Wall St edges up,Trump's Mideast decision in focus
Wall Street's main indexes have nudged higher, tracking strength in global stocks after President Donald Trump held off from making an immediate decision on US involvement in the Israel-Iran war.
Trump will take a call in the next two weeks, the White House said on Thursday, as hostilities between the two Middle Eastern countries approached their second week.
Markets have been on edge as Trump has kept the world guessing on his plans - veering from proposing a swift diplomatic solution to suggesting the US might join the fight as Israel aims to suppress Tehran's ability to build nuclear weapons.
A senior Iranian official told Reuters Tehran was ready to discuss limitations on its uranium enrichment, but zero enrichment will be rejected "especially now under Israel's strikes". Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi has arrived in Geneva to meet European counterparts, who are hoping to establish a path back to diplomacy.
"Any news flow that's going to lean in the direction of de-escalation is going to be a market positive and we're seeing that to a certain extent here," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at B. Riley Wealth.
Concerns about price pressures in the US were also in focus after Federal Reserve policymakers on Wednesday warned inflation could pick up pace over the summer as the economic effects of Trump's steep import tariffs kick in. They kept interest rates unchanged.
On Friday, Fed governor Chris Waller said the central bank should consider cutting interest rates at its next meeting given recent tame inflation data and because any price shock from tariffs will be short-lived.
In early trading on Friday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 123.38 points, or 0.29 per cent, to 42,295.04, the S&P 500 gained 13.34 points, or 0.22 per cent, to 5,994.21 and the Nasdaq Composite gained 38.74 points, or 0.20 per cent, to 19,585.01.
Nine of the 11 major S&P 500 sub-sectors rose. Real estate led sector gains with a 0.7 per cent rise. On the flip side, healthcare stocks lost 0.5 per cent.
All three main indexes are set for weekly gains.
Investors are also bracing for any potential spike in volatility from Friday's "triple witching" - the simultaneous expiration of single stock options, stock index futures, and stock index options contracts that happens once a quarter.
Among megacap stocks, Apple advanced 1.3 per cent.
Kroger rose 6.4 per cent after the grocery chain increased its annual identical sales forecast.
Mondelez International gained 2.4 per cent after brokerage Wells Fargo upgraded the Cadbury parent to "overweight" from "equal-weight".
Accenture fell 7.2 per cent after the IT services provider said new bookings decreased in the third quarter.
Wall Street's strong gains last month, primarily driven by a softening in Trump's trade stance and strength in corporate earnings, had pushed the benchmark S&P 500 index close to its record peaks before the ongoing conflict in the Middle East made investors risk-averse.
The S&P 500 index now remains 2.4 per cent below its record level, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq is 2.8 per cent lower.
Advancing issues outnumbered decliners by a 2.16-to-1 ratio on the NYSE and by a 1.45-to-1 ratio on the Nasdaq. The S&P 500 posted 12 new 52-week highs and 2 new lows while the Nasdaq Composite recorded 55 new highs and 31 new lows.
Wall Street's main indexes have nudged higher, tracking strength in global stocks after President Donald Trump held off from making an immediate decision on US involvement in the Israel-Iran war.
Trump will take a call in the next two weeks, the White House said on Thursday, as hostilities between the two Middle Eastern countries approached their second week.
Markets have been on edge as Trump has kept the world guessing on his plans - veering from proposing a swift diplomatic solution to suggesting the US might join the fight as Israel aims to suppress Tehran's ability to build nuclear weapons.
A senior Iranian official told Reuters Tehran was ready to discuss limitations on its uranium enrichment, but zero enrichment will be rejected "especially now under Israel's strikes". Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi has arrived in Geneva to meet European counterparts, who are hoping to establish a path back to diplomacy.
"Any news flow that's going to lean in the direction of de-escalation is going to be a market positive and we're seeing that to a certain extent here," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at B. Riley Wealth.
Concerns about price pressures in the US were also in focus after Federal Reserve policymakers on Wednesday warned inflation could pick up pace over the summer as the economic effects of Trump's steep import tariffs kick in. They kept interest rates unchanged.
On Friday, Fed governor Chris Waller said the central bank should consider cutting interest rates at its next meeting given recent tame inflation data and because any price shock from tariffs will be short-lived.
In early trading on Friday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 123.38 points, or 0.29 per cent, to 42,295.04, the S&P 500 gained 13.34 points, or 0.22 per cent, to 5,994.21 and the Nasdaq Composite gained 38.74 points, or 0.20 per cent, to 19,585.01.
Nine of the 11 major S&P 500 sub-sectors rose. Real estate led sector gains with a 0.7 per cent rise. On the flip side, healthcare stocks lost 0.5 per cent.
All three main indexes are set for weekly gains.
Investors are also bracing for any potential spike in volatility from Friday's "triple witching" - the simultaneous expiration of single stock options, stock index futures, and stock index options contracts that happens once a quarter.
Among megacap stocks, Apple advanced 1.3 per cent.
Kroger rose 6.4 per cent after the grocery chain increased its annual identical sales forecast.
Mondelez International gained 2.4 per cent after brokerage Wells Fargo upgraded the Cadbury parent to "overweight" from "equal-weight".
Accenture fell 7.2 per cent after the IT services provider said new bookings decreased in the third quarter.
Wall Street's strong gains last month, primarily driven by a softening in Trump's trade stance and strength in corporate earnings, had pushed the benchmark S&P 500 index close to its record peaks before the ongoing conflict in the Middle East made investors risk-averse.
The S&P 500 index now remains 2.4 per cent below its record level, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq is 2.8 per cent lower.
Advancing issues outnumbered decliners by a 2.16-to-1 ratio on the NYSE and by a 1.45-to-1 ratio on the Nasdaq. The S&P 500 posted 12 new 52-week highs and 2 new lows while the Nasdaq Composite recorded 55 new highs and 31 new lows.
Wall Street's main indexes have nudged higher, tracking strength in global stocks after President Donald Trump held off from making an immediate decision on US involvement in the Israel-Iran war.
Trump will take a call in the next two weeks, the White House said on Thursday, as hostilities between the two Middle Eastern countries approached their second week.
Markets have been on edge as Trump has kept the world guessing on his plans - veering from proposing a swift diplomatic solution to suggesting the US might join the fight as Israel aims to suppress Tehran's ability to build nuclear weapons.
A senior Iranian official told Reuters Tehran was ready to discuss limitations on its uranium enrichment, but zero enrichment will be rejected "especially now under Israel's strikes". Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi has arrived in Geneva to meet European counterparts, who are hoping to establish a path back to diplomacy.
"Any news flow that's going to lean in the direction of de-escalation is going to be a market positive and we're seeing that to a certain extent here," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at B. Riley Wealth.
Concerns about price pressures in the US were also in focus after Federal Reserve policymakers on Wednesday warned inflation could pick up pace over the summer as the economic effects of Trump's steep import tariffs kick in. They kept interest rates unchanged.
On Friday, Fed governor Chris Waller said the central bank should consider cutting interest rates at its next meeting given recent tame inflation data and because any price shock from tariffs will be short-lived.
In early trading on Friday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 123.38 points, or 0.29 per cent, to 42,295.04, the S&P 500 gained 13.34 points, or 0.22 per cent, to 5,994.21 and the Nasdaq Composite gained 38.74 points, or 0.20 per cent, to 19,585.01.
Nine of the 11 major S&P 500 sub-sectors rose. Real estate led sector gains with a 0.7 per cent rise. On the flip side, healthcare stocks lost 0.5 per cent.
All three main indexes are set for weekly gains.
Investors are also bracing for any potential spike in volatility from Friday's "triple witching" - the simultaneous expiration of single stock options, stock index futures, and stock index options contracts that happens once a quarter.
Among megacap stocks, Apple advanced 1.3 per cent.
Kroger rose 6.4 per cent after the grocery chain increased its annual identical sales forecast.
Mondelez International gained 2.4 per cent after brokerage Wells Fargo upgraded the Cadbury parent to "overweight" from "equal-weight".
Accenture fell 7.2 per cent after the IT services provider said new bookings decreased in the third quarter.
Wall Street's strong gains last month, primarily driven by a softening in Trump's trade stance and strength in corporate earnings, had pushed the benchmark S&P 500 index close to its record peaks before the ongoing conflict in the Middle East made investors risk-averse.
The S&P 500 index now remains 2.4 per cent below its record level, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq is 2.8 per cent lower.
Advancing issues outnumbered decliners by a 2.16-to-1 ratio on the NYSE and by a 1.45-to-1 ratio on the Nasdaq. The S&P 500 posted 12 new 52-week highs and 2 new lows while the Nasdaq Composite recorded 55 new highs and 31 new lows.
Wall Street's main indexes have nudged higher, tracking strength in global stocks after President Donald Trump held off from making an immediate decision on US involvement in the Israel-Iran war.
Trump will take a call in the next two weeks, the White House said on Thursday, as hostilities between the two Middle Eastern countries approached their second week.
Markets have been on edge as Trump has kept the world guessing on his plans - veering from proposing a swift diplomatic solution to suggesting the US might join the fight as Israel aims to suppress Tehran's ability to build nuclear weapons.
A senior Iranian official told Reuters Tehran was ready to discuss limitations on its uranium enrichment, but zero enrichment will be rejected "especially now under Israel's strikes". Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi has arrived in Geneva to meet European counterparts, who are hoping to establish a path back to diplomacy.
"Any news flow that's going to lean in the direction of de-escalation is going to be a market positive and we're seeing that to a certain extent here," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at B. Riley Wealth.
Concerns about price pressures in the US were also in focus after Federal Reserve policymakers on Wednesday warned inflation could pick up pace over the summer as the economic effects of Trump's steep import tariffs kick in. They kept interest rates unchanged.
On Friday, Fed governor Chris Waller said the central bank should consider cutting interest rates at its next meeting given recent tame inflation data and because any price shock from tariffs will be short-lived.
In early trading on Friday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 123.38 points, or 0.29 per cent, to 42,295.04, the S&P 500 gained 13.34 points, or 0.22 per cent, to 5,994.21 and the Nasdaq Composite gained 38.74 points, or 0.20 per cent, to 19,585.01.
Nine of the 11 major S&P 500 sub-sectors rose. Real estate led sector gains with a 0.7 per cent rise. On the flip side, healthcare stocks lost 0.5 per cent.
All three main indexes are set for weekly gains.
Investors are also bracing for any potential spike in volatility from Friday's "triple witching" - the simultaneous expiration of single stock options, stock index futures, and stock index options contracts that happens once a quarter.
Among megacap stocks, Apple advanced 1.3 per cent.
Kroger rose 6.4 per cent after the grocery chain increased its annual identical sales forecast.
Mondelez International gained 2.4 per cent after brokerage Wells Fargo upgraded the Cadbury parent to "overweight" from "equal-weight".
Accenture fell 7.2 per cent after the IT services provider said new bookings decreased in the third quarter.
Wall Street's strong gains last month, primarily driven by a softening in Trump's trade stance and strength in corporate earnings, had pushed the benchmark S&P 500 index close to its record peaks before the ongoing conflict in the Middle East made investors risk-averse.
The S&P 500 index now remains 2.4 per cent below its record level, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq is 2.8 per cent lower.
Advancing issues outnumbered decliners by a 2.16-to-1 ratio on the NYSE and by a 1.45-to-1 ratio on the Nasdaq. The S&P 500 posted 12 new 52-week highs and 2 new lows while the Nasdaq Composite recorded 55 new highs and 31 new lows.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
31 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Iran says it is 'ready to consider diplomacy' only when 'aggression is stopped' by Israel as conflict enters second week
Iran has declared its nuclear programme has "always been peaceful" and urged Israel to stop the "aggression" before Tehran would consider diplomacy talks. The nations on Friday continued to launch missiles at one another on day eight of the conflict, targeting missile production sites in Iran and industrial facilities in Israel. Iran also hit the southern Israeli city of Beersheba for the second day in a row, causing serious damage to homes, businesses and leaving at least seven people injured. While Israel hit dozens of military targets, some it claimed were involved in nuclear weapons development in Tehran, and surface-to-air missile batteries in Iran's south. President Donald Trump has given a two-week timeline in which he will decide whether the United States military will intervene to end the conflict. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told reporters in Switzerland that officials are "ready to consider diplomacy" but demanded Israel "stop the aggression". 'Iran's nuclear programme is peaceful and has always been under the IAEA safeguards and monitoring. Hence, armed attacks against safeguarded nuclear facilities by a regime which is not a party to any WMD (weapons of mass destruction) treaties is a serious crime and violation of international law," he said on Friday. 'Iran is ready to consider diplomacy once again – once the aggression is stopped and the aggressor is held accountable for the crimes committed. 'In this regard, I made it crystal clear that Iran's defence capabilities are not negotiable.' In response, Israel's envoy to the United Nations, Danny Danon, told the UN Security Council his country would not stop its attacks "until Iran's nuclear threat is dismantled". While the head of the UN nuclear watchdog also warned against attacks on nuclear facilities and called for restraint, warning it "could result in radioactive releases with great consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the state attacked". It is feared the resistance from both sides will prolong the conflict. Speaking to media, President Trump said US officials have been talking to Iran, doubling down that Tehran was weeks or months from having a nuclear weapon. The leader of the free world also flagged it is "very hard" to tell Israel's military to stop its operation given it is "winning" but he remains open to discussions. 'It's very hard to stop, when you look at it — Israel's doing well in terms of war. I think you would say that Iran is doing less well, it's a little bit hard to get somebody to stop," he said in New Jersey ahead of a fundraiser at his golf course. President Trump also dismissed Europe's attempts at diplomacy with Iran. 'They didn't help. Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help on this one," the US commander-in-chief said. Asked about a ceasefire in the conflict, the President said he "might" support it.
The Advertiser
36 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
One wouldn't want to deprive Albanese of any credit he deserved, but...
Anthony Albanese is falling back into the sort of bad habits that could bring him down as Labor leader. Despite talking of national conversations about productivity, about tax, and about Australia's sense of itself, he seems to think discussions can take place behind closed doors, with selected participants working off his agenda, and with the general public unable to see, hear, or get even a smell or a taste of what it was all about until it has come to its predetermined conclusion. That's not a way to build a national consensus or a common understanding of how the nation will face the future. While backroom deals and fixes may see him through some of the economic problems, a failure to have a wide consultation could do him great damage when it comes to Australia's reorienting itself to current circumstances in our neighbourhood, and in whatever remains of the Western alliance. It may be that the AUKUS deal can survive, in one form or another, the big shifts brought on by Donald Trump. Australian ministers, from Albanese down, are pretending, or hoping, it can, even as NATO and other Western alliance defence arrangements seem headed for collapse. Some seem to think that the US can maintain a system of alliances around the western Pacific - involving Japan, Korea and Australia - even as European relationships implode. Perhaps, but, whether in the Pacific or the wider world, there cannot be any reversion to the situation before Trump arrived, or the situation after Trump imposed unilateral tariffs on all of his allies. No post-Trump president will be able to pretend that nothing happened during the Trump Reich, and that normal service can quickly be resumed. Trump has fractured the Bretton Woods system of international trade - what Richard Marles insists on calling "a rules-based international order" long after the game has changed. He has repudiated much of the web of relationships around Europe and the Middle East, particularly over the future of Ukraine. The value of American guarantees, promises and understandings (including ANZUS and AUKUS) is much diminished, as is the idea of one-in, all-in if someone breaches the peace. And who knows how Israel's adventures into Iran have changed the strategic map of the Middle East. If America is to have its druthers, future trade arrangements between nations will be based on bilateral arrangements, not multinational ones. Alternatively - and more likely - new regional and political alliances will form around multilateral agreements which do not include the United States. The trans-Pacific partnership - quite possibly including China, Canada and Europe - might well be a model. America may make an individualised deal with each nation, but even if it draws back from initial tariffs settings, most nations will see the wisdom of seeking markets anywhere but in the US. For many countries, a primary market will be China, preferred as a buyer or a seller ahead of the unreliable US. Australians can hardly help but be aware that the whole system of our international relationships is changing, and that Australia itself may have little influence on the final wash-up. We are not a big enough player to be invited into all the big-boys' clubs. When the US thinks of its alliances, Australia is not the first country that comes to its mind: we are probably 12th in the queue. To the extent that America-First recognises old obligations, the deals in squaring off the 11 higher in priority will severely pinch what is available to us. It will be worse if the US picks off its "allies" one by one in the manner of the supplicants (Australia included) seeking to negotiate individual deals for themselves. I am always reminded of what a senior American official once said to Margaret Thatcher when, in Washington, she spoke of the bonds of kinship and special relationship. The official said, "Madam, you may be right about this common history and so on, but I assure you that when the US is thinking of its national interest, it thinks of Britain about as often as when Britain, considering its own interest, thinks of the Isle of Wight". Polls show that Australian trust of the US has plummeted. Our distrust of Trump's America is higher than almost any other country, even Canada, and we haven't been threatened with an imperial takeover. A majority rate China as more trustworthy, even in spite of the freeze in relationships and trade sanctions after China was consciously baited by the Morrison government. Other polls show that Australians well understand the difference between a national leader and his policies, and the temper of the general population. But after the Trump election, there is also unease about his constituencies, the authoritarian, even fascist push, the influence in policy of racism, bigotry and anti-immigration feeling and the increasing influence of the Christian fundamentalist right. Much goodwill has evaporated. In contrast, the defence and intelligence establishment has not wavered in preferring the US even to Australia itself. But politicians on both sides of the fence are increasingly conscious that there is no automatic Australian mood to support the US if there were an attack on Taiwan. Nor is there any Australian instinct to see the world through American eyes. National unease is hardly helped by war in the Middle East, the reduction of Gaza and the massacre of its population, by events in Ukraine and by the apparent incapacity of Europe to unite militarily if the US is not an active partner. There is no shortage of information in public forums, much of which is highly critical of the US. Anyone can have a well-informed opinion. But that opinion is hardly being guided by Albanese or the Australian government. Very little is emerging officially canvassing possibilities about what could or should happen. Ministers seem to be denying that anything much is happening. Albanese seems to think that public comment or discussion by official figures should be avoided, lest it cause offence to Trump and inspire or incite some violent reaction. In Canada, Britain, Germany and France, ministers are openly discussing the brave new world. But not here. It is unlikely that Trump or the official US will judge that the comparative silence from Australia means that there is no discussion occurring here. But they may well deduce that the silence from the politicians, and from military and intelligence figures, suggests that the docile ally will not make much fuss. Or that it is unlikely to shift towards our own view of the world, rather than America's. An obvious example might be the American trade war with China, or in making it clear that Australia is not planning on getting involved in any measures to defend Taiwan. But there are also other issues - for example, over the nuclear submarine purchases, or vital US intelligence gathering and command equipment at Pine Gap and elsewhere. Albanese is mouthing polite nothings, other than insisting that he is not about to double our defence spending just because an American media figure-cum Secretary of Defence says we should. Marles, the weakest link in the Australian chain, is a dead letter in any argument, even or particularly when he seems to be parroting a position that has originated in the US. It cannot be expected that significant change to the relationship will occur only incrementally. Or that it will evolve naturally from events in the control of others. Nor can we assume that Albanese, or Marles, or for that matter Penny Wong, have the wit and the speed to shift American opinion. There has not even been any sort of softening-up process. The turning point, perhaps, will be when Albanese finally gets his meeting with Trump. Even there, more likely than not, it will be statements from Trump rather than Albanese to which even Australians will pay most attention. We are not leaving "home". It's the US throwing us out. Albanese, presumably, has rehearsed his reaction to many of the propositions that Trump can be expected to put. He has, after all, put very similar ones to other countries, and he has, additionally, made it quite clear that we are nothing special in his eyes. But Albanese has not confided his strategy or tactics to Parliament, in the media, or in open forums. He has not addressed conferences at which the government's opinions are communicated. What is on the public record, whether in relation to the strategic thinking around AUKUS or Australia's strategic situation generally, is full of waffly words and slogans that could mean anything. Is discussion to be an invitation-only jamboree, or can every parrot in every pet shop have a go? MORE JACK WATERFORD: Could it be that Albanese expects that a matter so vital is to be resolved merely in Cabinet, without any wide public discussion? Or some committee of old Labor warhorses such as Kim Beazley and Stephen Smith? Is there a soldier in the land (or for that matter a spook) to whom the political, social and military problems should be consigned without the popular will being engaged? Is there a place at the table for Paul Keating, Malcolm Turnbull, Gareth Evans or Bob Carr, or any of the third of the electorate who vote, not for Labor nor the Liberals but for parties such as the Greens, the teals, or independents such as David Pocock? Is productivity, for which a conference of insiders is planned, more important than the place of Australia among the nations of the world? One has to hope that Albanese's silence about a time and a place for public discussion and debate is not for want of a plan to engage the population. But so far, on form, one has to expect that he lacks a plan. He has no model for public discussion, and no apparent appetite for it. This could involve reverting to the style of government that he delivered in his first term. Secretive. Unwilling and seemingly unable to communicate with the general public, including those who want Labor to succeed. (Labor is always more awkward, and guilty looking, in consulting its own traditional supporters rather than hostile captains of industry.) Will there be ready but unaccountable access for some special interests, such as the arms industry and the defence establishment? There's an already established pattern of insiders given undue and improper influence, in the same manner as the gambling and liquor crowd and the old media lobbies on other issues. One thing is for sure. No one can say that Albanese has a popular mandate, arising from the landslide election, to do what he wants on such a fundamental change in our circumstances. Defence and foreign affairs scarcely figured in the election, and the two major parties had no disagreements of any substance. No citizen acquired any extra information from any defence debate. It may be true that a debate, if it occurs, will be rancorous. The big vested interests are keen on throwing about claims of being soft on national security and having ambiguous and uncertain loyalties. It could become as unpleasant as the Voice referendum. But that is not a reason for having a secret debate, or no debate at all. This matters too much. Our own sense of identity, culture, history and future are involved. Australia needs to develop an understanding of Australian nationality which has moved on, a bit at least, from when white men flew a flag containing a Union Jack at Gallipoli 110 years ago. It's a debate that embraces Australians whose ancestors were not here at the time of Gallipoli but are in every sense citizens nonetheless. A debate that involves Aboriginal Australians, whose interests were usually ignored while compiling patriotic encomia and pap. A debate involving young Australians who will have to live in a harsher, hotter and more hostile world because of pragmatic decisions made by current politicians on both sides of the fence. It's not for Albo to run Australians inside or out of the arena. Some within a smug party, having won the election more comfortably than anyone expected, have come to think that the election was won by Albanese's calm, patience and political genius. That the very landslide is a refutation of suggestions that first-term Labor was a "disappointment", with an inarticulate leader too timid to go far or fast, or to take ordinary voters into his confidence. Any prime minister who wins a second, or third, term will see it as a vindication of his or her personality, governing style and methods. They will expect that internal and external critics treat them with more respect in future. Particularly for their political skills. One wouldn't want to deprive Albanese of any credit he deserved. But it is just possible that a sizeable proportion of the increased vote for Labor came more from fear of what sort of leadership or policies a MAGA-Down-Under Peter Dutton might have delivered than from enthusiastic re-endorsement of Albanese and his team. Or embrace of Albo's vision - whatever it was - of old alliances, new alliances, and how we trade with, talk with and share with our neighbours. Anthony Albanese is falling back into the sort of bad habits that could bring him down as Labor leader. Despite talking of national conversations about productivity, about tax, and about Australia's sense of itself, he seems to think discussions can take place behind closed doors, with selected participants working off his agenda, and with the general public unable to see, hear, or get even a smell or a taste of what it was all about until it has come to its predetermined conclusion. That's not a way to build a national consensus or a common understanding of how the nation will face the future. While backroom deals and fixes may see him through some of the economic problems, a failure to have a wide consultation could do him great damage when it comes to Australia's reorienting itself to current circumstances in our neighbourhood, and in whatever remains of the Western alliance. It may be that the AUKUS deal can survive, in one form or another, the big shifts brought on by Donald Trump. Australian ministers, from Albanese down, are pretending, or hoping, it can, even as NATO and other Western alliance defence arrangements seem headed for collapse. Some seem to think that the US can maintain a system of alliances around the western Pacific - involving Japan, Korea and Australia - even as European relationships implode. Perhaps, but, whether in the Pacific or the wider world, there cannot be any reversion to the situation before Trump arrived, or the situation after Trump imposed unilateral tariffs on all of his allies. No post-Trump president will be able to pretend that nothing happened during the Trump Reich, and that normal service can quickly be resumed. Trump has fractured the Bretton Woods system of international trade - what Richard Marles insists on calling "a rules-based international order" long after the game has changed. He has repudiated much of the web of relationships around Europe and the Middle East, particularly over the future of Ukraine. The value of American guarantees, promises and understandings (including ANZUS and AUKUS) is much diminished, as is the idea of one-in, all-in if someone breaches the peace. And who knows how Israel's adventures into Iran have changed the strategic map of the Middle East. If America is to have its druthers, future trade arrangements between nations will be based on bilateral arrangements, not multinational ones. Alternatively - and more likely - new regional and political alliances will form around multilateral agreements which do not include the United States. The trans-Pacific partnership - quite possibly including China, Canada and Europe - might well be a model. America may make an individualised deal with each nation, but even if it draws back from initial tariffs settings, most nations will see the wisdom of seeking markets anywhere but in the US. For many countries, a primary market will be China, preferred as a buyer or a seller ahead of the unreliable US. Australians can hardly help but be aware that the whole system of our international relationships is changing, and that Australia itself may have little influence on the final wash-up. We are not a big enough player to be invited into all the big-boys' clubs. When the US thinks of its alliances, Australia is not the first country that comes to its mind: we are probably 12th in the queue. To the extent that America-First recognises old obligations, the deals in squaring off the 11 higher in priority will severely pinch what is available to us. It will be worse if the US picks off its "allies" one by one in the manner of the supplicants (Australia included) seeking to negotiate individual deals for themselves. I am always reminded of what a senior American official once said to Margaret Thatcher when, in Washington, she spoke of the bonds of kinship and special relationship. The official said, "Madam, you may be right about this common history and so on, but I assure you that when the US is thinking of its national interest, it thinks of Britain about as often as when Britain, considering its own interest, thinks of the Isle of Wight". Polls show that Australian trust of the US has plummeted. Our distrust of Trump's America is higher than almost any other country, even Canada, and we haven't been threatened with an imperial takeover. A majority rate China as more trustworthy, even in spite of the freeze in relationships and trade sanctions after China was consciously baited by the Morrison government. Other polls show that Australians well understand the difference between a national leader and his policies, and the temper of the general population. But after the Trump election, there is also unease about his constituencies, the authoritarian, even fascist push, the influence in policy of racism, bigotry and anti-immigration feeling and the increasing influence of the Christian fundamentalist right. Much goodwill has evaporated. In contrast, the defence and intelligence establishment has not wavered in preferring the US even to Australia itself. But politicians on both sides of the fence are increasingly conscious that there is no automatic Australian mood to support the US if there were an attack on Taiwan. Nor is there any Australian instinct to see the world through American eyes. National unease is hardly helped by war in the Middle East, the reduction of Gaza and the massacre of its population, by events in Ukraine and by the apparent incapacity of Europe to unite militarily if the US is not an active partner. There is no shortage of information in public forums, much of which is highly critical of the US. Anyone can have a well-informed opinion. But that opinion is hardly being guided by Albanese or the Australian government. Very little is emerging officially canvassing possibilities about what could or should happen. Ministers seem to be denying that anything much is happening. Albanese seems to think that public comment or discussion by official figures should be avoided, lest it cause offence to Trump and inspire or incite some violent reaction. In Canada, Britain, Germany and France, ministers are openly discussing the brave new world. But not here. It is unlikely that Trump or the official US will judge that the comparative silence from Australia means that there is no discussion occurring here. But they may well deduce that the silence from the politicians, and from military and intelligence figures, suggests that the docile ally will not make much fuss. Or that it is unlikely to shift towards our own view of the world, rather than America's. An obvious example might be the American trade war with China, or in making it clear that Australia is not planning on getting involved in any measures to defend Taiwan. But there are also other issues - for example, over the nuclear submarine purchases, or vital US intelligence gathering and command equipment at Pine Gap and elsewhere. Albanese is mouthing polite nothings, other than insisting that he is not about to double our defence spending just because an American media figure-cum Secretary of Defence says we should. Marles, the weakest link in the Australian chain, is a dead letter in any argument, even or particularly when he seems to be parroting a position that has originated in the US. It cannot be expected that significant change to the relationship will occur only incrementally. Or that it will evolve naturally from events in the control of others. Nor can we assume that Albanese, or Marles, or for that matter Penny Wong, have the wit and the speed to shift American opinion. There has not even been any sort of softening-up process. The turning point, perhaps, will be when Albanese finally gets his meeting with Trump. Even there, more likely than not, it will be statements from Trump rather than Albanese to which even Australians will pay most attention. We are not leaving "home". It's the US throwing us out. Albanese, presumably, has rehearsed his reaction to many of the propositions that Trump can be expected to put. He has, after all, put very similar ones to other countries, and he has, additionally, made it quite clear that we are nothing special in his eyes. But Albanese has not confided his strategy or tactics to Parliament, in the media, or in open forums. He has not addressed conferences at which the government's opinions are communicated. What is on the public record, whether in relation to the strategic thinking around AUKUS or Australia's strategic situation generally, is full of waffly words and slogans that could mean anything. Is discussion to be an invitation-only jamboree, or can every parrot in every pet shop have a go? MORE JACK WATERFORD: Could it be that Albanese expects that a matter so vital is to be resolved merely in Cabinet, without any wide public discussion? Or some committee of old Labor warhorses such as Kim Beazley and Stephen Smith? Is there a soldier in the land (or for that matter a spook) to whom the political, social and military problems should be consigned without the popular will being engaged? Is there a place at the table for Paul Keating, Malcolm Turnbull, Gareth Evans or Bob Carr, or any of the third of the electorate who vote, not for Labor nor the Liberals but for parties such as the Greens, the teals, or independents such as David Pocock? Is productivity, for which a conference of insiders is planned, more important than the place of Australia among the nations of the world? One has to hope that Albanese's silence about a time and a place for public discussion and debate is not for want of a plan to engage the population. But so far, on form, one has to expect that he lacks a plan. He has no model for public discussion, and no apparent appetite for it. This could involve reverting to the style of government that he delivered in his first term. Secretive. Unwilling and seemingly unable to communicate with the general public, including those who want Labor to succeed. (Labor is always more awkward, and guilty looking, in consulting its own traditional supporters rather than hostile captains of industry.) Will there be ready but unaccountable access for some special interests, such as the arms industry and the defence establishment? There's an already established pattern of insiders given undue and improper influence, in the same manner as the gambling and liquor crowd and the old media lobbies on other issues. One thing is for sure. No one can say that Albanese has a popular mandate, arising from the landslide election, to do what he wants on such a fundamental change in our circumstances. Defence and foreign affairs scarcely figured in the election, and the two major parties had no disagreements of any substance. No citizen acquired any extra information from any defence debate. It may be true that a debate, if it occurs, will be rancorous. The big vested interests are keen on throwing about claims of being soft on national security and having ambiguous and uncertain loyalties. It could become as unpleasant as the Voice referendum. But that is not a reason for having a secret debate, or no debate at all. This matters too much. Our own sense of identity, culture, history and future are involved. Australia needs to develop an understanding of Australian nationality which has moved on, a bit at least, from when white men flew a flag containing a Union Jack at Gallipoli 110 years ago. It's a debate that embraces Australians whose ancestors were not here at the time of Gallipoli but are in every sense citizens nonetheless. A debate that involves Aboriginal Australians, whose interests were usually ignored while compiling patriotic encomia and pap. A debate involving young Australians who will have to live in a harsher, hotter and more hostile world because of pragmatic decisions made by current politicians on both sides of the fence. It's not for Albo to run Australians inside or out of the arena. Some within a smug party, having won the election more comfortably than anyone expected, have come to think that the election was won by Albanese's calm, patience and political genius. That the very landslide is a refutation of suggestions that first-term Labor was a "disappointment", with an inarticulate leader too timid to go far or fast, or to take ordinary voters into his confidence. Any prime minister who wins a second, or third, term will see it as a vindication of his or her personality, governing style and methods. They will expect that internal and external critics treat them with more respect in future. Particularly for their political skills. One wouldn't want to deprive Albanese of any credit he deserved. But it is just possible that a sizeable proportion of the increased vote for Labor came more from fear of what sort of leadership or policies a MAGA-Down-Under Peter Dutton might have delivered than from enthusiastic re-endorsement of Albanese and his team. Or embrace of Albo's vision - whatever it was - of old alliances, new alliances, and how we trade with, talk with and share with our neighbours. Anthony Albanese is falling back into the sort of bad habits that could bring him down as Labor leader. Despite talking of national conversations about productivity, about tax, and about Australia's sense of itself, he seems to think discussions can take place behind closed doors, with selected participants working off his agenda, and with the general public unable to see, hear, or get even a smell or a taste of what it was all about until it has come to its predetermined conclusion. That's not a way to build a national consensus or a common understanding of how the nation will face the future. While backroom deals and fixes may see him through some of the economic problems, a failure to have a wide consultation could do him great damage when it comes to Australia's reorienting itself to current circumstances in our neighbourhood, and in whatever remains of the Western alliance. It may be that the AUKUS deal can survive, in one form or another, the big shifts brought on by Donald Trump. Australian ministers, from Albanese down, are pretending, or hoping, it can, even as NATO and other Western alliance defence arrangements seem headed for collapse. Some seem to think that the US can maintain a system of alliances around the western Pacific - involving Japan, Korea and Australia - even as European relationships implode. Perhaps, but, whether in the Pacific or the wider world, there cannot be any reversion to the situation before Trump arrived, or the situation after Trump imposed unilateral tariffs on all of his allies. No post-Trump president will be able to pretend that nothing happened during the Trump Reich, and that normal service can quickly be resumed. Trump has fractured the Bretton Woods system of international trade - what Richard Marles insists on calling "a rules-based international order" long after the game has changed. He has repudiated much of the web of relationships around Europe and the Middle East, particularly over the future of Ukraine. The value of American guarantees, promises and understandings (including ANZUS and AUKUS) is much diminished, as is the idea of one-in, all-in if someone breaches the peace. And who knows how Israel's adventures into Iran have changed the strategic map of the Middle East. If America is to have its druthers, future trade arrangements between nations will be based on bilateral arrangements, not multinational ones. Alternatively - and more likely - new regional and political alliances will form around multilateral agreements which do not include the United States. The trans-Pacific partnership - quite possibly including China, Canada and Europe - might well be a model. America may make an individualised deal with each nation, but even if it draws back from initial tariffs settings, most nations will see the wisdom of seeking markets anywhere but in the US. For many countries, a primary market will be China, preferred as a buyer or a seller ahead of the unreliable US. Australians can hardly help but be aware that the whole system of our international relationships is changing, and that Australia itself may have little influence on the final wash-up. We are not a big enough player to be invited into all the big-boys' clubs. When the US thinks of its alliances, Australia is not the first country that comes to its mind: we are probably 12th in the queue. To the extent that America-First recognises old obligations, the deals in squaring off the 11 higher in priority will severely pinch what is available to us. It will be worse if the US picks off its "allies" one by one in the manner of the supplicants (Australia included) seeking to negotiate individual deals for themselves. I am always reminded of what a senior American official once said to Margaret Thatcher when, in Washington, she spoke of the bonds of kinship and special relationship. The official said, "Madam, you may be right about this common history and so on, but I assure you that when the US is thinking of its national interest, it thinks of Britain about as often as when Britain, considering its own interest, thinks of the Isle of Wight". Polls show that Australian trust of the US has plummeted. Our distrust of Trump's America is higher than almost any other country, even Canada, and we haven't been threatened with an imperial takeover. A majority rate China as more trustworthy, even in spite of the freeze in relationships and trade sanctions after China was consciously baited by the Morrison government. Other polls show that Australians well understand the difference between a national leader and his policies, and the temper of the general population. But after the Trump election, there is also unease about his constituencies, the authoritarian, even fascist push, the influence in policy of racism, bigotry and anti-immigration feeling and the increasing influence of the Christian fundamentalist right. Much goodwill has evaporated. In contrast, the defence and intelligence establishment has not wavered in preferring the US even to Australia itself. But politicians on both sides of the fence are increasingly conscious that there is no automatic Australian mood to support the US if there were an attack on Taiwan. Nor is there any Australian instinct to see the world through American eyes. National unease is hardly helped by war in the Middle East, the reduction of Gaza and the massacre of its population, by events in Ukraine and by the apparent incapacity of Europe to unite militarily if the US is not an active partner. There is no shortage of information in public forums, much of which is highly critical of the US. Anyone can have a well-informed opinion. But that opinion is hardly being guided by Albanese or the Australian government. Very little is emerging officially canvassing possibilities about what could or should happen. Ministers seem to be denying that anything much is happening. Albanese seems to think that public comment or discussion by official figures should be avoided, lest it cause offence to Trump and inspire or incite some violent reaction. In Canada, Britain, Germany and France, ministers are openly discussing the brave new world. But not here. It is unlikely that Trump or the official US will judge that the comparative silence from Australia means that there is no discussion occurring here. But they may well deduce that the silence from the politicians, and from military and intelligence figures, suggests that the docile ally will not make much fuss. Or that it is unlikely to shift towards our own view of the world, rather than America's. An obvious example might be the American trade war with China, or in making it clear that Australia is not planning on getting involved in any measures to defend Taiwan. But there are also other issues - for example, over the nuclear submarine purchases, or vital US intelligence gathering and command equipment at Pine Gap and elsewhere. Albanese is mouthing polite nothings, other than insisting that he is not about to double our defence spending just because an American media figure-cum Secretary of Defence says we should. Marles, the weakest link in the Australian chain, is a dead letter in any argument, even or particularly when he seems to be parroting a position that has originated in the US. It cannot be expected that significant change to the relationship will occur only incrementally. Or that it will evolve naturally from events in the control of others. Nor can we assume that Albanese, or Marles, or for that matter Penny Wong, have the wit and the speed to shift American opinion. There has not even been any sort of softening-up process. The turning point, perhaps, will be when Albanese finally gets his meeting with Trump. Even there, more likely than not, it will be statements from Trump rather than Albanese to which even Australians will pay most attention. We are not leaving "home". It's the US throwing us out. Albanese, presumably, has rehearsed his reaction to many of the propositions that Trump can be expected to put. He has, after all, put very similar ones to other countries, and he has, additionally, made it quite clear that we are nothing special in his eyes. But Albanese has not confided his strategy or tactics to Parliament, in the media, or in open forums. He has not addressed conferences at which the government's opinions are communicated. What is on the public record, whether in relation to the strategic thinking around AUKUS or Australia's strategic situation generally, is full of waffly words and slogans that could mean anything. Is discussion to be an invitation-only jamboree, or can every parrot in every pet shop have a go? MORE JACK WATERFORD: Could it be that Albanese expects that a matter so vital is to be resolved merely in Cabinet, without any wide public discussion? Or some committee of old Labor warhorses such as Kim Beazley and Stephen Smith? Is there a soldier in the land (or for that matter a spook) to whom the political, social and military problems should be consigned without the popular will being engaged? Is there a place at the table for Paul Keating, Malcolm Turnbull, Gareth Evans or Bob Carr, or any of the third of the electorate who vote, not for Labor nor the Liberals but for parties such as the Greens, the teals, or independents such as David Pocock? Is productivity, for which a conference of insiders is planned, more important than the place of Australia among the nations of the world? One has to hope that Albanese's silence about a time and a place for public discussion and debate is not for want of a plan to engage the population. But so far, on form, one has to expect that he lacks a plan. He has no model for public discussion, and no apparent appetite for it. This could involve reverting to the style of government that he delivered in his first term. Secretive. Unwilling and seemingly unable to communicate with the general public, including those who want Labor to succeed. (Labor is always more awkward, and guilty looking, in consulting its own traditional supporters rather than hostile captains of industry.) Will there be ready but unaccountable access for some special interests, such as the arms industry and the defence establishment? There's an already established pattern of insiders given undue and improper influence, in the same manner as the gambling and liquor crowd and the old media lobbies on other issues. One thing is for sure. No one can say that Albanese has a popular mandate, arising from the landslide election, to do what he wants on such a fundamental change in our circumstances. Defence and foreign affairs scarcely figured in the election, and the two major parties had no disagreements of any substance. No citizen acquired any extra information from any defence debate. It may be true that a debate, if it occurs, will be rancorous. The big vested interests are keen on throwing about claims of being soft on national security and having ambiguous and uncertain loyalties. It could become as unpleasant as the Voice referendum. But that is not a reason for having a secret debate, or no debate at all. This matters too much. Our own sense of identity, culture, history and future are involved. Australia needs to develop an understanding of Australian nationality which has moved on, a bit at least, from when white men flew a flag containing a Union Jack at Gallipoli 110 years ago. It's a debate that embraces Australians whose ancestors were not here at the time of Gallipoli but are in every sense citizens nonetheless. A debate that involves Aboriginal Australians, whose interests were usually ignored while compiling patriotic encomia and pap. A debate involving young Australians who will have to live in a harsher, hotter and more hostile world because of pragmatic decisions made by current politicians on both sides of the fence. It's not for Albo to run Australians inside or out of the arena. Some within a smug party, having won the election more comfortably than anyone expected, have come to think that the election was won by Albanese's calm, patience and political genius. That the very landslide is a refutation of suggestions that first-term Labor was a "disappointment", with an inarticulate leader too timid to go far or fast, or to take ordinary voters into his confidence. Any prime minister who wins a second, or third, term will see it as a vindication of his or her personality, governing style and methods. They will expect that internal and external critics treat them with more respect in future. Particularly for their political skills. One wouldn't want to deprive Albanese of any credit he deserved. But it is just possible that a sizeable proportion of the increased vote for Labor came more from fear of what sort of leadership or policies a MAGA-Down-Under Peter Dutton might have delivered than from enthusiastic re-endorsement of Albanese and his team. Or embrace of Albo's vision - whatever it was - of old alliances, new alliances, and how we trade with, talk with and share with our neighbours. Anthony Albanese is falling back into the sort of bad habits that could bring him down as Labor leader. Despite talking of national conversations about productivity, about tax, and about Australia's sense of itself, he seems to think discussions can take place behind closed doors, with selected participants working off his agenda, and with the general public unable to see, hear, or get even a smell or a taste of what it was all about until it has come to its predetermined conclusion. That's not a way to build a national consensus or a common understanding of how the nation will face the future. While backroom deals and fixes may see him through some of the economic problems, a failure to have a wide consultation could do him great damage when it comes to Australia's reorienting itself to current circumstances in our neighbourhood, and in whatever remains of the Western alliance. It may be that the AUKUS deal can survive, in one form or another, the big shifts brought on by Donald Trump. Australian ministers, from Albanese down, are pretending, or hoping, it can, even as NATO and other Western alliance defence arrangements seem headed for collapse. Some seem to think that the US can maintain a system of alliances around the western Pacific - involving Japan, Korea and Australia - even as European relationships implode. Perhaps, but, whether in the Pacific or the wider world, there cannot be any reversion to the situation before Trump arrived, or the situation after Trump imposed unilateral tariffs on all of his allies. No post-Trump president will be able to pretend that nothing happened during the Trump Reich, and that normal service can quickly be resumed. Trump has fractured the Bretton Woods system of international trade - what Richard Marles insists on calling "a rules-based international order" long after the game has changed. He has repudiated much of the web of relationships around Europe and the Middle East, particularly over the future of Ukraine. The value of American guarantees, promises and understandings (including ANZUS and AUKUS) is much diminished, as is the idea of one-in, all-in if someone breaches the peace. And who knows how Israel's adventures into Iran have changed the strategic map of the Middle East. If America is to have its druthers, future trade arrangements between nations will be based on bilateral arrangements, not multinational ones. Alternatively - and more likely - new regional and political alliances will form around multilateral agreements which do not include the United States. The trans-Pacific partnership - quite possibly including China, Canada and Europe - might well be a model. America may make an individualised deal with each nation, but even if it draws back from initial tariffs settings, most nations will see the wisdom of seeking markets anywhere but in the US. For many countries, a primary market will be China, preferred as a buyer or a seller ahead of the unreliable US. Australians can hardly help but be aware that the whole system of our international relationships is changing, and that Australia itself may have little influence on the final wash-up. We are not a big enough player to be invited into all the big-boys' clubs. When the US thinks of its alliances, Australia is not the first country that comes to its mind: we are probably 12th in the queue. To the extent that America-First recognises old obligations, the deals in squaring off the 11 higher in priority will severely pinch what is available to us. It will be worse if the US picks off its "allies" one by one in the manner of the supplicants (Australia included) seeking to negotiate individual deals for themselves. I am always reminded of what a senior American official once said to Margaret Thatcher when, in Washington, she spoke of the bonds of kinship and special relationship. The official said, "Madam, you may be right about this common history and so on, but I assure you that when the US is thinking of its national interest, it thinks of Britain about as often as when Britain, considering its own interest, thinks of the Isle of Wight". Polls show that Australian trust of the US has plummeted. Our distrust of Trump's America is higher than almost any other country, even Canada, and we haven't been threatened with an imperial takeover. A majority rate China as more trustworthy, even in spite of the freeze in relationships and trade sanctions after China was consciously baited by the Morrison government. Other polls show that Australians well understand the difference between a national leader and his policies, and the temper of the general population. But after the Trump election, there is also unease about his constituencies, the authoritarian, even fascist push, the influence in policy of racism, bigotry and anti-immigration feeling and the increasing influence of the Christian fundamentalist right. Much goodwill has evaporated. In contrast, the defence and intelligence establishment has not wavered in preferring the US even to Australia itself. But politicians on both sides of the fence are increasingly conscious that there is no automatic Australian mood to support the US if there were an attack on Taiwan. Nor is there any Australian instinct to see the world through American eyes. National unease is hardly helped by war in the Middle East, the reduction of Gaza and the massacre of its population, by events in Ukraine and by the apparent incapacity of Europe to unite militarily if the US is not an active partner. There is no shortage of information in public forums, much of which is highly critical of the US. Anyone can have a well-informed opinion. But that opinion is hardly being guided by Albanese or the Australian government. Very little is emerging officially canvassing possibilities about what could or should happen. Ministers seem to be denying that anything much is happening. Albanese seems to think that public comment or discussion by official figures should be avoided, lest it cause offence to Trump and inspire or incite some violent reaction. In Canada, Britain, Germany and France, ministers are openly discussing the brave new world. But not here. It is unlikely that Trump or the official US will judge that the comparative silence from Australia means that there is no discussion occurring here. But they may well deduce that the silence from the politicians, and from military and intelligence figures, suggests that the docile ally will not make much fuss. Or that it is unlikely to shift towards our own view of the world, rather than America's. An obvious example might be the American trade war with China, or in making it clear that Australia is not planning on getting involved in any measures to defend Taiwan. But there are also other issues - for example, over the nuclear submarine purchases, or vital US intelligence gathering and command equipment at Pine Gap and elsewhere. Albanese is mouthing polite nothings, other than insisting that he is not about to double our defence spending just because an American media figure-cum Secretary of Defence says we should. Marles, the weakest link in the Australian chain, is a dead letter in any argument, even or particularly when he seems to be parroting a position that has originated in the US. It cannot be expected that significant change to the relationship will occur only incrementally. Or that it will evolve naturally from events in the control of others. Nor can we assume that Albanese, or Marles, or for that matter Penny Wong, have the wit and the speed to shift American opinion. There has not even been any sort of softening-up process. The turning point, perhaps, will be when Albanese finally gets his meeting with Trump. Even there, more likely than not, it will be statements from Trump rather than Albanese to which even Australians will pay most attention. We are not leaving "home". It's the US throwing us out. Albanese, presumably, has rehearsed his reaction to many of the propositions that Trump can be expected to put. He has, after all, put very similar ones to other countries, and he has, additionally, made it quite clear that we are nothing special in his eyes. But Albanese has not confided his strategy or tactics to Parliament, in the media, or in open forums. He has not addressed conferences at which the government's opinions are communicated. What is on the public record, whether in relation to the strategic thinking around AUKUS or Australia's strategic situation generally, is full of waffly words and slogans that could mean anything. Is discussion to be an invitation-only jamboree, or can every parrot in every pet shop have a go? MORE JACK WATERFORD: Could it be that Albanese expects that a matter so vital is to be resolved merely in Cabinet, without any wide public discussion? Or some committee of old Labor warhorses such as Kim Beazley and Stephen Smith? Is there a soldier in the land (or for that matter a spook) to whom the political, social and military problems should be consigned without the popular will being engaged? Is there a place at the table for Paul Keating, Malcolm Turnbull, Gareth Evans or Bob Carr, or any of the third of the electorate who vote, not for Labor nor the Liberals but for parties such as the Greens, the teals, or independents such as David Pocock? Is productivity, for which a conference of insiders is planned, more important than the place of Australia among the nations of the world? One has to hope that Albanese's silence about a time and a place for public discussion and debate is not for want of a plan to engage the population. But so far, on form, one has to expect that he lacks a plan. He has no model for public discussion, and no apparent appetite for it. This could involve reverting to the style of government that he delivered in his first term. Secretive. Unwilling and seemingly unable to communicate with the general public, including those who want Labor to succeed. (Labor is always more awkward, and guilty looking, in consulting its own traditional supporters rather than hostile captains of industry.) Will there be ready but unaccountable access for some special interests, such as the arms industry and the defence establishment? There's an already established pattern of insiders given undue and improper influence, in the same manner as the gambling and liquor crowd and the old media lobbies on other issues. One thing is for sure. No one can say that Albanese has a popular mandate, arising from the landslide election, to do what he wants on such a fundamental change in our circumstances. Defence and foreign affairs scarcely figured in the election, and the two major parties had no disagreements of any substance. No citizen acquired any extra information from any defence debate. It may be true that a debate, if it occurs, will be rancorous. The big vested interests are keen on throwing about claims of being soft on national security and having ambiguous and uncertain loyalties. It could become as unpleasant as the Voice referendum. But that is not a reason for having a secret debate, or no debate at all. This matters too much. Our own sense of identity, culture, history and future are involved. Australia needs to develop an understanding of Australian nationality which has moved on, a bit at least, from when white men flew a flag containing a Union Jack at Gallipoli 110 years ago. It's a debate that embraces Australians whose ancestors were not here at the time of Gallipoli but are in every sense citizens nonetheless. A debate that involves Aboriginal Australians, whose interests were usually ignored while compiling patriotic encomia and pap. A debate involving young Australians who will have to live in a harsher, hotter and more hostile world because of pragmatic decisions made by current politicians on both sides of the fence. It's not for Albo to run Australians inside or out of the arena. Some within a smug party, having won the election more comfortably than anyone expected, have come to think that the election was won by Albanese's calm, patience and political genius. That the very landslide is a refutation of suggestions that first-term Labor was a "disappointment", with an inarticulate leader too timid to go far or fast, or to take ordinary voters into his confidence. Any prime minister who wins a second, or third, term will see it as a vindication of his or her personality, governing style and methods. They will expect that internal and external critics treat them with more respect in future. Particularly for their political skills. One wouldn't want to deprive Albanese of any credit he deserved. But it is just possible that a sizeable proportion of the increased vote for Labor came more from fear of what sort of leadership or policies a MAGA-Down-Under Peter Dutton might have delivered than from enthusiastic re-endorsement of Albanese and his team. Or embrace of Albo's vision - whatever it was - of old alliances, new alliances, and how we trade with, talk with and share with our neighbours.
The Advertiser
36 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
Friends united by concern for family in Iran and Israel
Conflict in the Middle East is thousands of kilometres away from the desks of Saina Salemi and her colleague Oscar, but the pair constantly discuss blasts and evacuation warnings. Ms Salemi hasn't spoken to her family in Iran for more than three days due to a nation-wide internet blackout, while Oscar - who asked that his surname not be used - has no idea when he'll next see his parents who are trapped in Israel. "My helplessness would have been made worse had someone like Oscar not been here. There's only so many people in your life that can truly understand a situation like this," Ms Salemi told AAP. Israel and Iran have been trading strikes since the Israeli military began its attack a week ago in a bid to wipe out Iran's nuclear program, but geopolitical tensions are not dividing the two friends from Melbourne. "Despite what these countries are putting each other through, the fact that it hasn't got between us even for a millisecond, I feel very touched," Oscar said. The pair are consumed by worry for their families and appalled by the scale of human suffering in countries they remember fondly from holidays. "I said to Ocar, I feel like I'm going crazy, because everybody around me is moving so normally and is going about their day-to-day lives, and I'm just watching a 24/7 live blog all the time," Ms Salemi said. "The Iranian diaspora, we are really tired of people being used as collateral damage." She's angry her family in Tehran have no bomb shelter to go to and worried about what could happen to her elderly grandparents after Donald Trump warned some 10 million people in Iran's capital to evacuate. The president said he will make a decision about whether the US joins the conflict within two weeks, demanding Iran's unconditional surrender. However, Iran has warned of "all-out war" if the US joins the conflict. "I texted my cousin last night telling him I loved him and there's a great numbness that comes with feeling like you're saying 'I love you' to someone for the last time," Ms Salemi said. "I'm yet to hear back from that text message." More than 2000 Australians have registered for assistance to leave Iran and more than 1200 have registered to leave Israel, with Australian military personnel and aircraft being deployed to help. Oscar's parents have barely left their bomb shelter since the conflict flared and he doesn't know how they'll come home, after receiving a warning they may not be safe at Jordan's land border crossing. "I really feel for my parents, I feel for everyone in Tehran, in Gaza, in Tel Aviv," Oscar said. "None of them deserve it, it's exhausting." He's grateful to have grown up in Australia where he and Ms Salemi can lean on each other for support. "I do think that there's something really special about this country where you can have this kind of friendship," he said. "I hope most Australians don't have to understand what it's like having family in these kinds of circumstances." Israeli strikes on Iran have killed at least 639 people and wounded more than 1300 others, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. Israel says Iran's retaliatory strikes killed at least 24 people and wounded hundreds. Conflict in the Middle East is thousands of kilometres away from the desks of Saina Salemi and her colleague Oscar, but the pair constantly discuss blasts and evacuation warnings. Ms Salemi hasn't spoken to her family in Iran for more than three days due to a nation-wide internet blackout, while Oscar - who asked that his surname not be used - has no idea when he'll next see his parents who are trapped in Israel. "My helplessness would have been made worse had someone like Oscar not been here. There's only so many people in your life that can truly understand a situation like this," Ms Salemi told AAP. Israel and Iran have been trading strikes since the Israeli military began its attack a week ago in a bid to wipe out Iran's nuclear program, but geopolitical tensions are not dividing the two friends from Melbourne. "Despite what these countries are putting each other through, the fact that it hasn't got between us even for a millisecond, I feel very touched," Oscar said. The pair are consumed by worry for their families and appalled by the scale of human suffering in countries they remember fondly from holidays. "I said to Ocar, I feel like I'm going crazy, because everybody around me is moving so normally and is going about their day-to-day lives, and I'm just watching a 24/7 live blog all the time," Ms Salemi said. "The Iranian diaspora, we are really tired of people being used as collateral damage." She's angry her family in Tehran have no bomb shelter to go to and worried about what could happen to her elderly grandparents after Donald Trump warned some 10 million people in Iran's capital to evacuate. The president said he will make a decision about whether the US joins the conflict within two weeks, demanding Iran's unconditional surrender. However, Iran has warned of "all-out war" if the US joins the conflict. "I texted my cousin last night telling him I loved him and there's a great numbness that comes with feeling like you're saying 'I love you' to someone for the last time," Ms Salemi said. "I'm yet to hear back from that text message." More than 2000 Australians have registered for assistance to leave Iran and more than 1200 have registered to leave Israel, with Australian military personnel and aircraft being deployed to help. Oscar's parents have barely left their bomb shelter since the conflict flared and he doesn't know how they'll come home, after receiving a warning they may not be safe at Jordan's land border crossing. "I really feel for my parents, I feel for everyone in Tehran, in Gaza, in Tel Aviv," Oscar said. "None of them deserve it, it's exhausting." He's grateful to have grown up in Australia where he and Ms Salemi can lean on each other for support. "I do think that there's something really special about this country where you can have this kind of friendship," he said. "I hope most Australians don't have to understand what it's like having family in these kinds of circumstances." Israeli strikes on Iran have killed at least 639 people and wounded more than 1300 others, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. Israel says Iran's retaliatory strikes killed at least 24 people and wounded hundreds. Conflict in the Middle East is thousands of kilometres away from the desks of Saina Salemi and her colleague Oscar, but the pair constantly discuss blasts and evacuation warnings. Ms Salemi hasn't spoken to her family in Iran for more than three days due to a nation-wide internet blackout, while Oscar - who asked that his surname not be used - has no idea when he'll next see his parents who are trapped in Israel. "My helplessness would have been made worse had someone like Oscar not been here. There's only so many people in your life that can truly understand a situation like this," Ms Salemi told AAP. Israel and Iran have been trading strikes since the Israeli military began its attack a week ago in a bid to wipe out Iran's nuclear program, but geopolitical tensions are not dividing the two friends from Melbourne. "Despite what these countries are putting each other through, the fact that it hasn't got between us even for a millisecond, I feel very touched," Oscar said. The pair are consumed by worry for their families and appalled by the scale of human suffering in countries they remember fondly from holidays. "I said to Ocar, I feel like I'm going crazy, because everybody around me is moving so normally and is going about their day-to-day lives, and I'm just watching a 24/7 live blog all the time," Ms Salemi said. "The Iranian diaspora, we are really tired of people being used as collateral damage." She's angry her family in Tehran have no bomb shelter to go to and worried about what could happen to her elderly grandparents after Donald Trump warned some 10 million people in Iran's capital to evacuate. The president said he will make a decision about whether the US joins the conflict within two weeks, demanding Iran's unconditional surrender. However, Iran has warned of "all-out war" if the US joins the conflict. "I texted my cousin last night telling him I loved him and there's a great numbness that comes with feeling like you're saying 'I love you' to someone for the last time," Ms Salemi said. "I'm yet to hear back from that text message." More than 2000 Australians have registered for assistance to leave Iran and more than 1200 have registered to leave Israel, with Australian military personnel and aircraft being deployed to help. Oscar's parents have barely left their bomb shelter since the conflict flared and he doesn't know how they'll come home, after receiving a warning they may not be safe at Jordan's land border crossing. "I really feel for my parents, I feel for everyone in Tehran, in Gaza, in Tel Aviv," Oscar said. "None of them deserve it, it's exhausting." He's grateful to have grown up in Australia where he and Ms Salemi can lean on each other for support. "I do think that there's something really special about this country where you can have this kind of friendship," he said. "I hope most Australians don't have to understand what it's like having family in these kinds of circumstances." Israeli strikes on Iran have killed at least 639 people and wounded more than 1300 others, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. Israel says Iran's retaliatory strikes killed at least 24 people and wounded hundreds. Conflict in the Middle East is thousands of kilometres away from the desks of Saina Salemi and her colleague Oscar, but the pair constantly discuss blasts and evacuation warnings. Ms Salemi hasn't spoken to her family in Iran for more than three days due to a nation-wide internet blackout, while Oscar - who asked that his surname not be used - has no idea when he'll next see his parents who are trapped in Israel. "My helplessness would have been made worse had someone like Oscar not been here. There's only so many people in your life that can truly understand a situation like this," Ms Salemi told AAP. Israel and Iran have been trading strikes since the Israeli military began its attack a week ago in a bid to wipe out Iran's nuclear program, but geopolitical tensions are not dividing the two friends from Melbourne. "Despite what these countries are putting each other through, the fact that it hasn't got between us even for a millisecond, I feel very touched," Oscar said. The pair are consumed by worry for their families and appalled by the scale of human suffering in countries they remember fondly from holidays. "I said to Ocar, I feel like I'm going crazy, because everybody around me is moving so normally and is going about their day-to-day lives, and I'm just watching a 24/7 live blog all the time," Ms Salemi said. "The Iranian diaspora, we are really tired of people being used as collateral damage." She's angry her family in Tehran have no bomb shelter to go to and worried about what could happen to her elderly grandparents after Donald Trump warned some 10 million people in Iran's capital to evacuate. The president said he will make a decision about whether the US joins the conflict within two weeks, demanding Iran's unconditional surrender. However, Iran has warned of "all-out war" if the US joins the conflict. "I texted my cousin last night telling him I loved him and there's a great numbness that comes with feeling like you're saying 'I love you' to someone for the last time," Ms Salemi said. "I'm yet to hear back from that text message." More than 2000 Australians have registered for assistance to leave Iran and more than 1200 have registered to leave Israel, with Australian military personnel and aircraft being deployed to help. Oscar's parents have barely left their bomb shelter since the conflict flared and he doesn't know how they'll come home, after receiving a warning they may not be safe at Jordan's land border crossing. "I really feel for my parents, I feel for everyone in Tehran, in Gaza, in Tel Aviv," Oscar said. "None of them deserve it, it's exhausting." He's grateful to have grown up in Australia where he and Ms Salemi can lean on each other for support. "I do think that there's something really special about this country where you can have this kind of friendship," he said. "I hope most Australians don't have to understand what it's like having family in these kinds of circumstances." Israeli strikes on Iran have killed at least 639 people and wounded more than 1300 others, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. Israel says Iran's retaliatory strikes killed at least 24 people and wounded hundreds.
