How a sense of betrayal brought a major complication to a battleground seat
It is a balmy mid-morning on the NSW south coast and, in the seat of Gilmore, Liberal candidate Andrew Constance is on very dangerous ground: a footy field under the gaze of TV cameras.
This was early in the campaign, days before Liberal leader Peter Dutton brained a cameraman with a Sherrin in Darwin ('Got him,' he said unhelpfully as the ball connected) and a full parliamentary term after then-prime minister Scott Morrison laid out a kid called Luca with a rugby tackle in the midst of a game of soccer.
Constance announces a bundle of money for improvements at the ground should the Coalition win government, and then engages in a kickaround with Liberal senator Andrew Bragg and members of the Batemans Bay Seahawks, who have been bounced from school for the event. The candidate, the kids and the media survive unscathed. Watching from the sideline, as she works a mobile phone, is Marise Payne, former foreign affairs minister, who is managing Constance's campaign. 'We've been close for 20 years,' he will later tell me.
Gilmore has become a key battleground. In the last election, Constance, a high-profile former state member for Bega, overcame Coalition infighting during preselection to secure a 2.5 per cent swing towards him, even as the Coalition suffered a 5.3 per cent drift the other way. He came within a hair's breadth of winning.
In the end, Labor's Fiona Phillips won by just 373 votes in a seat declared days after election day, securing the party's 77th seat and delighting Anthony Albanese, who was able to form a majority government as a result.
This time around there is another complication. Kate Dezarnaulds, a businesswoman from Berry who has won the support of Climate 200, has thrown her hat in the ring, making Gilmore one of the few seats in the nation where a teal independent is running against an incumbent Labor MP.
Should Dezarnaulds – her campaign website explains it is pronounced 'de-zar-know' – win, she would not only be knocking off a government member, she'd be depriving the Coalition of a crucial seat.
Her intrusion serves to highlight another intriguing factor, the evanescent role of climate change and the environment in this election. Both parties have been accused of being AWOL on both issues.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
New Albany MLA Scott Leary says Labor's State election commitments still in the pipeline ahead of State Budget
New Albany MLA Scott Leary says Labor's State election commitments still in the pipeline ahead of State Budget
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Corruption watchdog makes ruling on govt's multimillion-dollar Higgins settlement
A multimillion-dollar settlement payment between Brittany Higgins and the Commonwealth involved no corrupt conduct, the federal watchdog has declared. The National Anti-Corruption Commission on Thursday confirmed it had conducted an extensive preliminary investigation into the $2.445 million settlement following "scrutiny and speculation". It also revealed the settlement figure was less than the maximum amount recommended by external independent legal advice. The Commonwealth agreed to the settlement - without admitting any liability - with Ms Higgins following her alleged rape inside Parliament House in 2019. She received $400,000 for "hurt, distress and humiliation" and $1.48 million relating to her loss of earning capacity. In 2023, The Australian reported that former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds had raised the issue with the anti-corruption commission. Ms Higgins worked in Senator Reynolds' office at the time of the alleged rape. "There is no evidence that the settlement process, including the legal advice provided, who was present at the mediation, or the amount, was subject to any improper influence by any Commonwealth public official," the anti-corruption commission's statement reads. "To the contrary, the evidence obtained reflected a process that was based on independent external legal advice, without any inappropriate intervention by any minister of either government. "There is therefore no corruption issue." The anti-corruption watchdog has made a habit of making statements on issues that are well publicised, often finding it in the public interest to disclose findings of preliminary investigations in these cases. The commission said it had analysed thousands of documents provided by the relevant departments and considered aspects of the legal advice, mediation and settlement amount. It found that decisions made on the settlement were based on advice from independent external solicitors and experienced senior and junior counsel, and that there "was no material difference" in the initial advice provided to the Coalition government in 2022, compared to updated advice provided to Labor when it took power. The commission also found former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus approved the settlement in accordance with the departmental advice. It found that a mediation conference with Ms Higgins which was wrapped up within a day was "unexceptional". "It was the culmination of a process which took approximately 12 months," its statement reads. "None of this is unusual for a non-litigated personal injury claim." A multimillion-dollar settlement payment between Brittany Higgins and the Commonwealth involved no corrupt conduct, the federal watchdog has declared. The National Anti-Corruption Commission on Thursday confirmed it had conducted an extensive preliminary investigation into the $2.445 million settlement following "scrutiny and speculation". It also revealed the settlement figure was less than the maximum amount recommended by external independent legal advice. The Commonwealth agreed to the settlement - without admitting any liability - with Ms Higgins following her alleged rape inside Parliament House in 2019. She received $400,000 for "hurt, distress and humiliation" and $1.48 million relating to her loss of earning capacity. In 2023, The Australian reported that former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds had raised the issue with the anti-corruption commission. Ms Higgins worked in Senator Reynolds' office at the time of the alleged rape. "There is no evidence that the settlement process, including the legal advice provided, who was present at the mediation, or the amount, was subject to any improper influence by any Commonwealth public official," the anti-corruption commission's statement reads. "To the contrary, the evidence obtained reflected a process that was based on independent external legal advice, without any inappropriate intervention by any minister of either government. "There is therefore no corruption issue." The anti-corruption watchdog has made a habit of making statements on issues that are well publicised, often finding it in the public interest to disclose findings of preliminary investigations in these cases. The commission said it had analysed thousands of documents provided by the relevant departments and considered aspects of the legal advice, mediation and settlement amount. It found that decisions made on the settlement were based on advice from independent external solicitors and experienced senior and junior counsel, and that there "was no material difference" in the initial advice provided to the Coalition government in 2022, compared to updated advice provided to Labor when it took power. The commission also found former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus approved the settlement in accordance with the departmental advice. It found that a mediation conference with Ms Higgins which was wrapped up within a day was "unexceptional". "It was the culmination of a process which took approximately 12 months," its statement reads. "None of this is unusual for a non-litigated personal injury claim." A multimillion-dollar settlement payment between Brittany Higgins and the Commonwealth involved no corrupt conduct, the federal watchdog has declared. The National Anti-Corruption Commission on Thursday confirmed it had conducted an extensive preliminary investigation into the $2.445 million settlement following "scrutiny and speculation". It also revealed the settlement figure was less than the maximum amount recommended by external independent legal advice. The Commonwealth agreed to the settlement - without admitting any liability - with Ms Higgins following her alleged rape inside Parliament House in 2019. She received $400,000 for "hurt, distress and humiliation" and $1.48 million relating to her loss of earning capacity. In 2023, The Australian reported that former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds had raised the issue with the anti-corruption commission. Ms Higgins worked in Senator Reynolds' office at the time of the alleged rape. "There is no evidence that the settlement process, including the legal advice provided, who was present at the mediation, or the amount, was subject to any improper influence by any Commonwealth public official," the anti-corruption commission's statement reads. "To the contrary, the evidence obtained reflected a process that was based on independent external legal advice, without any inappropriate intervention by any minister of either government. "There is therefore no corruption issue." The anti-corruption watchdog has made a habit of making statements on issues that are well publicised, often finding it in the public interest to disclose findings of preliminary investigations in these cases. The commission said it had analysed thousands of documents provided by the relevant departments and considered aspects of the legal advice, mediation and settlement amount. It found that decisions made on the settlement were based on advice from independent external solicitors and experienced senior and junior counsel, and that there "was no material difference" in the initial advice provided to the Coalition government in 2022, compared to updated advice provided to Labor when it took power. The commission also found former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus approved the settlement in accordance with the departmental advice. It found that a mediation conference with Ms Higgins which was wrapped up within a day was "unexceptional". "It was the culmination of a process which took approximately 12 months," its statement reads. "None of this is unusual for a non-litigated personal injury claim." A multimillion-dollar settlement payment between Brittany Higgins and the Commonwealth involved no corrupt conduct, the federal watchdog has declared. The National Anti-Corruption Commission on Thursday confirmed it had conducted an extensive preliminary investigation into the $2.445 million settlement following "scrutiny and speculation". It also revealed the settlement figure was less than the maximum amount recommended by external independent legal advice. The Commonwealth agreed to the settlement - without admitting any liability - with Ms Higgins following her alleged rape inside Parliament House in 2019. She received $400,000 for "hurt, distress and humiliation" and $1.48 million relating to her loss of earning capacity. In 2023, The Australian reported that former Liberal senator Linda Reynolds had raised the issue with the anti-corruption commission. Ms Higgins worked in Senator Reynolds' office at the time of the alleged rape. "There is no evidence that the settlement process, including the legal advice provided, who was present at the mediation, or the amount, was subject to any improper influence by any Commonwealth public official," the anti-corruption commission's statement reads. "To the contrary, the evidence obtained reflected a process that was based on independent external legal advice, without any inappropriate intervention by any minister of either government. "There is therefore no corruption issue." The anti-corruption watchdog has made a habit of making statements on issues that are well publicised, often finding it in the public interest to disclose findings of preliminary investigations in these cases. The commission said it had analysed thousands of documents provided by the relevant departments and considered aspects of the legal advice, mediation and settlement amount. It found that decisions made on the settlement were based on advice from independent external solicitors and experienced senior and junior counsel, and that there "was no material difference" in the initial advice provided to the Coalition government in 2022, compared to updated advice provided to Labor when it took power. The commission also found former attorney-general Mark Dreyfus approved the settlement in accordance with the departmental advice. It found that a mediation conference with Ms Higgins which was wrapped up within a day was "unexceptional". "It was the culmination of a process which took approximately 12 months," its statement reads. "None of this is unusual for a non-litigated personal injury claim."
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
ScoMo offers Albanese his tips for dealing with Donald Trump
Former Liberal prime minister Scott Morrison has hosed down Opposition concerns about the United States' snap review of the AUKUS nuclear submarines deal, saying "there shouldn't be any issue" for Australia. After the US informed Australia of the review overnight, the Coalition seized on the news to suggest the move was influenced by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's refusal to comply with US President Donald Trump's request to commit to higher defence spending. "This government has sent mixed messages to our allies and now we're seeing the consequences," Opposition Defence spokesperson Angus Taylor said. But Mr Morrison, who signed Australia up to the AUKUS security pact in 2021, said it was "important to keep this in perspective and not to over-interpret" the review, which was initiated by the US Department of Defense and not the White House. "Like with any arrangement ... you've got to keep making the case," he told Sky. "The first time round, it took us over a year - and that was predominantly during the first Trump administration - to convince pretty much the same people who will be involved in this review about the technical and policy and strategic merits of this." Former US ambassador Joe Hockey, who has been described as "Australia's Trump-whisperer", expressed a similar view. "I don't think we should be overly worried, but we should be involved in contributing to that review," Mr Hockey told Sky. "I know Donald Trump supports AUKUS, and there's no doubt about Congress and the Senate. I was there just a few weeks ago, met with a number of key senators, Democrats and Republicans, including Senator [Roger] Wicker, and they're emphatically supporting AUKUS. But you have to pay your way, and Australia is paying its way." Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles played down the significance of the review, saying it was only natural for the US to review the deal and arguing this was no different to Australia's Defence Strategic Review. Asked if he could guarantee Australia would get submarines out of the AUKUS deal, he told ABC radio: "The agreement is for the submarines to come in the early 2030s and that is what we are all working to and I'm very confident that that is what is going to happen." READ MORE: When asked what Mr Albanese should say to Mr Trump at a possible face-to-face meeting on the sidelines of the G7 Leaders' Summit in Canada next week, Mr Morrison said Australia needed to be "very clear about our commitments on continuing to increase our capabilities". "The other thing about AUKUS is it's not a lowest common denominator partnership," he said. "It's a highest common denominator partnership. It requires big investments. " Mr Morrison signed Australia up to the three-nation AUKUS security alliance between Australia, the UK and the US in 2021 after controversially tearing up a previous $90 billion deal to buy diesel-powered submarines from France. The alliance was formed to counter China's strategic moves in the Pacific arena and was underpinned by an agreement between the US and the UK to provide Australia with access to nuclear-powered submarine technology, to eventually replace its aging Collins-class boats. Australia is contracted to buy three off-the-shelf nuclear submarines from the US, costing about $US4 billion each, before making eight of its own - with the total cost expected to hit $368 billion. The first submarine is not expected to join the Australian fleet for years. The deal includes a clause that enables the US to withhold ready-made nuclear submarines from Australia if it does not have enough for the US Navy's use - and American shipyards are not on track to meet domestic targets. Mr Albanese has refused to commit to a specific target for Defence spending after the US administration has called for Australia to increase it to about 3.5 per cent. He told the National Press Club on Wednesday that "Australia should decide what we spend on Australia's defence", saying "we will always provide for capability that's needed". Mr Morrison agreed with the Opposition that "we need to get to" putting 3 per cent of GDP into the Defence budget. "I don't make that as a partisan comment. I just think it's absolutely necessary, and there's no shortage of areas where that can be filled," Mr Morrison said. He said the Pentagon was "very focused on the US submarine production rate", amid reports that US shipyards were not manufacturing nuclear submarines quickly enough to meet the US Navy's own needs. "Every time I go to the US, there's very strong support [for AUKUS]," Mr Morrison said. "There's very strong congressional support as well ... AUKUS has been making very good progress there." Mr Morrison said the AUKUS security pact was "the strongest one and the most important one we've struck in 70 years - and it's the one that I've noticed that the Chinese in particular, have really reacted to ... So that tells you something, I think, about its strategic merit." Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has joined the Greens in calling on the Australian government to conduct its own review of the AUKUS deal. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS. The US [Department of Defense] is conducting a review of AUKUS," he posted on X/Twitter. "But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Mr Turnbull is a longtime critic of Mr Morrison's handling of AUKUS and has previously argued the government needs a backup plan in case the deal falls over. Mr Taylor rejected the call for a review, telling reporters in Canberra on Thursday: "I'm not into bureaucratic processes. I'm into outcomes, and I want to see the outcome." - with Eleanor Campbell Former Liberal prime minister Scott Morrison has hosed down Opposition concerns about the United States' snap review of the AUKUS nuclear submarines deal, saying "there shouldn't be any issue" for Australia. After the US informed Australia of the review overnight, the Coalition seized on the news to suggest the move was influenced by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's refusal to comply with US President Donald Trump's request to commit to higher defence spending. "This government has sent mixed messages to our allies and now we're seeing the consequences," Opposition Defence spokesperson Angus Taylor said. But Mr Morrison, who signed Australia up to the AUKUS security pact in 2021, said it was "important to keep this in perspective and not to over-interpret" the review, which was initiated by the US Department of Defense and not the White House. "Like with any arrangement ... you've got to keep making the case," he told Sky. "The first time round, it took us over a year - and that was predominantly during the first Trump administration - to convince pretty much the same people who will be involved in this review about the technical and policy and strategic merits of this." Former US ambassador Joe Hockey, who has been described as "Australia's Trump-whisperer", expressed a similar view. "I don't think we should be overly worried, but we should be involved in contributing to that review," Mr Hockey told Sky. "I know Donald Trump supports AUKUS, and there's no doubt about Congress and the Senate. I was there just a few weeks ago, met with a number of key senators, Democrats and Republicans, including Senator [Roger] Wicker, and they're emphatically supporting AUKUS. But you have to pay your way, and Australia is paying its way." Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles played down the significance of the review, saying it was only natural for the US to review the deal and arguing this was no different to Australia's Defence Strategic Review. Asked if he could guarantee Australia would get submarines out of the AUKUS deal, he told ABC radio: "The agreement is for the submarines to come in the early 2030s and that is what we are all working to and I'm very confident that that is what is going to happen." READ MORE: When asked what Mr Albanese should say to Mr Trump at a possible face-to-face meeting on the sidelines of the G7 Leaders' Summit in Canada next week, Mr Morrison said Australia needed to be "very clear about our commitments on continuing to increase our capabilities". "The other thing about AUKUS is it's not a lowest common denominator partnership," he said. "It's a highest common denominator partnership. It requires big investments. " Mr Morrison signed Australia up to the three-nation AUKUS security alliance between Australia, the UK and the US in 2021 after controversially tearing up a previous $90 billion deal to buy diesel-powered submarines from France. The alliance was formed to counter China's strategic moves in the Pacific arena and was underpinned by an agreement between the US and the UK to provide Australia with access to nuclear-powered submarine technology, to eventually replace its aging Collins-class boats. Australia is contracted to buy three off-the-shelf nuclear submarines from the US, costing about $US4 billion each, before making eight of its own - with the total cost expected to hit $368 billion. The first submarine is not expected to join the Australian fleet for years. The deal includes a clause that enables the US to withhold ready-made nuclear submarines from Australia if it does not have enough for the US Navy's use - and American shipyards are not on track to meet domestic targets. Mr Albanese has refused to commit to a specific target for Defence spending after the US administration has called for Australia to increase it to about 3.5 per cent. He told the National Press Club on Wednesday that "Australia should decide what we spend on Australia's defence", saying "we will always provide for capability that's needed". Mr Morrison agreed with the Opposition that "we need to get to" putting 3 per cent of GDP into the Defence budget. "I don't make that as a partisan comment. I just think it's absolutely necessary, and there's no shortage of areas where that can be filled," Mr Morrison said. He said the Pentagon was "very focused on the US submarine production rate", amid reports that US shipyards were not manufacturing nuclear submarines quickly enough to meet the US Navy's own needs. "Every time I go to the US, there's very strong support [for AUKUS]," Mr Morrison said. "There's very strong congressional support as well ... AUKUS has been making very good progress there." Mr Morrison said the AUKUS security pact was "the strongest one and the most important one we've struck in 70 years - and it's the one that I've noticed that the Chinese in particular, have really reacted to ... So that tells you something, I think, about its strategic merit." Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has joined the Greens in calling on the Australian government to conduct its own review of the AUKUS deal. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS. The US [Department of Defense] is conducting a review of AUKUS," he posted on X/Twitter. "But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Mr Turnbull is a longtime critic of Mr Morrison's handling of AUKUS and has previously argued the government needs a backup plan in case the deal falls over. Mr Taylor rejected the call for a review, telling reporters in Canberra on Thursday: "I'm not into bureaucratic processes. I'm into outcomes, and I want to see the outcome." - with Eleanor Campbell Former Liberal prime minister Scott Morrison has hosed down Opposition concerns about the United States' snap review of the AUKUS nuclear submarines deal, saying "there shouldn't be any issue" for Australia. After the US informed Australia of the review overnight, the Coalition seized on the news to suggest the move was influenced by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's refusal to comply with US President Donald Trump's request to commit to higher defence spending. "This government has sent mixed messages to our allies and now we're seeing the consequences," Opposition Defence spokesperson Angus Taylor said. But Mr Morrison, who signed Australia up to the AUKUS security pact in 2021, said it was "important to keep this in perspective and not to over-interpret" the review, which was initiated by the US Department of Defense and not the White House. "Like with any arrangement ... you've got to keep making the case," he told Sky. "The first time round, it took us over a year - and that was predominantly during the first Trump administration - to convince pretty much the same people who will be involved in this review about the technical and policy and strategic merits of this." Former US ambassador Joe Hockey, who has been described as "Australia's Trump-whisperer", expressed a similar view. "I don't think we should be overly worried, but we should be involved in contributing to that review," Mr Hockey told Sky. "I know Donald Trump supports AUKUS, and there's no doubt about Congress and the Senate. I was there just a few weeks ago, met with a number of key senators, Democrats and Republicans, including Senator [Roger] Wicker, and they're emphatically supporting AUKUS. But you have to pay your way, and Australia is paying its way." Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles played down the significance of the review, saying it was only natural for the US to review the deal and arguing this was no different to Australia's Defence Strategic Review. Asked if he could guarantee Australia would get submarines out of the AUKUS deal, he told ABC radio: "The agreement is for the submarines to come in the early 2030s and that is what we are all working to and I'm very confident that that is what is going to happen." READ MORE: When asked what Mr Albanese should say to Mr Trump at a possible face-to-face meeting on the sidelines of the G7 Leaders' Summit in Canada next week, Mr Morrison said Australia needed to be "very clear about our commitments on continuing to increase our capabilities". "The other thing about AUKUS is it's not a lowest common denominator partnership," he said. "It's a highest common denominator partnership. It requires big investments. " Mr Morrison signed Australia up to the three-nation AUKUS security alliance between Australia, the UK and the US in 2021 after controversially tearing up a previous $90 billion deal to buy diesel-powered submarines from France. The alliance was formed to counter China's strategic moves in the Pacific arena and was underpinned by an agreement between the US and the UK to provide Australia with access to nuclear-powered submarine technology, to eventually replace its aging Collins-class boats. Australia is contracted to buy three off-the-shelf nuclear submarines from the US, costing about $US4 billion each, before making eight of its own - with the total cost expected to hit $368 billion. The first submarine is not expected to join the Australian fleet for years. The deal includes a clause that enables the US to withhold ready-made nuclear submarines from Australia if it does not have enough for the US Navy's use - and American shipyards are not on track to meet domestic targets. Mr Albanese has refused to commit to a specific target for Defence spending after the US administration has called for Australia to increase it to about 3.5 per cent. He told the National Press Club on Wednesday that "Australia should decide what we spend on Australia's defence", saying "we will always provide for capability that's needed". Mr Morrison agreed with the Opposition that "we need to get to" putting 3 per cent of GDP into the Defence budget. "I don't make that as a partisan comment. I just think it's absolutely necessary, and there's no shortage of areas where that can be filled," Mr Morrison said. He said the Pentagon was "very focused on the US submarine production rate", amid reports that US shipyards were not manufacturing nuclear submarines quickly enough to meet the US Navy's own needs. "Every time I go to the US, there's very strong support [for AUKUS]," Mr Morrison said. "There's very strong congressional support as well ... AUKUS has been making very good progress there." Mr Morrison said the AUKUS security pact was "the strongest one and the most important one we've struck in 70 years - and it's the one that I've noticed that the Chinese in particular, have really reacted to ... So that tells you something, I think, about its strategic merit." Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has joined the Greens in calling on the Australian government to conduct its own review of the AUKUS deal. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS. The US [Department of Defense] is conducting a review of AUKUS," he posted on X/Twitter. "But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Mr Turnbull is a longtime critic of Mr Morrison's handling of AUKUS and has previously argued the government needs a backup plan in case the deal falls over. Mr Taylor rejected the call for a review, telling reporters in Canberra on Thursday: "I'm not into bureaucratic processes. I'm into outcomes, and I want to see the outcome." - with Eleanor Campbell Former Liberal prime minister Scott Morrison has hosed down Opposition concerns about the United States' snap review of the AUKUS nuclear submarines deal, saying "there shouldn't be any issue" for Australia. After the US informed Australia of the review overnight, the Coalition seized on the news to suggest the move was influenced by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's refusal to comply with US President Donald Trump's request to commit to higher defence spending. "This government has sent mixed messages to our allies and now we're seeing the consequences," Opposition Defence spokesperson Angus Taylor said. But Mr Morrison, who signed Australia up to the AUKUS security pact in 2021, said it was "important to keep this in perspective and not to over-interpret" the review, which was initiated by the US Department of Defense and not the White House. "Like with any arrangement ... you've got to keep making the case," he told Sky. "The first time round, it took us over a year - and that was predominantly during the first Trump administration - to convince pretty much the same people who will be involved in this review about the technical and policy and strategic merits of this." Former US ambassador Joe Hockey, who has been described as "Australia's Trump-whisperer", expressed a similar view. "I don't think we should be overly worried, but we should be involved in contributing to that review," Mr Hockey told Sky. "I know Donald Trump supports AUKUS, and there's no doubt about Congress and the Senate. I was there just a few weeks ago, met with a number of key senators, Democrats and Republicans, including Senator [Roger] Wicker, and they're emphatically supporting AUKUS. But you have to pay your way, and Australia is paying its way." Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles played down the significance of the review, saying it was only natural for the US to review the deal and arguing this was no different to Australia's Defence Strategic Review. Asked if he could guarantee Australia would get submarines out of the AUKUS deal, he told ABC radio: "The agreement is for the submarines to come in the early 2030s and that is what we are all working to and I'm very confident that that is what is going to happen." READ MORE: When asked what Mr Albanese should say to Mr Trump at a possible face-to-face meeting on the sidelines of the G7 Leaders' Summit in Canada next week, Mr Morrison said Australia needed to be "very clear about our commitments on continuing to increase our capabilities". "The other thing about AUKUS is it's not a lowest common denominator partnership," he said. "It's a highest common denominator partnership. It requires big investments. " Mr Morrison signed Australia up to the three-nation AUKUS security alliance between Australia, the UK and the US in 2021 after controversially tearing up a previous $90 billion deal to buy diesel-powered submarines from France. The alliance was formed to counter China's strategic moves in the Pacific arena and was underpinned by an agreement between the US and the UK to provide Australia with access to nuclear-powered submarine technology, to eventually replace its aging Collins-class boats. Australia is contracted to buy three off-the-shelf nuclear submarines from the US, costing about $US4 billion each, before making eight of its own - with the total cost expected to hit $368 billion. The first submarine is not expected to join the Australian fleet for years. The deal includes a clause that enables the US to withhold ready-made nuclear submarines from Australia if it does not have enough for the US Navy's use - and American shipyards are not on track to meet domestic targets. Mr Albanese has refused to commit to a specific target for Defence spending after the US administration has called for Australia to increase it to about 3.5 per cent. He told the National Press Club on Wednesday that "Australia should decide what we spend on Australia's defence", saying "we will always provide for capability that's needed". Mr Morrison agreed with the Opposition that "we need to get to" putting 3 per cent of GDP into the Defence budget. "I don't make that as a partisan comment. I just think it's absolutely necessary, and there's no shortage of areas where that can be filled," Mr Morrison said. He said the Pentagon was "very focused on the US submarine production rate", amid reports that US shipyards were not manufacturing nuclear submarines quickly enough to meet the US Navy's own needs. "Every time I go to the US, there's very strong support [for AUKUS]," Mr Morrison said. "There's very strong congressional support as well ... AUKUS has been making very good progress there." Mr Morrison said the AUKUS security pact was "the strongest one and the most important one we've struck in 70 years - and it's the one that I've noticed that the Chinese in particular, have really reacted to ... So that tells you something, I think, about its strategic merit." Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has joined the Greens in calling on the Australian government to conduct its own review of the AUKUS deal. "The UK is conducting a review of AUKUS. The US [Department of Defense] is conducting a review of AUKUS," he posted on X/Twitter. "But Australia, which has the most at stake, has no review. Our parliament to date has been the least curious and least informed. Time to wake up?" Mr Turnbull is a longtime critic of Mr Morrison's handling of AUKUS and has previously argued the government needs a backup plan in case the deal falls over. Mr Taylor rejected the call for a review, telling reporters in Canberra on Thursday: "I'm not into bureaucratic processes. I'm into outcomes, and I want to see the outcome." - with Eleanor Campbell
