on services too - such as accounting software, insurance, phone plans, digital subscriptions, or marketing tools. If you're a freelancer, business owner, or just looking to optimise your expenses, it's worth checking. To shop smarter during EOFY: These items are hand-picked to make your shopping experience easier. ACM may be provided with compensation from affiliate partners if you click through. End-of-financial-year sales coincide with the end of the tax year, which means Australians have the chance to buy work-related items like computers, tools, or office equipment that can be claimed as deductions. If you work remotely or own a business, EOFY sales mark the perfect time to make the most of office and tech discounts, as retailers clear stock before the financial year resets on June 30. Amid rising cost of living pressures, 71 per cent of Australians are planning to shop EOFY sales to make the most of the savings. With major brands like HP, Lenovo, Kogan, Samsung and Nespresso are all offering attractive deals across their product ranges, the hunt is on for the next best deal. Below, we've collated a list of the top retailers and discounts on offer in the home office and tech categories - to save you time surfing the web. Save $930 on HP Envy x360 16 inch 2-in-1 Laptop 16-ac0014TU, Silver Save $700 on HP Laptop 17.3 inch 17-cn3030TU, Silver Save $250 on HP Laptop 14 inch 14-em0073AU, Black Save $200 on HP Laptop 15.6 inch 15-fd0233TU, Black Save up to 40 per cent off select LG Products and free removal of old appliances Save up to 40 per cent off Galaxy Smartphones Save up to 35 per cent off Samsung OLED TVs Save up to 30 per cent off fridges, laundry and vacuums 30 per cent off RRP Galaxy Bud3 I Buds3 Pro* 30 per cent off RRP Galaxy Watch Ultra I Watch7* Save up to $1,000 on gaming monitors Save 15 per cent on laundry bundles 20 per cent off sitewide Get up to 50% off JBL, from powerful speakers to premium headphones Up to 43 per cent off Shop the EOFY sale Up to 50 per cent off Up to 60 per cent off Up to 65 per cent off rugs Up to 40 per cent off sofas Extra 30 per cent off clearance homewares Up to 30 per cent off Up to 50 per cent off sale Buy one kettle or toaster and get one for 25 per cent off Up to 30 per cent off Up to 50 per cent off sale 20 to 50 per cent off selected styles Up to 30 per cent off sale Up to 40 per cent off sitewide Shop the EOFY final sale Read more EOFY sale articles: EOFY stands for End of Financial Year. In Australia, EOFY sales usually take place throughout June as businesses offer major discounts to clear stock before the financial year ends on June 30. It's a popular time to score deals on tech, fashion, beauty, furniture, and more - and in some cases, it may offer tax-deductible benefits for eligible purchases. Most EOFY sales in 2025 will run from early June through to June 30, 2025. However, some retailers may begin promotions as early as late May. Keep an eye on your favourite brands for early access or exclusive member offers. If you're buying items for work or business purposes - like a laptop, printer, or ergonomic chair - you may be eligible to claim them as tax deductions. Always check with your accountant or the ATO (Australian Taxation Office) to confirm what qualifies. EOFY sales are a great time for sole traders and small business owners to make smart purchases. EOFY sales can be just as competitive as Black Friday or Boxing Day - especially for big-ticket items or business-related purchases. While Black Friday is focused more on pre-holiday retail, EOFY deals often appeal to practical spending, upgrades, and tax-time shopping. Yes, many businesses offer EOFY discounts on services too - such as accounting software, insurance, phone plans, digital subscriptions, or marketing tools. If you're a freelancer, business owner, or just looking to optimise your expenses, it's worth checking. To shop smarter during EOFY: These items are hand-picked to make your shopping experience easier. ACM may be provided with compensation from affiliate partners if you click through. End-of-financial-year sales coincide with the end of the tax year, which means Australians have the chance to buy work-related items like computers, tools, or office equipment that can be claimed as deductions. If you work remotely or own a business, EOFY sales mark the perfect time to make the most of office and tech discounts, as retailers clear stock before the financial year resets on June 30. Amid rising cost of living pressures, 71 per cent of Australians are planning to shop EOFY sales to make the most of the savings. With major brands like HP, Lenovo, Kogan, Samsung and Nespresso are all offering attractive deals across their product ranges, the hunt is on for the next best deal. Below, we've collated a list of the top retailers and discounts on offer in the home office and tech categories - to save you time surfing the web. Save $930 on HP Envy x360 16 inch 2-in-1 Laptop 16-ac0014TU, Silver Save $700 on HP Laptop 17.3 inch 17-cn3030TU, Silver Save $250 on HP Laptop 14 inch 14-em0073AU, Black Save $200 on HP Laptop 15.6 inch 15-fd0233TU, Black Save up to 40 per cent off select LG Products and free removal of old appliances Save up to 40 per cent off Galaxy Smartphones Save up to 35 per cent off Samsung OLED TVs Save up to 30 per cent off fridges, laundry and vacuums 30 per cent off RRP Galaxy Bud3 I Buds3 Pro* 30 per cent off RRP Galaxy Watch Ultra I Watch7* Save up to $1,000 on gaming monitors Save 15 per cent on laundry bundles 20 per cent off sitewide Get up to 50% off JBL, from powerful speakers to premium headphones Up to 43 per cent off Shop the EOFY sale Up to 50 per cent off Up to 60 per cent off Up to 65 per cent off rugs Up to 40 per cent off sofas Extra 30 per cent off clearance homewares Up to 30 per cent off Up to 50 per cent off sale Buy one kettle or toaster and get one for 25 per cent off Up to 30 per cent off Up to 50 per cent off sale 20 to 50 per cent off selected styles Up to 30 per cent off sale Up to 40 per cent off sitewide Shop the EOFY final sale Read more EOFY sale articles: EOFY stands for End of Financial Year. In Australia, EOFY sales usually take place throughout June as businesses offer major discounts to clear stock before the financial year ends on June 30. It's a popular time to score deals on tech, fashion, beauty, furniture, and more - and in some cases, it may offer tax-deductible benefits for eligible purchases. Most EOFY sales in 2025 will run from early June through to June 30, 2025. However, some retailers may begin promotions as early as late May. Keep an eye on your favourite brands for early access or exclusive member offers. If you're buying items for work or business purposes - like a laptop, printer, or ergonomic chair - you may be eligible to claim them as tax deductions. Always check with your accountant or the ATO (Australian Taxation Office) to confirm what qualifies. EOFY sales are a great time for sole traders and small business owners to make smart purchases. EOFY sales can be just as competitive as Black Friday or Boxing Day - especially for big-ticket items or business-related purchases. While Black Friday is focused more on pre-holiday retail, EOFY deals often appeal to practical spending, upgrades, and tax-time shopping. Yes, many businesses offer EOFY discounts on services too - such as accounting software, insurance, phone plans, digital subscriptions, or marketing tools. If you're a freelancer, business owner, or just looking to optimise your expenses, it's worth checking. To shop smarter during EOFY: These items are hand-picked to make your shopping experience easier. ACM may be provided with compensation from affiliate partners if you click through. End-of-financial-year sales coincide with the end of the tax year, which means Australians have the chance to buy work-related items like computers, tools, or office equipment that can be claimed as deductions. If you work remotely or own a business, EOFY sales mark the perfect time to make the most of office and tech discounts, as retailers clear stock before the financial year resets on June 30. Amid rising cost of living pressures, 71 per cent of Australians are planning to shop EOFY sales to make the most of the savings. With major brands like HP, Lenovo, Kogan, Samsung and Nespresso are all offering attractive deals across their product ranges, the hunt is on for the next best deal. Below, we've collated a list of the top retailers and discounts on offer in the home office and tech categories - to save you time surfing the web. Save $930 on HP Envy x360 16 inch 2-in-1 Laptop 16-ac0014TU, Silver Save $700 on HP Laptop 17.3 inch 17-cn3030TU, Silver Save $250 on HP Laptop 14 inch 14-em0073AU, Black Save $200 on HP Laptop 15.6 inch 15-fd0233TU, Black Save up to 40 per cent off select LG Products and free removal of old appliances Save up to 40 per cent off Galaxy Smartphones Save up to 35 per cent off Samsung OLED TVs Save up to 30 per cent off fridges, laundry and vacuums 30 per cent off RRP Galaxy Bud3 I Buds3 Pro* 30 per cent off RRP Galaxy Watch Ultra I Watch7* Save up to $1,000 on gaming monitors Save 15 per cent on laundry bundles 20 per cent off sitewide Get up to 50% off JBL, from powerful speakers to premium headphones Up to 43 per cent off Shop the EOFY sale Up to 50 per cent off Up to 60 per cent off Up to 65 per cent off rugs Up to 40 per cent off sofas Extra 30 per cent off clearance homewares Up to 30 per cent off Up to 50 per cent off sale Buy one kettle or toaster and get one for 25 per cent off Up to 30 per cent off Up to 50 per cent off sale 20 to 50 per cent off selected styles Up to 30 per cent off sale Up to 40 per cent off sitewide Shop the EOFY final sale Read more EOFY sale articles: EOFY stands for End of Financial Year. In Australia, EOFY sales usually take place throughout June as businesses offer major discounts to clear stock before the financial year ends on June 30. It's a popular time to score deals on tech, fashion, beauty, furniture, and more - and in some cases, it may offer tax-deductible benefits for eligible purchases. Most EOFY sales in 2025 will run from early June through to June 30, 2025. However, some retailers may begin promotions as early as late May. Keep an eye on your favourite brands for early access or exclusive member offers. If you're buying items for work or business purposes - like a laptop, printer, or ergonomic chair - you may be eligible to claim them as tax deductions. Always check with your accountant or the ATO (Australian Taxation Office) to confirm what qualifies. EOFY sales are a great time for sole traders and small business owners to make smart purchases. EOFY sales can be just as competitive as Black Friday or Boxing Day - especially for big-ticket items or business-related purchases. While Black Friday is focused more on pre-holiday retail, EOFY deals often appeal to practical spending, upgrades, and tax-time shopping. Yes, many businesses offer EOFY discounts on services too - such as accounting software, insurance, phone plans, digital subscriptions, or marketing tools. If you're a freelancer, business owner, or just looking to optimise your expenses, it's worth checking. To shop smarter during EOFY:
The Advertiser
5 hours ago
- The Advertiser
This deal was bad from the start. Now is our chance to get out
There is every reason for Australia to jump on board the idea of having a review of its AUKUS defence policy. The "America First" initiative is an opportunity to get out of a deal that was bad from the start, but it is getting seriously worse. It was, as any number of ex-prime ministers and foreign ministers, Labor and Liberal, tell us, a very bad deal, in which all the risk fell on Australia, and the goodies on offer would come too late, if indeed they came at all. The risk that they would never arrive has been increasing, although a failure to deliver on the part of either the US, or later, Britain, would not, in the very unequal deal, amount to a breach of contract. The US is bound to deliver only if some future US president decides the US has enough nuclear submarines of its own. Anthony Albanese and particularly his deputy, Richard Marles, were fools to adopt the Morrison plan. The arrival of President Donald Trump has added new layers of uncertainty to a deal that was already very iffy. Joe Biden, who signed the deal on behalf of the US, was at least committed to attempting to maintain American dominance in the western Pacific, even if outsiders considered that the rise of China made that impossible. Biden's manoeuvrings attempted to lock Australia in on the deal by extending AUKUS ties with Australia, including weapons storage and troop training. Now there is not only the problem of guessing what Trump thinks of US commitments, but how long those commitments will continue, because Trump frequently changes his mind and lets allies down. Consider, for example, his relationships with Ukraine, with Europe and in the Middle East. And with Canada, or Denmark. Trump has also produced a new hostility to Australia's economic interests, which undermines America's capacity to claim to be an alliance partner or friend. Australians no longer share the values that Trump, and Trumpism, represents. Increasingly, Trump acts as if all his old allies, except Israel, are now both his economic and his military enemies. Australian officials think we maintain a core of personal relationships with American diplomats and military personnel that transcend the eccentricities and abrupt shifts by the president and his cronies. But such relationships do not seem to have worked, except in oozing charm on a very susceptible Marles. (Nor have other countries, such as Britain, Germany, France or Canada found that similar deeply embedded relationships have tempered the problems of Trump.) A new circumstance is that it is becoming clear that the US is using AUKUS, and its suddenly announced "review" of its AUKUS commitments, as a lever with which to press Australia to increase its defence expenditure. Indeed, that may be the whole purpose of having the review. There is nothing new as such in US pressure, particularly from Trump, to increase defence spending, preferably up to 4 per cent of gross national product. But the linkage of the two, together with the implications that Australia has been freeloading on the US on defence matters, is a galling inversion of the truth. Over the years, indeed, Australia has been too much an ally of the US, joining it in all sorts of absurd adventures (and failures) not in our national interest, believing we should do them to maintain credit with the US. Such partnerships have cost us much more than blood and treasure, substantial as that has been. It has also diminished our reputation in the world and in our neighbourhood, with many nations regarding us as no more than America's poodle, unable to act independently even when its interests are manifestly different from those of America. Our slavering loyalty has not been rewarded, as witnessed when America stole our markets after Scott Morrison provoked China to the point that it punished Australia, not America, by banning imports of Australian goods. Moreover, our AUKUS commitments are neither in financial nor strategic terms much, if at all, to Australia's benefit. From the US point of view, the deal locks Australia in as a very special ally with no, or next to no, right of independence of action. It is America, not Australia, which decides whether and when submarines come, and the US, for that matter, seems unable to honour its promises, even if it wanted to. Australia is paying through the nose, with no guarantees, and has almost no contractual rights or independence of action. The freeloading argument must be evaluated against the fact that the US-Australian alliance has involved massive Australian purchases of US military goods, in part for the explicit purpose of having virtually interchangeable equipment and military doctrine. Most equivalent countries, particularly in Europe, are nowhere as dependent on US military technology (and the flow of dollars to the US that represents). Nor does evaluation of the costs and benefits of the relationship pay any regard to the usefulness of American bases and intelligence capacity based in Australia. Many Australians do not recognise what an unequal relationship the partnership involves. One reason for that is that much of Australia's defence and intelligence establishment, including within academia and the bureaucracy, has been captured by the US view of the world. Many of our politicians, generals, admirals and air vice-marshals, and many of our intelligence boffins have effectively transferred their loyalties to the US, and America's view of how the alliance works. It is not a selfless conversion. The Pacific Ocean is choked with the traffic of consultancies, cross-postings, post-retirement jobs, and a revolving door of appointments, including handsome jobs in defence industry to people involved in approving tenders of billions of dollars. It is a market full of potential for corruption and conflict of interest, a risk from the lack of integrity controls, the lack of service, bureaucratic and political will to enforce the pathetic ethical obstacles that exist and the poor example of senior staff. Put bluntly, many of those involved in this game lack integrity, or obvious (patriotic) focus on Australia's national interests and the public interest. For at least 50 years, I have argued the need for some serious rules on this, but to no effect. ANALYSIS: What happened the last time AUKUS was reviewed There's another new reason for an independent and open review. Our American friends have come to think that our AUKUS signature precommits us to fight alongside the US if the US goes to war with China over Taiwan. Otherwise, it would not dream of selling us its old subs. Australia has never publicly committed itself to any fight over Taiwan, and, 50 years ago it would have been unthinkable. Obviously, we would deplore a less-than-peaceful reunion, but that does not mean that we would go to war over it, any more than we would go to war to defend the human rights of the people of Gaza when they are being massacred by the Israeli state. At most, we belatedly borrowed the "strategic ambiguity" line once used by the US, by indicating that we would not decide how we would react to an invasion until after it happened. Sort of like the US commitment to the defence of Australia under the ANZUS Treaty. Willy nilly, the US, which now seems determined on war if there is an invasion, is pressing for a definite Australian commitment. Many in our military establishment now seem to take it for granted that we would be involved, and our intelligence establishment, many of them shills for Taiwan when moonlighting from their US duties, works long and hard to press it as if it were an alliance obligation, though whether to the US or Taiwan is never made clear. Our hardheads might have strong sympathies for Taiwan, but do not want to get involved because their research shows that the US cannot win a war over Taiwan. Nor can we, but it would deliver us a higher class of determined and vengeful enemy. The Chinese may have failed to notice Australians in Korea and were probably highly amused at how we got bogged down in losing struggles in Vietnam, the Middle East and Afghanistan. But the merest Australian assistance to the US would provoke serious retaliation we do not need and make Australia an equal partner with the US in any vengeance doled out. We should not throw our young men and women into a conflict we cannot win. There is another argument for an independent and open Australian review. We have never had a proper debate on the AUKUS relationship, or even of the suitability of ANZUS arrangements for the present day. A debate is not a matter for a few inside experts, not a jamboree by a few retired insider politicians. It is one for the community, including the third of the nation which does not accept the consensus of insiders and directors of arms companies. Their credibility is low, and some of them, however involved in the defence gravy train, are not closely involved in Australia's image in the world. I would rate the current knowledge, the political instincts, and the feel for the thinking of ordinary Australians found in Paul Keating, or Malcolm Turnbull, or Gareth Evans against any number of former politicians now in cosy diplomatic jobs in London and Washington. And that's regardless of the number of "high-level briefings", site visits, golf games and the fine mind and communications skills of a Richard Marles. MORE JACK WATERFORD: It reflects seriously on the Prime Minister that he never encouraged a widespread public debate, or, for that matter, a population well educated on the issues at stake. Perhaps he felt insecure when he had a narrow majority, and a crossbench generally hostile to the comfy consensus of the Labor and Liberal parties. But he is not in that position now and must feel that he has nothing to apologise for. Compulsive secrecy, efforts to control the extent of the debate and the information to which it is allowed access, will not be enough to unite the population around what he quaintly called "a progressive patriotism where we are proud to do things our own way". At the press club on Tuesday, Albanese even sketched out how it could be - should be - done. He talked about popular frustration, "drawn from people's real experiences, the feeling that government isn't really working for them. "To counter this, we have to offer a practical and positive alternative ... We want a focused dialogue and constructive debate that leads to concrete and tangible actions ... Change that is imposed unilaterally rarely endures. The key to lasting change is reform that Australians own and understand. Reform that serves a national purpose and the national interest. Change that empowers and engages people, with a sense of choice and urgency. Change that generates its own momentum and builds its own staying power." This is not how Albanese has hitherto managed the defence debate, or the argument about Australia's place in the world. But he is right about the need to bring the public along. He must bring a new personality, a new attitude and a new confidence in the common sense of Australians. Otherwise, he won't be promoting a society Australians will clamour to defend. There is every reason for Australia to jump on board the idea of having a review of its AUKUS defence policy. The "America First" initiative is an opportunity to get out of a deal that was bad from the start, but it is getting seriously worse. It was, as any number of ex-prime ministers and foreign ministers, Labor and Liberal, tell us, a very bad deal, in which all the risk fell on Australia, and the goodies on offer would come too late, if indeed they came at all. The risk that they would never arrive has been increasing, although a failure to deliver on the part of either the US, or later, Britain, would not, in the very unequal deal, amount to a breach of contract. The US is bound to deliver only if some future US president decides the US has enough nuclear submarines of its own. Anthony Albanese and particularly his deputy, Richard Marles, were fools to adopt the Morrison plan. The arrival of President Donald Trump has added new layers of uncertainty to a deal that was already very iffy. Joe Biden, who signed the deal on behalf of the US, was at least committed to attempting to maintain American dominance in the western Pacific, even if outsiders considered that the rise of China made that impossible. Biden's manoeuvrings attempted to lock Australia in on the deal by extending AUKUS ties with Australia, including weapons storage and troop training. Now there is not only the problem of guessing what Trump thinks of US commitments, but how long those commitments will continue, because Trump frequently changes his mind and lets allies down. Consider, for example, his relationships with Ukraine, with Europe and in the Middle East. And with Canada, or Denmark. Trump has also produced a new hostility to Australia's economic interests, which undermines America's capacity to claim to be an alliance partner or friend. Australians no longer share the values that Trump, and Trumpism, represents. Increasingly, Trump acts as if all his old allies, except Israel, are now both his economic and his military enemies. Australian officials think we maintain a core of personal relationships with American diplomats and military personnel that transcend the eccentricities and abrupt shifts by the president and his cronies. But such relationships do not seem to have worked, except in oozing charm on a very susceptible Marles. (Nor have other countries, such as Britain, Germany, France or Canada found that similar deeply embedded relationships have tempered the problems of Trump.) A new circumstance is that it is becoming clear that the US is using AUKUS, and its suddenly announced "review" of its AUKUS commitments, as a lever with which to press Australia to increase its defence expenditure. Indeed, that may be the whole purpose of having the review. There is nothing new as such in US pressure, particularly from Trump, to increase defence spending, preferably up to 4 per cent of gross national product. But the linkage of the two, together with the implications that Australia has been freeloading on the US on defence matters, is a galling inversion of the truth. Over the years, indeed, Australia has been too much an ally of the US, joining it in all sorts of absurd adventures (and failures) not in our national interest, believing we should do them to maintain credit with the US. Such partnerships have cost us much more than blood and treasure, substantial as that has been. It has also diminished our reputation in the world and in our neighbourhood, with many nations regarding us as no more than America's poodle, unable to act independently even when its interests are manifestly different from those of America. Our slavering loyalty has not been rewarded, as witnessed when America stole our markets after Scott Morrison provoked China to the point that it punished Australia, not America, by banning imports of Australian goods. Moreover, our AUKUS commitments are neither in financial nor strategic terms much, if at all, to Australia's benefit. From the US point of view, the deal locks Australia in as a very special ally with no, or next to no, right of independence of action. It is America, not Australia, which decides whether and when submarines come, and the US, for that matter, seems unable to honour its promises, even if it wanted to. Australia is paying through the nose, with no guarantees, and has almost no contractual rights or independence of action. The freeloading argument must be evaluated against the fact that the US-Australian alliance has involved massive Australian purchases of US military goods, in part for the explicit purpose of having virtually interchangeable equipment and military doctrine. Most equivalent countries, particularly in Europe, are nowhere as dependent on US military technology (and the flow of dollars to the US that represents). Nor does evaluation of the costs and benefits of the relationship pay any regard to the usefulness of American bases and intelligence capacity based in Australia. Many Australians do not recognise what an unequal relationship the partnership involves. One reason for that is that much of Australia's defence and intelligence establishment, including within academia and the bureaucracy, has been captured by the US view of the world. Many of our politicians, generals, admirals and air vice-marshals, and many of our intelligence boffins have effectively transferred their loyalties to the US, and America's view of how the alliance works. It is not a selfless conversion. The Pacific Ocean is choked with the traffic of consultancies, cross-postings, post-retirement jobs, and a revolving door of appointments, including handsome jobs in defence industry to people involved in approving tenders of billions of dollars. It is a market full of potential for corruption and conflict of interest, a risk from the lack of integrity controls, the lack of service, bureaucratic and political will to enforce the pathetic ethical obstacles that exist and the poor example of senior staff. Put bluntly, many of those involved in this game lack integrity, or obvious (patriotic) focus on Australia's national interests and the public interest. For at least 50 years, I have argued the need for some serious rules on this, but to no effect. ANALYSIS: What happened the last time AUKUS was reviewed There's another new reason for an independent and open review. Our American friends have come to think that our AUKUS signature precommits us to fight alongside the US if the US goes to war with China over Taiwan. Otherwise, it would not dream of selling us its old subs. Australia has never publicly committed itself to any fight over Taiwan, and, 50 years ago it would have been unthinkable. Obviously, we would deplore a less-than-peaceful reunion, but that does not mean that we would go to war over it, any more than we would go to war to defend the human rights of the people of Gaza when they are being massacred by the Israeli state. At most, we belatedly borrowed the "strategic ambiguity" line once used by the US, by indicating that we would not decide how we would react to an invasion until after it happened. Sort of like the US commitment to the defence of Australia under the ANZUS Treaty. Willy nilly, the US, which now seems determined on war if there is an invasion, is pressing for a definite Australian commitment. Many in our military establishment now seem to take it for granted that we would be involved, and our intelligence establishment, many of them shills for Taiwan when moonlighting from their US duties, works long and hard to press it as if it were an alliance obligation, though whether to the US or Taiwan is never made clear. Our hardheads might have strong sympathies for Taiwan, but do not want to get involved because their research shows that the US cannot win a war over Taiwan. Nor can we, but it would deliver us a higher class of determined and vengeful enemy. The Chinese may have failed to notice Australians in Korea and were probably highly amused at how we got bogged down in losing struggles in Vietnam, the Middle East and Afghanistan. But the merest Australian assistance to the US would provoke serious retaliation we do not need and make Australia an equal partner with the US in any vengeance doled out. We should not throw our young men and women into a conflict we cannot win. There is another argument for an independent and open Australian review. We have never had a proper debate on the AUKUS relationship, or even of the suitability of ANZUS arrangements for the present day. A debate is not a matter for a few inside experts, not a jamboree by a few retired insider politicians. It is one for the community, including the third of the nation which does not accept the consensus of insiders and directors of arms companies. Their credibility is low, and some of them, however involved in the defence gravy train, are not closely involved in Australia's image in the world. I would rate the current knowledge, the political instincts, and the feel for the thinking of ordinary Australians found in Paul Keating, or Malcolm Turnbull, or Gareth Evans against any number of former politicians now in cosy diplomatic jobs in London and Washington. And that's regardless of the number of "high-level briefings", site visits, golf games and the fine mind and communications skills of a Richard Marles. MORE JACK WATERFORD: It reflects seriously on the Prime Minister that he never encouraged a widespread public debate, or, for that matter, a population well educated on the issues at stake. Perhaps he felt insecure when he had a narrow majority, and a crossbench generally hostile to the comfy consensus of the Labor and Liberal parties. But he is not in that position now and must feel that he has nothing to apologise for. Compulsive secrecy, efforts to control the extent of the debate and the information to which it is allowed access, will not be enough to unite the population around what he quaintly called "a progressive patriotism where we are proud to do things our own way". At the press club on Tuesday, Albanese even sketched out how it could be - should be - done. He talked about popular frustration, "drawn from people's real experiences, the feeling that government isn't really working for them. "To counter this, we have to offer a practical and positive alternative ... We want a focused dialogue and constructive debate that leads to concrete and tangible actions ... Change that is imposed unilaterally rarely endures. The key to lasting change is reform that Australians own and understand. Reform that serves a national purpose and the national interest. Change that empowers and engages people, with a sense of choice and urgency. Change that generates its own momentum and builds its own staying power." This is not how Albanese has hitherto managed the defence debate, or the argument about Australia's place in the world. But he is right about the need to bring the public along. He must bring a new personality, a new attitude and a new confidence in the common sense of Australians. Otherwise, he won't be promoting a society Australians will clamour to defend. There is every reason for Australia to jump on board the idea of having a review of its AUKUS defence policy. The "America First" initiative is an opportunity to get out of a deal that was bad from the start, but it is getting seriously worse. It was, as any number of ex-prime ministers and foreign ministers, Labor and Liberal, tell us, a very bad deal, in which all the risk fell on Australia, and the goodies on offer would come too late, if indeed they came at all. The risk that they would never arrive has been increasing, although a failure to deliver on the part of either the US, or later, Britain, would not, in the very unequal deal, amount to a breach of contract. The US is bound to deliver only if some future US president decides the US has enough nuclear submarines of its own. Anthony Albanese and particularly his deputy, Richard Marles, were fools to adopt the Morrison plan. The arrival of President Donald Trump has added new layers of uncertainty to a deal that was already very iffy. Joe Biden, who signed the deal on behalf of the US, was at least committed to attempting to maintain American dominance in the western Pacific, even if outsiders considered that the rise of China made that impossible. Biden's manoeuvrings attempted to lock Australia in on the deal by extending AUKUS ties with Australia, including weapons storage and troop training. Now there is not only the problem of guessing what Trump thinks of US commitments, but how long those commitments will continue, because Trump frequently changes his mind and lets allies down. Consider, for example, his relationships with Ukraine, with Europe and in the Middle East. And with Canada, or Denmark. Trump has also produced a new hostility to Australia's economic interests, which undermines America's capacity to claim to be an alliance partner or friend. Australians no longer share the values that Trump, and Trumpism, represents. Increasingly, Trump acts as if all his old allies, except Israel, are now both his economic and his military enemies. Australian officials think we maintain a core of personal relationships with American diplomats and military personnel that transcend the eccentricities and abrupt shifts by the president and his cronies. But such relationships do not seem to have worked, except in oozing charm on a very susceptible Marles. (Nor have other countries, such as Britain, Germany, France or Canada found that similar deeply embedded relationships have tempered the problems of Trump.) A new circumstance is that it is becoming clear that the US is using AUKUS, and its suddenly announced "review" of its AUKUS commitments, as a lever with which to press Australia to increase its defence expenditure. Indeed, that may be the whole purpose of having the review. There is nothing new as such in US pressure, particularly from Trump, to increase defence spending, preferably up to 4 per cent of gross national product. But the linkage of the two, together with the implications that Australia has been freeloading on the US on defence matters, is a galling inversion of the truth. Over the years, indeed, Australia has been too much an ally of the US, joining it in all sorts of absurd adventures (and failures) not in our national interest, believing we should do them to maintain credit with the US. Such partnerships have cost us much more than blood and treasure, substantial as that has been. It has also diminished our reputation in the world and in our neighbourhood, with many nations regarding us as no more than America's poodle, unable to act independently even when its interests are manifestly different from those of America. Our slavering loyalty has not been rewarded, as witnessed when America stole our markets after Scott Morrison provoked China to the point that it punished Australia, not America, by banning imports of Australian goods. Moreover, our AUKUS commitments are neither in financial nor strategic terms much, if at all, to Australia's benefit. From the US point of view, the deal locks Australia in as a very special ally with no, or next to no, right of independence of action. It is America, not Australia, which decides whether and when submarines come, and the US, for that matter, seems unable to honour its promises, even if it wanted to. Australia is paying through the nose, with no guarantees, and has almost no contractual rights or independence of action. The freeloading argument must be evaluated against the fact that the US-Australian alliance has involved massive Australian purchases of US military goods, in part for the explicit purpose of having virtually interchangeable equipment and military doctrine. Most equivalent countries, particularly in Europe, are nowhere as dependent on US military technology (and the flow of dollars to the US that represents). Nor does evaluation of the costs and benefits of the relationship pay any regard to the usefulness of American bases and intelligence capacity based in Australia. Many Australians do not recognise what an unequal relationship the partnership involves. One reason for that is that much of Australia's defence and intelligence establishment, including within academia and the bureaucracy, has been captured by the US view of the world. Many of our politicians, generals, admirals and air vice-marshals, and many of our intelligence boffins have effectively transferred their loyalties to the US, and America's view of how the alliance works. It is not a selfless conversion. The Pacific Ocean is choked with the traffic of consultancies, cross-postings, post-retirement jobs, and a revolving door of appointments, including handsome jobs in defence industry to people involved in approving tenders of billions of dollars. It is a market full of potential for corruption and conflict of interest, a risk from the lack of integrity controls, the lack of service, bureaucratic and political will to enforce the pathetic ethical obstacles that exist and the poor example of senior staff. Put bluntly, many of those involved in this game lack integrity, or obvious (patriotic) focus on Australia's national interests and the public interest. For at least 50 years, I have argued the need for some serious rules on this, but to no effect. ANALYSIS: What happened the last time AUKUS was reviewed There's another new reason for an independent and open review. Our American friends have come to think that our AUKUS signature precommits us to fight alongside the US if the US goes to war with China over Taiwan. Otherwise, it would not dream of selling us its old subs. Australia has never publicly committed itself to any fight over Taiwan, and, 50 years ago it would have been unthinkable. Obviously, we would deplore a less-than-peaceful reunion, but that does not mean that we would go to war over it, any more than we would go to war to defend the human rights of the people of Gaza when they are being massacred by the Israeli state. At most, we belatedly borrowed the "strategic ambiguity" line once used by the US, by indicating that we would not decide how we would react to an invasion until after it happened. Sort of like the US commitment to the defence of Australia under the ANZUS Treaty. Willy nilly, the US, which now seems determined on war if there is an invasion, is pressing for a definite Australian commitment. Many in our military establishment now seem to take it for granted that we would be involved, and our intelligence establishment, many of them shills for Taiwan when moonlighting from their US duties, works long and hard to press it as if it were an alliance obligation, though whether to the US or Taiwan is never made clear. Our hardheads might have strong sympathies for Taiwan, but do not want to get involved because their research shows that the US cannot win a war over Taiwan. Nor can we, but it would deliver us a higher class of determined and vengeful enemy. The Chinese may have failed to notice Australians in Korea and were probably highly amused at how we got bogged down in losing struggles in Vietnam, the Middle East and Afghanistan. But the merest Australian assistance to the US would provoke serious retaliation we do not need and make Australia an equal partner with the US in any vengeance doled out. We should not throw our young men and women into a conflict we cannot win. There is another argument for an independent and open Australian review. We have never had a proper debate on the AUKUS relationship, or even of the suitability of ANZUS arrangements for the present day. A debate is not a matter for a few inside experts, not a jamboree by a few retired insider politicians. It is one for the community, including the third of the nation which does not accept the consensus of insiders and directors of arms companies. Their credibility is low, and some of them, however involved in the defence gravy train, are not closely involved in Australia's image in the world. I would rate the current knowledge, the political instincts, and the feel for the thinking of ordinary Australians found in Paul Keating, or Malcolm Turnbull, or Gareth Evans against any number of former politicians now in cosy diplomatic jobs in London and Washington. And that's regardless of the number of "high-level briefings", site visits, golf games and the fine mind and communications skills of a Richard Marles. MORE JACK WATERFORD: It reflects seriously on the Prime Minister that he never encouraged a widespread public debate, or, for that matter, a population well educated on the issues at stake. Perhaps he felt insecure when he had a narrow majority, and a crossbench generally hostile to the comfy consensus of the Labor and Liberal parties. But he is not in that position now and must feel that he has nothing to apologise for. Compulsive secrecy, efforts to control the extent of the debate and the information to which it is allowed access, will not be enough to unite the population around what he quaintly called "a progressive patriotism where we are proud to do things our own way". At the press club on Tuesday, Albanese even sketched out how it could be - should be - done. He talked about popular frustration, "drawn from people's real experiences, the feeling that government isn't really working for them. "To counter this, we have to offer a practical and positive alternative ... We want a focused dialogue and constructive debate that leads to concrete and tangible actions ... Change that is imposed unilaterally rarely endures. The key to lasting change is reform that Australians own and understand. Reform that serves a national purpose and the national interest. Change that empowers and engages people, with a sense of choice and urgency. Change that generates its own momentum and builds its own staying power." This is not how Albanese has hitherto managed the defence debate, or the argument about Australia's place in the world. But he is right about the need to bring the public along. He must bring a new personality, a new attitude and a new confidence in the common sense of Australians. Otherwise, he won't be promoting a society Australians will clamour to defend. There is every reason for Australia to jump on board the idea of having a review of its AUKUS defence policy. The "America First" initiative is an opportunity to get out of a deal that was bad from the start, but it is getting seriously worse. It was, as any number of ex-prime ministers and foreign ministers, Labor and Liberal, tell us, a very bad deal, in which all the risk fell on Australia, and the goodies on offer would come too late, if indeed they came at all. The risk that they would never arrive has been increasing, although a failure to deliver on the part of either the US, or later, Britain, would not, in the very unequal deal, amount to a breach of contract. The US is bound to deliver only if some future US president decides the US has enough nuclear submarines of its own. Anthony Albanese and particularly his deputy, Richard Marles, were fools to adopt the Morrison plan. The arrival of President Donald Trump has added new layers of uncertainty to a deal that was already very iffy. Joe Biden, who signed the deal on behalf of the US, was at least committed to attempting to maintain American dominance in the western Pacific, even if outsiders considered that the rise of China made that impossible. Biden's manoeuvrings attempted to lock Australia in on the deal by extending AUKUS ties with Australia, including weapons storage and troop training. Now there is not only the problem of guessing what Trump thinks of US commitments, but how long those commitments will continue, because Trump frequently changes his mind and lets allies down. Consider, for example, his relationships with Ukraine, with Europe and in the Middle East. And with Canada, or Denmark. Trump has also produced a new hostility to Australia's economic interests, which undermines America's capacity to claim to be an alliance partner or friend. Australians no longer share the values that Trump, and Trumpism, represents. Increasingly, Trump acts as if all his old allies, except Israel, are now both his economic and his military enemies. Australian officials think we maintain a core of personal relationships with American diplomats and military personnel that transcend the eccentricities and abrupt shifts by the president and his cronies. But such relationships do not seem to have worked, except in oozing charm on a very susceptible Marles. (Nor have other countries, such as Britain, Germany, France or Canada found that similar deeply embedded relationships have tempered the problems of Trump.) A new circumstance is that it is becoming clear that the US is using AUKUS, and its suddenly announced "review" of its AUKUS commitments, as a lever with which to press Australia to increase its defence expenditure. Indeed, that may be the whole purpose of having the review. There is nothing new as such in US pressure, particularly from Trump, to increase defence spending, preferably up to 4 per cent of gross national product. But the linkage of the two, together with the implications that Australia has been freeloading on the US on defence matters, is a galling inversion of the truth. Over the years, indeed, Australia has been too much an ally of the US, joining it in all sorts of absurd adventures (and failures) not in our national interest, believing we should do them to maintain credit with the US. Such partnerships have cost us much more than blood and treasure, substantial as that has been. It has also diminished our reputation in the world and in our neighbourhood, with many nations regarding us as no more than America's poodle, unable to act independently even when its interests are manifestly different from those of America. Our slavering loyalty has not been rewarded, as witnessed when America stole our markets after Scott Morrison provoked China to the point that it punished Australia, not America, by banning imports of Australian goods. Moreover, our AUKUS commitments are neither in financial nor strategic terms much, if at all, to Australia's benefit. From the US point of view, the deal locks Australia in as a very special ally with no, or next to no, right of independence of action. It is America, not Australia, which decides whether and when submarines come, and the US, for that matter, seems unable to honour its promises, even if it wanted to. Australia is paying through the nose, with no guarantees, and has almost no contractual rights or independence of action. The freeloading argument must be evaluated against the fact that the US-Australian alliance has involved massive Australian purchases of US military goods, in part for the explicit purpose of having virtually interchangeable equipment and military doctrine. Most equivalent countries, particularly in Europe, are nowhere as dependent on US military technology (and the flow of dollars to the US that represents). Nor does evaluation of the costs and benefits of the relationship pay any regard to the usefulness of American bases and intelligence capacity based in Australia. Many Australians do not recognise what an unequal relationship the partnership involves. One reason for that is that much of Australia's defence and intelligence establishment, including within academia and the bureaucracy, has been captured by the US view of the world. Many of our politicians, generals, admirals and air vice-marshals, and many of our intelligence boffins have effectively transferred their loyalties to the US, and America's view of how the alliance works. It is not a selfless conversion. The Pacific Ocean is choked with the traffic of consultancies, cross-postings, post-retirement jobs, and a revolving door of appointments, including handsome jobs in defence industry to people involved in approving tenders of billions of dollars. It is a market full of potential for corruption and conflict of interest, a risk from the lack of integrity controls, the lack of service, bureaucratic and political will to enforce the pathetic ethical obstacles that exist and the poor example of senior staff. Put bluntly, many of those involved in this game lack integrity, or obvious (patriotic) focus on Australia's national interests and the public interest. For at least 50 years, I have argued the need for some serious rules on this, but to no effect. ANALYSIS: What happened the last time AUKUS was reviewed There's another new reason for an independent and open review. Our American friends have come to think that our AUKUS signature precommits us to fight alongside the US if the US goes to war with China over Taiwan. Otherwise, it would not dream of selling us its old subs. Australia has never publicly committed itself to any fight over Taiwan, and, 50 years ago it would have been unthinkable. Obviously, we would deplore a less-than-peaceful reunion, but that does not mean that we would go to war over it, any more than we would go to war to defend the human rights of the people of Gaza when they are being massacred by the Israeli state. At most, we belatedly borrowed the "strategic ambiguity" line once used by the US, by indicating that we would not decide how we would react to an invasion until after it happened. Sort of like the US commitment to the defence of Australia under the ANZUS Treaty. Willy nilly, the US, which now seems determined on war if there is an invasion, is pressing for a definite Australian commitment. Many in our military establishment now seem to take it for granted that we would be involved, and our intelligence establishment, many of them shills for Taiwan when moonlighting from their US duties, works long and hard to press it as if it were an alliance obligation, though whether to the US or Taiwan is never made clear. Our hardheads might have strong sympathies for Taiwan, but do not want to get involved because their research shows that the US cannot win a war over Taiwan. Nor can we, but it would deliver us a higher class of determined and vengeful enemy. The Chinese may have failed to notice Australians in Korea and were probably highly amused at how we got bogged down in losing struggles in Vietnam, the Middle East and Afghanistan. But the merest Australian assistance to the US would provoke serious retaliation we do not need and make Australia an equal partner with the US in any vengeance doled out. We should not throw our young men and women into a conflict we cannot win. There is another argument for an independent and open Australian review. We have never had a proper debate on the AUKUS relationship, or even of the suitability of ANZUS arrangements for the present day. A debate is not a matter for a few inside experts, not a jamboree by a few retired insider politicians. It is one for the community, including the third of the nation which does not accept the consensus of insiders and directors of arms companies. Their credibility is low, and some of them, however involved in the defence gravy train, are not closely involved in Australia's image in the world. I would rate the current knowledge, the political instincts, and the feel for the thinking of ordinary Australians found in Paul Keating, or Malcolm Turnbull, or Gareth Evans against any number of former politicians now in cosy diplomatic jobs in London and Washington. And that's regardless of the number of "high-level briefings", site visits, golf games and the fine mind and communications skills of a Richard Marles. MORE JACK WATERFORD: It reflects seriously on the Prime Minister that he never encouraged a widespread public debate, or, for that matter, a population well educated on the issues at stake. Perhaps he felt insecure when he had a narrow majority, and a crossbench generally hostile to the comfy consensus of the Labor and Liberal parties. But he is not in that position now and must feel that he has nothing to apologise for. Compulsive secrecy, efforts to control the extent of the debate and the information to which it is allowed access, will not be enough to unite the population around what he quaintly called "a progressive patriotism where we are proud to do things our own way". At the press club on Tuesday, Albanese even sketched out how it could be - should be - done. He talked about popular frustration, "drawn from people's real experiences, the feeling that government isn't really working for them. "To counter this, we have to offer a practical and positive alternative ... We want a focused dialogue and constructive debate that leads to concrete and tangible actions ... Change that is imposed unilaterally rarely endures. The key to lasting change is reform that Australians own and understand. Reform that serves a national purpose and the national interest. Change that empowers and engages people, with a sense of choice and urgency. Change that generates its own momentum and builds its own staying power." This is not how Albanese has hitherto managed the defence debate, or the argument about Australia's place in the world. But he is right about the need to bring the public along. He must bring a new personality, a new attitude and a new confidence in the common sense of Australians. Otherwise, he won't be promoting a society Australians will clamour to defend.
