Defence minister concedes Australia's military spending may need to rise after meeting US counterpart Pete Hegseth
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has urged Australia to increase military spending, a day after Prime Minister Anthony Albanese blasted a leading security think tank which warned this country was poorly prepared for the growing risk of regional conflict.
Ahead of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Defence Minister Richard Marles has told his US counterpart that the Albanese government is willing to have a 'conversation' about lifting expenditure.
Australia is on track to reach defence spending levels of 2.33 per cent of GDP by 2033-34, up from its current level of 2.02 per cent, but for months the Trump Administration has pressured the government to get to at least three per cent of GDP.
'I wouldn't put a number on it, the need to increase defence spending is something that he definitely raised,' Mr Marles told the ABC's Afternoon Briefing program following his meeting with the Pentagon boss.
'You have seen the Americans in the way in which they have engaged with all of their friends and allies asking them to do more and we can completely understand why America would do that.'
'What I made clear is that this is a conversation that we are very willing to have, and it is one that we are having, having already made very significant steps in the past.'
'But we want to make sure that we are contributing to the strategic moment that we face, that we all face, and what Pete Hegseth said is entirely consistent with in the way that the Americans have been speaking to all their friends'.
'We understand it and we are very much up for that conversation.
On Thursday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese lashed out after a report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) warned Australia could be left with a "brittle and hollowed defence force" if military funding was not increased.
"Well, that's what they do, isn't it, ASPI? I mean, seriously, they need to … have a look at themselves and the way they conduct themselves in debates," Mr Albanese told the ABC following the report's release.
"We've had a defence strategic review. We've got considerable additional investment going into defence — $10 billion," the Prime Minister said while insisting his government was acting.
Mr Marles is due to meet with counterparts from a range of other countries on the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue, which brings together leaders, army chiefs, defence ministers and analysts from across the globe.
On Saturday the Defence Minister will use a speech at the event to warn 'we also have to counter the grim, potentially imminent, possibility of another wave of global nuclear proliferation as states seek security in a new age of imperial ambition.'
China has been rapidly building up its own nuclear arsenal, while Russia has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons since its invasion of Ukraine.
The Defence Minister is expected to call that behaviour a 'profound abrogation of (Russia's) responsibilities as a permanent member of the UN Security Council,' warning that the behaviour of states like Russia, Iran and North Korea could drive nuclear proliferation around the world.
'Not only does this work against states disarming their own nuclear arsenals, as Ukraine responsibly did in 1994, the war is prompting some frontier states most exposed to Russian aggression to consider their options,' he will say.
'And this has dire consequences for our region too. Russia has agreed a strategic partnership with North Korea to access the munitions and troops Moscow needs to continue its war.'
'The probability that Russia is transferring nuclear weapons technology in payment for Pyongyang's support places intolerable pressure on South Korea.'
The Defence Minister will also once again criticise China for undertaking the 'largest conventional military build-up since WWII', saying it's doing so 'without providing any strategic transparency or reassurance.'
'This remains a defining feature of the strategic complexity that the Indo-Pacific and the world faces today,' he's expected to say.
Mr Marles's speech comes in the wake of a series of meetings this week between Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and a host of Pacific counterparts in the southern city of Xiamen.
Officials from Australia, the US, New Zealand and Japan have all monitored the gathering closely, while China has hailed it as a major milestone in its ties with the Pacific.
Beijing didn't unveil any major initiatives at the meeting. And while Pacific nations backed Beijing's claim over Taiwan, they didn't issue a direct endorsement of China's commitment to 'reunify' the self-ruled island with the mainland.
But one Pacific government source told the ABC that China's criticisms of the Trump Administration's sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs, as well as its move to slash aid and dump the Paris Agreement on climate change, resonated with the Pacific countries at the meeting.
Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister Matt told the Financial Times that 'the Trump administration's economic policies have created some uncertainty' in the Pacific.
But Mr Marles declined to say if he raised Australia's concerns about US aid cuts with Pete Hegseth, simply saying the Trump Administration 'understood' the importance of the Pacific region.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
15 minutes ago
- ABC News
Student activists say freedom of speech is under attack
When Finn Penter hung six posters outside a lecture theatre at his university, he had no idea it would lead to a formal reprimand. Finn, a member of the University of Western Australia's (UWA) student guild, hung the posters to alert others to changes in university regulations that he believes would limit students right to protest. The six posters bore the slogans "free speech is under attack" and "clubs are under attack". He is also a member of the Socialist Alternative and has been involved in pro-Palestinian activism on campus. "I think it's quite ludicrous that they're equating those acts with the act of expressing my political opinion." The UWA would not comment directly on Finn's disciplinary process, but in a statement a spokesperson said the use of posters and stickers on university buildings had always been restricted to the Guild area on campus. "Unfortunately, last year there was a notable lack of regard shown to the university, its grounds, and our buildings," the spokesperson said. "Our university security officers, who prioritise the safety of our students, were required on multiple occasions to divert resources to removing posters, chalk and stickers." Finn believes his disciplinary action is a sign of UWA cracking down on freedom on speech. Earlier this year the UWA also implemented a ban on student announcements before lectures. That ban has now been eased and students are able to make announcements if they have permission from the university. Other universities around the country are making similar changes. They come after Palestinian solidarity protests and encampments, but universities say the new rules are not specifically related to pro-Palestinian activism. Monash University in Melbourne implemented a new student code of conduct at the start of this year. The code included a clause which prevented students from acting in a way that would "adversely impact the reputation of the university". That reference to reputation has since been removed from the code. The new student code also prohibits students from disrupting "orderly conduct" of any university-related activity. A spokesperson for Monash said the university supports students academic freedom and freedom of speech. "The University developed the Student Code in consultation with student representatives and has continued to consult with student groups," the spokesperson said. "It was agreed that a previous reference to reputation in the Code was incorrectly included, and was then subsequently removed." Madi Curkovic, who is a member of the Monash Student Association, is worried the university is trying to stop students speaking out against the university. She has faced disciplinary action in the past for her involvement in pro-Palestinian protests on campus. "The question of having free and open discussions is something that should be part of university life … but there is a slow encroachment," she said. In the heart of Melbourne, students at the University of Melbourne have told triple j hack police have visited the homes of students involved in on campus activism. One student, who didn't want their name used, said the police visit left her scared she would get raided. The police visits related to a particular protest in the office of a University of Melbourne academic. Students, some of whom were masked and wearing keffiyehs, entered the office chanting and putting up stickers. The student protesters said they acted peacefully and entered the office during open office hours. But Steven Prawer, the academic involved, told triple j hack the protest was "frightening" and "intimidating". Victoria Police said officers attended the incident and moved students on, but did not confirm if investigations are still ongoing. A spokesperson for the University of Melbourne said the university was in regular contact with police to ensure campuses remain safe spaces for staff, students and visitors. "Where there are instances of unacceptable behaviour, we will investigate and take appropriate action, which, for actions that may be criminal, may involve referral to the police," the spokesperson said. The spokesperson also said the university supports students right to protest and that since a ban on indoor protests was implemented in March, students and staff have reported feeling safer on campus. The University of Sydney is also considering changes to protest rules on campus. In January the university proposed banning lecturer announcements, mass emails and the display of banners without prior approval. The proposals were made in response to an external review of university regulations after last year's Palestinian solidarity encampments. The head of University of Sydney's Australasian Union of Jewish Students, Dror Liraz, told triple j hack she doesn't believe people's right to free speech is under attack. "The new guidelines aren't restricting anything, protests can still happen, and you can still protest whatever you like," she said. Dror, who was born in Israel, was part of a protest movement last year calling for the resignation of University of Sydney vice-chancellor Mark Scott. She said it has been incredibly difficult to be on campus over the past 12 months. "I'm struggling to keep up with work," Dror said. "I remember during the encampment when things were especially intense, I would just sit in front of the computer trying to write my assignments and just would not be able to. "I would not be able to think about anything else apart from the fact that there seems to be people at my university, who no matter how hard I try, just seem to hate me." Dror believes having some restrictions on how and when people can protest could help protect Jewish students. "If you think that antisemitism falls into your freedom of speech, then that's just blatant racism."
ABC News
28 minutes ago
- ABC News
Liberal dysfunction allows Labor to get away scot-free on emissions failure
One consequence of a broken, distracted and internally-focused opposition is that it gives the government leeway to do what it wants. Unencumbered. Add a thumping electoral majority to the mix and what might be considered confidence can easily morph into hubris. Labor is easily managing politically vexed problems while the dysfunction of the other side chews up endless column inches. And to be fair, the ongoing fracturing of the Coalition is indeed a compelling story. Australians voted for a House of Representatives in which as many as 110 seats out of 150 could broadly be categorised as "progressive". The remainder are conservative. That the Coalition would conclude from that result, as some conservatives loudly assert, that the answer is to veer even harder to the right by doubling down on culture wars is rather surprising. "Really? What voters really wanted was a culture war out on the right?" said former Liberal candidate and political consultant David Gazzard. "If only we'd had a big old dinger with right wing ideology they would have voted for us?" It's hard to shake the impression the Coalition continues to miss the May 3 memo from voters. Sussan Ley and David Littleproud — both perched atop the restive dragon tails of their respective party rooms — have determined that net zero needs to be debated, reviewed and potentially dumped. As one reader noted to this columnist, the whole scene is "like going to a party with old mates and realising you got your shit together and they're still on the bongs". While the Coalition figures out how to mature its energy and climate idea over the next six years — during which time the renewables rollout will continue to deepen — the real game is with the government and what it's doing and not doing to manage a series of tricky decision points. Nowhere is this more evident than Labor's move to green-light an extension to Woodside's North West shelf gas project. Given the backlash, Labor was politically canny to postpone its decision from the original deadline that would have coincided with the election. Seats the government nearly lost to climate action independents such as Fremantle in WA and Bean in the ACT would no doubt have fallen. Wills in Victoria might have gone to the Greens. Adam Bandt might still be in parliament. When it came on Wednesday, the project approval itself was no great surprise. Woodside has been jumping through existing state and federal regulatory and environmental hoops and clearing them for the best part of seven years. Manufacturing unions and WA's mining industry are delighted. Minerals Council of Australia chief Tania Constable told the ABC on Friday that future critical minerals rare earth production needs the gas at competitive prices to develop those resources. Murray Watt, who replaced Tanya Plibersek in the environment portfolio after the May 3 election, is pretty much the final rubber stamp. But by extending the operating licence for the NorthWest Shelf from 2030 to 2070, Woodside and its investment partners can now work to unlock the vast Browse Basin off the WA coast, which climate groups have branded a "carbon bomb". Watt has given Woodside until this coming week to agree to a number of final conditions. These likely relate mostly to the proximate impact on Indigenous rock art of industrial emissions released during liquefaction of gas for export. While relevant, such plant-level impacts are relatively minor. The emissions that really matter are those associated with the energy-intensive process of converting extracted gas into a liquefied form for export shipment. Alongside "fugitive emissions" from leaks and flaring, such energy use across the gas industry accounts for a significant portion of overall national emissions. Potentially up to 10 per cent a year, according to Climate Change Authority data. Critically for Labor, those "scope two" emissions don't come for free. They add to the nationwide pollution burden and they weigh on Australia's global reputation as a fossil fuel super polluter that exports "scope three" emissions at an industrial scale. Australia is about to ramp up its efforts in coming months to win hosting rights to next year's UN climate summit and younger voters continue to register alarm over the lack of urgency over climate action. All of this should be uncomfortable ground for Labor. Were the Liberals not still arguing about the basic entry-level proposition of whether net zero by 2050 should remain on their policy books, they might instead be squeezing the government over the North West shelf decision and its climate policy performance more broadly. Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen is currently awaiting advice from the Climate Change Authority on what the nation's 2035 emissions reduction target should be. Authority chairman Matt Kean — a former NSW Liberal treasurer and energy minister appointed by Labor nearly a year ago — is busy crunching the numbers on a proposed emissions target for 2035. The range the authority believes is consistent with Australia meeting its obligations to the Paris climate agreement (which seeks to limit global average temperature increases "to well below 2 degrees Celsius") would be an emissions cut of between 65 per cent and 75 per cent of the nation's level in 2005. That would extend the current 2030 target for a 43 per cent reduction. This column understands the Climate Change Authority's modelling does not currently include the impact from the Woodside extension or Browse, but that it will be significant. That work is being done now. For Bowen the yet-to-be answered question is how exactly this gets managed under his existing Safeguard Mechanism policy. A carrot and stick approach that aims to force down industrial and resources emissions in coming years, the mechanism works by penalising big polluters that fail to adopt low-emissions alternatives or by making them buy a limited pool of carbon offsets. Kean, who has plenty of experience in this space, will no doubt be urging Labor to make Woodside pay its own emissions bill rather than socialising the cost on the rest of the economy. Kean might indeed be telling Bowen that the company, which maintains an official "aspiration of net zero by 2050 or sooner", be required to source the energy it needs for its export operations from renewables rather than fossil fuels. That would be expensive. But so is decarbonising an entire economy. Watt does not appear to have put any such condition on Woodside, but that does not mean the issue now goes away. Labor is racing to pass its environmental protection legislation when parliament resumes next month. The Greens, whom Labor needs in the Senate, will again likely insist that climate impacts of big new projects like Browse be taken into consideration. Labor counters that its Safeguard Mechanism should be the primary policy of industrial emissions action. But Australians are yet to see firm evidence it's working as advertised. Indeed the government continues to whistle past the graveyard on national emissions. Official quarterly data released on Friday shows Australia's greenhouse gas reduction performance has tanked. Emissions inched lower last year by an essentially invisible 0.05 per cent to an estimated 446.4 million tonnes, the fourth year in a row that progress has stalled. To get emissions down to 350 million tonnes — the legislated 2030 target — will now require six straight years in which pollution falls by an average 3.6 per cent. A tall order, you might say. The reasons behind this weak performance are equally discouraging. Agricultural emissions fell 2 per cent last year because crop production declined. Energy emissions were up 2.2 per cent because lower hydro generation led to more reliance on coal power. Meanwhile transport was up 1.9 per cent as aviation consumption reached a record. The only good news was from industry, where emissions fell 5 per cent thanks to technology and production changes in chemicals and metals sectors. Labor's safeguard mechanism is "inadequate" for the challenges facing the nation because of emissions such as the NorthWest Shelf, warns Amanda McKenzie, CEO of the Climate Council, a group that campaigns against climate pollution. "There's no way to sequester those emissions," McKenzie says. "If you allow your fossil fuel sector to expand and you don't have tight enough targets in the safeguard that put pressure on those projects to cut emissions, then other sectors like agriculture and transport have to do more. "The idea that this is an offshore problem is entirely false because any fossil fuel project is using fossil fuels for export. "So we have to account for that climate pollution in Australia." It's a point the opposition might care to make. If it wasn't so busy toying with a world where doing nothing is the apparent answer.
News.com.au
33 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Darwin homes cheaper than in 2010
Darwin homebuyers are paying less for real estate than they were 15 years ago in all but one suburb once median property prices are adjusted for inflation. PropTrack's generational study converted past median house prices into today's dollars and found Darwin buyers were paying up to 31 per cent less for houses than they were in 2010, and up to 54 per cent less for units. Stuart Park was the only suburb where buyers were paying more today when looking at the adjusted values, with the median house price up 13 per cent from $786,700 (adjusted for inflation) to $891,000. In Gunn, buyers are paying 31 per cent less than in 2010, with the suburb recording a current average house price of $522,500 compared to a corrected price of $762,400 15 years ago. In Wagaman the difference was $228,500 or 31 per cent, while in Lyons it was $205,700 or 21 per cent. In the unit market, the adjusted median price in Driver was 54 per cent higher in 2010 compared to 2025. In Darwin City, the 2010 median unit price of $575,000 – equal to $797,100 today – dropped 52 per cent to a median of $380,000. While in Larrakeyah, the drop from the adjusted 2010 prices was 48 per cent, from $686,200 to $360,000. Is this the NT's best shower view? Home price surges predicted for NT Real Estate Central director, Michael Van De Graaf said in 2010 the Darwin property market was between two peaks influenced by major projects. 'The market took off in about 2003 with the Bechtel gas project,' he said. 'We had a bit of a downturn around about 2010 and then the market picked up again with the announcement of the Inpex project. 'We had so much work up here, but the problem was we then had strong population growth and accommodation was hard to find, so rents went through the roof. 'Initially we saw a lot of interstate investors in the market and then the local mum and dad investors. 'I'd say 2014 was the top of the market – 2010 was much more affordable than 2014.' Mr Van De Graaf said currently Darwin was the most affordable capital city in the country, with strong returns and potential for solid capital growth once again attracting investors. 'Darwin is certainly a market on the tipping point, if not already past it,' he said. 'What we're seeing now is a lot of interstate investors around that median price range. 'We're selling around about 50 per cent of properties to investors … and supply is starting to dwindle.' The PropTrack generational study also showed today's Darwin homebuyers were paying far more than those from 2000. The median house price in Bakewell 25 years ago was $53,250. Corrected for inflation, that is $97,000. Today, buyers in Bakewell are paying 400 per cent more, with the average cost of a house sitting at $485,000. In Virginia, the difference between the adjusted 2000 median house price and the current median house price was 375 per cent, while in Gunn it was 345 per cent and in Humpty Doo it was 148 per cent. PropTrack economist Angus Moore said the rapid growth in home prices since the 1990s was linked to lower interest rates during that time. The cash rate in 1990 was 17 per cent but had dropped to 6.25 per cent by the end of 2000 and 4.25 per cent by the end of 2001. Mr Moore said lower interest rates allowed for larger loans. 'When interest rates are lower, people can afford to service a larger mortgage, which then creates greater competition in the housing market and that has allowed home prices to rise much faster than wages,' he said. The Reserve Bank of Australia this month cut 25 basis points from the official cash rate to 3.85 per cent. Mr Moore said while this gave buyers a boost in borrowing power, it did not offset the growing cost of saving for a deposit. 'The deposit hurdle is just unequivocally harder than it was four or five decades ago, and that has manifested in home ownership rates which have fallen over those years,' he said. Mr Moore said young people were taking longer to enter the market, relying more on family support, or accessing government incentives to buy with a smaller deposit. 'Most first-homebuyers don't have a 20 per cent deposit available,' he said. DARWIN PROPERTY PRICES – 2010 VS 2025 HOUSES Suburb Median price 2010 Adjusted to today's $ 2025 median price Difference Gunn $550,000 $762,400 $522,500 -31% Wagaman $540,000 $748,500 $520,000 -31% Lyons $707,500 $980,700 $775,000 -21% Anula $540,000 $748,500 $545,000 -27% Karama $483,025 $669,600 $470,000 -30% Leanyer $572,500 $793,600 $598,000 -25% Wulagi $532,500 $738,200 $545,000 -26% Durack $555,500 $770,000 $579,000 -25% Millner $541,750 $751,000 $560,000 -25% Bakewell $486,250 $674,000 $485,000 -28% Woodroffe $460,000 $637,700 $450,000 -29% Farrar $547,500 $758,900 $572,500 -25% Malak $500,017 $693,100 $510,000 -26% Gray $435,000 $603,000 $420,000 -30% Moulden $426,500 $591,200 $425,000 -28% Driver $449,000 $622,400 $460,000 -26% Moil $510,000 $707,000 $547,500 -23% Tiwi $515,000 $713,900 $575,000 -19% Wanguri $535,000 $741,600 $622,500 -16% Jingili $540,000 $748,500 $630,000 -16% Rosebery $500,000 $693,100 $590,000 -15% Howard Springs $590,000 $817,900 $770,000 -6% Rapid Creek $585,000 $810,900 $800,000 -1% Humpty Doo $482,500 $668,800 $660,000 -1% Nightcliff $745,000 $1,032,700 $1,025,000 -1% Stuart Park $567,500 $786,700 $891,000 13% UNITS Suburb Median price 2010 Adjusted to today's $ 2025 median price Difference Driver $385,000 $533,700 $247,500 -54% Darwin City $575,000 $797,100 $380,000 -52% Larrakeyah $495,000 $686,200 $360,000 -48% Bakewell $392,000 $543,400 $289,000 -47% Gray $360,000 $499,000 $272,500 -45% Leanyer $407,500 $564,900 $328,000 -42% Stuart Park $540,000 $748,500 $437,100 -42% Bayview $760,000 $1,053,500 $627,500 -40% Millner $395,000 $547,500 $335,000 -39% Coconut Grove $405,000 $561,400 $370,000 -34% Parap $460,000 $637,700 $435,000 -32% Fannie Bay $480,000 $665,400 $460,000 -31% Rapid Creek $415,000 $575,300 $405,000 -30% Rosebery $395,000 $547,500 $396,000 -28% Nightcliff $303,000 $420,000 $330,000 -21%
