Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price rejected she should wear any blame for the Coalition's defeat
Liberal Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has furiously rejected she should wear any blame for the Coalition's shocking election defeat.
ABC election coverage co-host Sarah Ferguson opened an interview with Senator Price, the spokesman for Indigenous Affairs and the figure tapped to lead an Elon Musk-style government efficiency review, with a pearler.
'With your embrace of Donald Trump and Make Australia Great, are you part of that loss?' Ferguson asked.
A shocked Senator Price fired back: 'That's a big call, don't you think?
'If you swing enough mud in an election, it sticks. We did see a prime minister who absolutely misled the Australian people all the way through and was rarely called out for his conduct. I think it is deceitful.'
When Ferguson suggested the prominent Coalition figure wasn't taking the matter seriously, Senator Price hit back again.
'If you don't think I'm addressing this seriously … I am addressing this deadly seriously.'
Senator Price repeatedly invoked the US president and some of his policies and even catch cries in recent times.
Photos emerged of her wearing a 'Make American Great Again' cap and she cheered 'Make Australia Great Again' during a press conference, seconds after declaring the media was obsessed with Mr Trump.
When asked tonight what impact this might've had, given the backlash to Mr Trump and his tariff attacks on Australia, Senator Price muttered: 'Oh my goodness.'
'There is a whole lot of mud you just slung right there,' she said.
'Can I just say, in terms of wanting this country to be great again, Donald Trump doesn't own those four words.
'And because the media can go through your personal Facebook photos, and find a picture that was taken, in jest, at Christmas time, and then smear you with it, that is the problem. That is the issue.'
Of the mammoth defeat, Senator Price said unseating a first-term prime minister was never going to be easy.
'It's only been done in 1931, the last time, obviously. But believe me you, this doesn't mean that we give up or we back down. We will just go harder and we will learn from the mistakes we have made in terms of our campaign.'
She said Peter Dutton being turfed from his own seat was 'a huge loss'.
'The Liberal Party will determine what the leadership looks like going forward, but we will absolutely learn.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
The Trump administration's AUKUS review set off a political storm, but it doesn't mean the deal is dead
News that the Trump administration is reviewing AUKUS broke like a wave over Australia this morning. Defence Minister Richard Marles has responded with determined calm, saying Australia has known about the review for "weeks" and that it was perfectly "natural and understandable" for the new administration to "look under the hood" of the submarine pact. The review won't necessarily sound a death knell for AUKUS and there are plenty of experts who say it delivers enough benefits to the United States to ensure its survival. But it has provoked a storm of controversy and speculation, with defenders of the project taking to the battlements and sceptics declaring it will offer a golden opportunity for the government to escape a pact that is shaping as a strategic catastrophe for Australia. And there are also plenty of signs the Trump administration is happy to use the review to twist Australia's arm on defence spending — putting the prime minister in an awkward position ahead of an anticipated meeting with Donald Trump. At this stage, details are scant. A Pentagon official says the US wants to make sure the plan aligns with Mr Trump's "America First" agenda, ensuring "the highest readiness of our service members" and "that the defence industrial base is meeting our needs". It will be led by senior official Elbridge Colby, who has been a high-profile AUKUS sceptic — although he has sounded more open to the initiative since taking office. Still, Mr Colby warned during his confirmation hearings that the US would only be able to sell nuclear powered submarines to Australia under AUKUS if the US managed to ramp up submarine production to meet its own critical needs. Put simply: if the US Navy is facing a nightmare scenario, like a war in the Taiwan Strait, then it might prefer to have those additional submarines under its direct control, instead of under the command of another country that might choose to steer clear of the fight. Under the AUKUS agreement, Washington will only begin to transfer second-hand Virginia-class submarines to Australia if it can first lift its local production rate of nuclear-powered boats to at least two a year by 2028. Currently, American shipyards are producing around 1.2 nuclear-powered attack submarines per year but will need to hit a target production rate of 2.33 before any can be sold to Australia. Analyst Euan Graham from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute says the administration will "need to be convinced that the short-term loss to the US Navy's submarine order of battle is worth the longer-term gains from basing and maintenance and greater interoperability". "Support from the US Navy and Congress will be critical," he said. But the administration will also face real costs — not least to US credibility — if it pulls the plug. US analyst Richard Fontaine says all three countries have "absorbed financial and diplomatic costs to get to this point" and "walking away would amount to a strategic setback and devastate ties with Australia". That might explain why some Australian officials and politicians insist they are quietly confident Mr Trump and his key lieutenants will not abandon AUKUS. Questions around the US industrial base and grand strategy might dominate the review, but the process is not happening in a vacuum. The Pentagon says it will use the review to make sure "allies step up fully to do their part for collective defence". In the past few months, both US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth and Mr Colby have publicly demanded that Australia dramatically lift defence spending. The message seems clear. Nobody in the US is saying outright that AUKUS could face the chop if Australia refuses to play ball. But by directly linking the two issues, the Trump administration seems to be flagging that it is happy to use AUKUS as leverage. Unsurprisingly, some Australian MPs are predicting Mr Trump will demand the Albanese government commit to pour more money into the US submarine industrial base. It is still not certain if Anthony Albanese will sit down with Mr Trump on the sidelines of the G7 meeting in Canada next week, for their first face-to-face meeting. But if they do, it is certain AUKUS and defence spending will be at (or near) the top of the agenda. And the Trump administration's decision to apparently leak — or let slip — news about the review just days before the meeting shows they are happy to put the acid on Australia. If AUKUS does get scrapped, Australia will be left with a very hefty bill and nothing to show for it. Under the AUKUS deal, Australia last year began making a series of multi-billion-dollar payments to the United States and United Kingdom to help boost submarine industrial production in both nations. Earlier this year, the government made a $768 million down-payment to the US as part of an overall pledge of $4.7 billion, to help secure the transfer of second-hand Virginia-class submarines here in the 2030s. Australia is also scheduled to pay $4.6 billion to the UK to help support the eventual construction of a new SSN-AUKUS fleet, but the government and defence have been reluctant to admit these contributions have a no-refund clause if the submarines do not arrive. That is not the only sunk cost. As Greens senator David Shoebridge points out, Australia is also "spending $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money to build a US nuclear submarine base that will be operational by 2027 just off Perth". Ever since former prime minister Scott Morrison tore up Australia's submarine deal with France in favour of the AUKUS nuclear option, the ambitious deal has dominated the Defence Department's future planning and efforts. Despite concerns about the direction of AUKUS under the Trump administration, Mr Marles dismissed calls to develop a fallback plan in case the US reneges on the pact. If the AUKUS deal was to collapse, Australia's options to acquire submarines, conventionally powered or nuclear, are extremely limited. France would be reluctant to resume the now-scrapped Attack-class program with Australia, while Germany, which was overlooked in 2016, has indicated its submarine construction yards already have full order books. Australia could potentially return cap-in-hand to Japan, more than a decade after a handshake deal between former prime minister Shinzo Abe and then-prime minister Tony Abbott was made to buy that country's Soryu-class submarines. But the reality is that if AUKUS does fall through, Australia will be facing a yawning capability gap, with no obvious replacement for our dependable but rapidly ageing Collins Class submarines — all at a time when we're facing the most perilous strategic landscape in decades.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
AUKUS is a disaster for Australia. Trump has given us an out – let's take it
The Australian national security establishment's worst nightmare has arrived. The Trump administration is putting AUKUS to a review. A review many fear will put the $368 billion submarine deal to the sword. Led by Elbridge Colby, defence undersecretary and noted AUKUS sceptic, the Pentagon's review will assess whether the deal meets the president's 'America First' agenda. It was always very unlikely that any presidential administration would be willing to hand over some of the crown jewels of the US Navy's fleet to Australia, which is what the first part of the deal involved – the United States giving Australia control of some Virginia class nuclear-powered submarines. We don't know much about the details of the deal, but we do know that the US always had a get out clause there. It's up to the president to decide whether to hand them over, and really, why would they? Now, it's possible the Trump administration will tank the whole thing. And we can safely assume that won't mean handing back the $800 million Australia has already invested, no strings attached, in the US shipbuilding industry in the vain hope that would accelerate production rates. AUKUS was always a disastrous deal for Australia. We were never likely to get any submarines, and all the deal does is tie us ever closer to an increasingly volatile and aggressive America. AUKUS would not have made Australia safer. It would have made us more vulnerable and compromised our ability to make independent decisions about our own security. Trump has given us an opportunity to get out. We should take it. Australians already knew that Trump is not to be trusted. Polling by The Australia Institute done back in March found that more Australians considered the US president a bigger threat to global peace than the leaders of the world's two most powerful authoritarian states in Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Almost half (49 per cent) said they felt less secure since the election of Trump.
Sky News AU
an hour ago
- Sky News AU
US defence policy ‘realigning' to Donald Trump's ‘America First' strategy
Former Army director general Retired Brigadier Ian Langford discusses the 'realignment' of the United States' defence and foreign policy agenda to accord with US President Donald Trump's 'America First' strategy. Ties between Canberra and Washington have frayed as the Trump administration launches a review of the AUKUS deal after the Albanese government resisted requests to lift defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP. 'What concerns the Americans is obviously the build rate of the Virginia class, and indeed also their nuclear boat, the Columbia class, as it relates to their own capabilities in competition with a resurgent China," Mr Langford said.
