Has Newcastle lost its small-town feel and shifted into a bona fide city?

I RECENTLY celebrated three years since returning to live in Newcastle, having been away for almost three decades. My main revelation upon return was that Newcastle had acquired that indefinable quality that comes from being a city rather than a large country town.
At sunset recently, I stopped halfway across the Cowper Street bridge to contemplate Newcastle's changing skyline. With its combination of moored yachts and mid to high-rise buildings, the view of the waterfront and West End verged on glamorous. OK, maybe I'm exaggerating, but I'm sure you'll allow that it's a great improvement on the grim neighbourhood some of us grew up with. The same can be said for many other parts of "town".
The other day, I met an older Novocastrian who used to have professional offices at the top of town. He remembered the East End as being "awful", a grimy mélange of derelict warehouses, railway sidings, and pollution from the Zaara Street power station. Now, of course, the area is a tourist mecca and a highly successful event space. The shared paths along the foreshore and beaches are thronged, and the renovated ocean baths and new skate park have been enthusiastically embraced.
Much remains to be done, of course. The slow death of street front retail has left large stretches of Hunter Street struggling to find a new purpose, Beaumont Street has its challenges, and while Newcastle's light rail line was the right idea, it remains a job only partly done. I'll report back in another three years.
THE owners of Tomago Aluminium have warned that high energy prices may put the plant's future in jeopardy. That could cost 1500 direct jobs and an extra 5000 across the region ("Minister optimistic on smelter despite surging energy prices", Newcastle Herald 12/6).
With energy prices to rise from July 2025, Tomago seems to be seeking government subsidy (taxpayer money) to keep operating profitably. Additionally, Alcoa plans to close down an aluminium smelter and two mills in WA this year due to high energy prices and production costs. With the US placing tariffs on Australian aluminium and Indonesia now expanding its cheap production, the future of our aluminium industry is not bright. Without reliable and affordable 24/7 energy supplies, productivity in Australia will continue to decline. It does not take an Einstein to figure that out.
GRAHAME Danaher ("Tackling adversity way to go", Letters 10/6), and Steve Barnett ("Costs are high, but working hard tough to beat", Letters 5/6): of course, tackling adversity is a great part of life, and overcoming it is the greatest high. However, once 3.5 times the median national income was enough for a house deposit. In 2024, it's 8.6 times.
Outrageously, concessional superannuation greatly favours the wealthy, people who do not need it, while the taxation tab is picked up by our younger taxpaying community. A parent recently expressed his bewilderment in the Sydney Morning Herald that, in retirement and with few expenses, he paid no tax, while his child with so many living expenses paid $37,000 on similar income. Employment is now far less stable, for a far more precarious life, for many. What toll is this taking on the social fabric?
The recent Fair Work Commission decision improved real incomes by only 1 per cent, with much of the wage rise lost to inflation. Like me, Mr Danaher and Mr Barnett should be very thankful for how the times favoured them. At the start of his working life, Mr Barnett could pocket $60 of his pay. Sounds pretty good to me.
MY parents didn't have botox injections, false eyelashes, manicures, exfoliation, waxing, cosmetic surgery, day spas, and that was just Dad. Throw in streaming services, exotic holidays, regular nights out, extra TVs, the biggest barbecue backyard smokehouse, spa, pool, four-car garage, double-storey house, jet ski, social media profile, designer clothes and handbags (are you reading this, honey? I hope not). I'm sure you people get my drift.
I know it's hard these days, but it's not impossible to buy a home and start small, dream big. We are dreaming of a small, nice retirement apartment near the beach. It might be a cave overlooking the Hawkesbury River if Mac Maguire's prediction of 1000 years of Labor government comes true. Good luck, I hope you achieve your goals.
MATT Ophir says he does not see any mosques being firebombed or sprayed with graffiti ("Targets of hate speak volumes", Letters, 12/6). What we are seeing is Palestine being destroyed and tens of thousands of its innocent citizens being slaughtered. Unfortunately, the hard-line government in Israel has used the bad behaviour of Hamas to invade the entire country. Yes, bad behaviour on both sides. I congratulate our government's brave decision to call out poor behaviour on both sides. I also congratulate the Albanese government on their response to the amazing clown act happening in America. Go Albo.
WITH all due respect to Cr Clausen ("Councillors have duty to speak up", Letters, 10/6), the community's response to the Davidson Report, on display in these pages, shows it did nothing to restore public trust. Nor did accusing the lord mayor of spreading misinformation in any way stem the community outrage that drove the former lord mayor out of office.
AN article on an Upper Hunter solar farm said it would cost $300 million and create five permanent jobs. I wonder where the thousands of permanent jobs will go when Mt Arthur closes, if five cost so much?
APPARENTLY, Greta Thunberg and her cohort will be shown a video of the Hamas attack on Israel as justification for the invasion of Gaza. I wonder if they will also justify their response to the October 7 attack?
The US wants us to spend more on defence, but surely the $368 billion for nuclear submarines more than covers us? I am not sure that Donald Trump knows much about the submarine deal, though.
I RECENTLY celebrated three years since returning to live in Newcastle, having been away for almost three decades. My main revelation upon return was that Newcastle had acquired that indefinable quality that comes from being a city rather than a large country town.
At sunset recently, I stopped halfway across the Cowper Street bridge to contemplate Newcastle's changing skyline. With its combination of moored yachts and mid to high-rise buildings, the view of the waterfront and West End verged on glamorous. OK, maybe I'm exaggerating, but I'm sure you'll allow that it's a great improvement on the grim neighbourhood some of us grew up with. The same can be said for many other parts of "town".
The other day, I met an older Novocastrian who used to have professional offices at the top of town. He remembered the East End as being "awful", a grimy mélange of derelict warehouses, railway sidings, and pollution from the Zaara Street power station. Now, of course, the area is a tourist mecca and a highly successful event space. The shared paths along the foreshore and beaches are thronged, and the renovated ocean baths and new skate park have been enthusiastically embraced.
Much remains to be done, of course. The slow death of street front retail has left large stretches of Hunter Street struggling to find a new purpose, Beaumont Street has its challenges, and while Newcastle's light rail line was the right idea, it remains a job only partly done. I'll report back in another three years.
THE owners of Tomago Aluminium have warned that high energy prices may put the plant's future in jeopardy. That could cost 1500 direct jobs and an extra 5000 across the region ("Minister optimistic on smelter despite surging energy prices", Newcastle Herald 12/6).
With energy prices to rise from July 2025, Tomago seems to be seeking government subsidy (taxpayer money) to keep operating profitably. Additionally, Alcoa plans to close down an aluminium smelter and two mills in WA this year due to high energy prices and production costs. With the US placing tariffs on Australian aluminium and Indonesia now expanding its cheap production, the future of our aluminium industry is not bright. Without reliable and affordable 24/7 energy supplies, productivity in Australia will continue to decline. It does not take an Einstein to figure that out.
GRAHAME Danaher ("Tackling adversity way to go", Letters 10/6), and Steve Barnett ("Costs are high, but working hard tough to beat", Letters 5/6): of course, tackling adversity is a great part of life, and overcoming it is the greatest high. However, once 3.5 times the median national income was enough for a house deposit. In 2024, it's 8.6 times.
Outrageously, concessional superannuation greatly favours the wealthy, people who do not need it, while the taxation tab is picked up by our younger taxpaying community. A parent recently expressed his bewilderment in the Sydney Morning Herald that, in retirement and with few expenses, he paid no tax, while his child with so many living expenses paid $37,000 on similar income. Employment is now far less stable, for a far more precarious life, for many. What toll is this taking on the social fabric?
The recent Fair Work Commission decision improved real incomes by only 1 per cent, with much of the wage rise lost to inflation. Like me, Mr Danaher and Mr Barnett should be very thankful for how the times favoured them. At the start of his working life, Mr Barnett could pocket $60 of his pay. Sounds pretty good to me.
MY parents didn't have botox injections, false eyelashes, manicures, exfoliation, waxing, cosmetic surgery, day spas, and that was just Dad. Throw in streaming services, exotic holidays, regular nights out, extra TVs, the biggest barbecue backyard smokehouse, spa, pool, four-car garage, double-storey house, jet ski, social media profile, designer clothes and handbags (are you reading this, honey? I hope not). I'm sure you people get my drift.
I know it's hard these days, but it's not impossible to buy a home and start small, dream big. We are dreaming of a small, nice retirement apartment near the beach. It might be a cave overlooking the Hawkesbury River if Mac Maguire's prediction of 1000 years of Labor government comes true. Good luck, I hope you achieve your goals.
MATT Ophir says he does not see any mosques being firebombed or sprayed with graffiti ("Targets of hate speak volumes", Letters, 12/6). What we are seeing is Palestine being destroyed and tens of thousands of its innocent citizens being slaughtered. Unfortunately, the hard-line government in Israel has used the bad behaviour of Hamas to invade the entire country. Yes, bad behaviour on both sides. I congratulate our government's brave decision to call out poor behaviour on both sides. I also congratulate the Albanese government on their response to the amazing clown act happening in America. Go Albo.
WITH all due respect to Cr Clausen ("Councillors have duty to speak up", Letters, 10/6), the community's response to the Davidson Report, on display in these pages, shows it did nothing to restore public trust. Nor did accusing the lord mayor of spreading misinformation in any way stem the community outrage that drove the former lord mayor out of office.
AN article on an Upper Hunter solar farm said it would cost $300 million and create five permanent jobs. I wonder where the thousands of permanent jobs will go when Mt Arthur closes, if five cost so much?
APPARENTLY, Greta Thunberg and her cohort will be shown a video of the Hamas attack on Israel as justification for the invasion of Gaza. I wonder if they will also justify their response to the October 7 attack?
The US wants us to spend more on defence, but surely the $368 billion for nuclear submarines more than covers us? I am not sure that Donald Trump knows much about the submarine deal, though.
I RECENTLY celebrated three years since returning to live in Newcastle, having been away for almost three decades. My main revelation upon return was that Newcastle had acquired that indefinable quality that comes from being a city rather than a large country town.
At sunset recently, I stopped halfway across the Cowper Street bridge to contemplate Newcastle's changing skyline. With its combination of moored yachts and mid to high-rise buildings, the view of the waterfront and West End verged on glamorous. OK, maybe I'm exaggerating, but I'm sure you'll allow that it's a great improvement on the grim neighbourhood some of us grew up with. The same can be said for many other parts of "town".
The other day, I met an older Novocastrian who used to have professional offices at the top of town. He remembered the East End as being "awful", a grimy mélange of derelict warehouses, railway sidings, and pollution from the Zaara Street power station. Now, of course, the area is a tourist mecca and a highly successful event space. The shared paths along the foreshore and beaches are thronged, and the renovated ocean baths and new skate park have been enthusiastically embraced.
Much remains to be done, of course. The slow death of street front retail has left large stretches of Hunter Street struggling to find a new purpose, Beaumont Street has its challenges, and while Newcastle's light rail line was the right idea, it remains a job only partly done. I'll report back in another three years.
THE owners of Tomago Aluminium have warned that high energy prices may put the plant's future in jeopardy. That could cost 1500 direct jobs and an extra 5000 across the region ("Minister optimistic on smelter despite surging energy prices", Newcastle Herald 12/6).
With energy prices to rise from July 2025, Tomago seems to be seeking government subsidy (taxpayer money) to keep operating profitably. Additionally, Alcoa plans to close down an aluminium smelter and two mills in WA this year due to high energy prices and production costs. With the US placing tariffs on Australian aluminium and Indonesia now expanding its cheap production, the future of our aluminium industry is not bright. Without reliable and affordable 24/7 energy supplies, productivity in Australia will continue to decline. It does not take an Einstein to figure that out.
GRAHAME Danaher ("Tackling adversity way to go", Letters 10/6), and Steve Barnett ("Costs are high, but working hard tough to beat", Letters 5/6): of course, tackling adversity is a great part of life, and overcoming it is the greatest high. However, once 3.5 times the median national income was enough for a house deposit. In 2024, it's 8.6 times.
Outrageously, concessional superannuation greatly favours the wealthy, people who do not need it, while the taxation tab is picked up by our younger taxpaying community. A parent recently expressed his bewilderment in the Sydney Morning Herald that, in retirement and with few expenses, he paid no tax, while his child with so many living expenses paid $37,000 on similar income. Employment is now far less stable, for a far more precarious life, for many. What toll is this taking on the social fabric?
The recent Fair Work Commission decision improved real incomes by only 1 per cent, with much of the wage rise lost to inflation. Like me, Mr Danaher and Mr Barnett should be very thankful for how the times favoured them. At the start of his working life, Mr Barnett could pocket $60 of his pay. Sounds pretty good to me.
MY parents didn't have botox injections, false eyelashes, manicures, exfoliation, waxing, cosmetic surgery, day spas, and that was just Dad. Throw in streaming services, exotic holidays, regular nights out, extra TVs, the biggest barbecue backyard smokehouse, spa, pool, four-car garage, double-storey house, jet ski, social media profile, designer clothes and handbags (are you reading this, honey? I hope not). I'm sure you people get my drift.
I know it's hard these days, but it's not impossible to buy a home and start small, dream big. We are dreaming of a small, nice retirement apartment near the beach. It might be a cave overlooking the Hawkesbury River if Mac Maguire's prediction of 1000 years of Labor government comes true. Good luck, I hope you achieve your goals.
MATT Ophir says he does not see any mosques being firebombed or sprayed with graffiti ("Targets of hate speak volumes", Letters, 12/6). What we are seeing is Palestine being destroyed and tens of thousands of its innocent citizens being slaughtered. Unfortunately, the hard-line government in Israel has used the bad behaviour of Hamas to invade the entire country. Yes, bad behaviour on both sides. I congratulate our government's brave decision to call out poor behaviour on both sides. I also congratulate the Albanese government on their response to the amazing clown act happening in America. Go Albo.
WITH all due respect to Cr Clausen ("Councillors have duty to speak up", Letters, 10/6), the community's response to the Davidson Report, on display in these pages, shows it did nothing to restore public trust. Nor did accusing the lord mayor of spreading misinformation in any way stem the community outrage that drove the former lord mayor out of office.
AN article on an Upper Hunter solar farm said it would cost $300 million and create five permanent jobs. I wonder where the thousands of permanent jobs will go when Mt Arthur closes, if five cost so much?
APPARENTLY, Greta Thunberg and her cohort will be shown a video of the Hamas attack on Israel as justification for the invasion of Gaza. I wonder if they will also justify their response to the October 7 attack?
The US wants us to spend more on defence, but surely the $368 billion for nuclear submarines more than covers us? I am not sure that Donald Trump knows much about the submarine deal, though.
I RECENTLY celebrated three years since returning to live in Newcastle, having been away for almost three decades. My main revelation upon return was that Newcastle had acquired that indefinable quality that comes from being a city rather than a large country town.
At sunset recently, I stopped halfway across the Cowper Street bridge to contemplate Newcastle's changing skyline. With its combination of moored yachts and mid to high-rise buildings, the view of the waterfront and West End verged on glamorous. OK, maybe I'm exaggerating, but I'm sure you'll allow that it's a great improvement on the grim neighbourhood some of us grew up with. The same can be said for many other parts of "town".
The other day, I met an older Novocastrian who used to have professional offices at the top of town. He remembered the East End as being "awful", a grimy mélange of derelict warehouses, railway sidings, and pollution from the Zaara Street power station. Now, of course, the area is a tourist mecca and a highly successful event space. The shared paths along the foreshore and beaches are thronged, and the renovated ocean baths and new skate park have been enthusiastically embraced.
Much remains to be done, of course. The slow death of street front retail has left large stretches of Hunter Street struggling to find a new purpose, Beaumont Street has its challenges, and while Newcastle's light rail line was the right idea, it remains a job only partly done. I'll report back in another three years.
THE owners of Tomago Aluminium have warned that high energy prices may put the plant's future in jeopardy. That could cost 1500 direct jobs and an extra 5000 across the region ("Minister optimistic on smelter despite surging energy prices", Newcastle Herald 12/6).
With energy prices to rise from July 2025, Tomago seems to be seeking government subsidy (taxpayer money) to keep operating profitably. Additionally, Alcoa plans to close down an aluminium smelter and two mills in WA this year due to high energy prices and production costs. With the US placing tariffs on Australian aluminium and Indonesia now expanding its cheap production, the future of our aluminium industry is not bright. Without reliable and affordable 24/7 energy supplies, productivity in Australia will continue to decline. It does not take an Einstein to figure that out.
GRAHAME Danaher ("Tackling adversity way to go", Letters 10/6), and Steve Barnett ("Costs are high, but working hard tough to beat", Letters 5/6): of course, tackling adversity is a great part of life, and overcoming it is the greatest high. However, once 3.5 times the median national income was enough for a house deposit. In 2024, it's 8.6 times.
Outrageously, concessional superannuation greatly favours the wealthy, people who do not need it, while the taxation tab is picked up by our younger taxpaying community. A parent recently expressed his bewilderment in the Sydney Morning Herald that, in retirement and with few expenses, he paid no tax, while his child with so many living expenses paid $37,000 on similar income. Employment is now far less stable, for a far more precarious life, for many. What toll is this taking on the social fabric?
The recent Fair Work Commission decision improved real incomes by only 1 per cent, with much of the wage rise lost to inflation. Like me, Mr Danaher and Mr Barnett should be very thankful for how the times favoured them. At the start of his working life, Mr Barnett could pocket $60 of his pay. Sounds pretty good to me.
MY parents didn't have botox injections, false eyelashes, manicures, exfoliation, waxing, cosmetic surgery, day spas, and that was just Dad. Throw in streaming services, exotic holidays, regular nights out, extra TVs, the biggest barbecue backyard smokehouse, spa, pool, four-car garage, double-storey house, jet ski, social media profile, designer clothes and handbags (are you reading this, honey? I hope not). I'm sure you people get my drift.
I know it's hard these days, but it's not impossible to buy a home and start small, dream big. We are dreaming of a small, nice retirement apartment near the beach. It might be a cave overlooking the Hawkesbury River if Mac Maguire's prediction of 1000 years of Labor government comes true. Good luck, I hope you achieve your goals.
MATT Ophir says he does not see any mosques being firebombed or sprayed with graffiti ("Targets of hate speak volumes", Letters, 12/6). What we are seeing is Palestine being destroyed and tens of thousands of its innocent citizens being slaughtered. Unfortunately, the hard-line government in Israel has used the bad behaviour of Hamas to invade the entire country. Yes, bad behaviour on both sides. I congratulate our government's brave decision to call out poor behaviour on both sides. I also congratulate the Albanese government on their response to the amazing clown act happening in America. Go Albo.
WITH all due respect to Cr Clausen ("Councillors have duty to speak up", Letters, 10/6), the community's response to the Davidson Report, on display in these pages, shows it did nothing to restore public trust. Nor did accusing the lord mayor of spreading misinformation in any way stem the community outrage that drove the former lord mayor out of office.
AN article on an Upper Hunter solar farm said it would cost $300 million and create five permanent jobs. I wonder where the thousands of permanent jobs will go when Mt Arthur closes, if five cost so much?
APPARENTLY, Greta Thunberg and her cohort will be shown a video of the Hamas attack on Israel as justification for the invasion of Gaza. I wonder if they will also justify their response to the October 7 attack?
The US wants us to spend more on defence, but surely the $368 billion for nuclear submarines more than covers us? I am not sure that Donald Trump knows much about the submarine deal, though.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Advertiser

an hour 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

an hour 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.

Sydney Morning Herald

an hour ago

• Sydney Morning Herald

Israel-Iran conflict LIVE updates: Speculation continues to grow over US involvement; Iranian Foreign Minister says US ‘partner to Israeli crime'

Go to latest What you need to know this morning Good morning. Welcome to our ongoing coverage of the crisis in the Middle East as the Israel-Iran war enters its second week. Here's a quick overview of the latest events: Israel and Iran launched more missile strikes overnight Australian time, with Israel bombing sites across Iran, including in the capital Tehran and at Rasht on the Caspian Sea. Iranian missiles struck Beersheba and the port city of Haifa. Iran says it would not discuss the future of its nuclear programme while it's under attack by Israel. Israel's envoy to the UN, Danny Danon, told the UN Security Council his country would not stop its attacks 'until Iran's nuclear threat is dismantled'. Australia's Foreign Minister Penny Wong joined demands for Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program and come to the negotiating table within the two-week deadline set by Trump. Australia shut its embassy in Tehran, and sent defence personnel and assets to the region to help evacuate Australians. Earlier on Friday, US President Donald Trump said he would decide whether the US would join military action against Iran within two weeks. 6.16am Israel, Iran trade strikes amid new EU diplomatic efforts Iran said it would not discuss the future of its nuclear programme while under attack by Israel, as Europe tried to coax Tehran back into negotiations and the US considers whether to get involved in the conflict. A week into its campaign, Israel said it had struck dozens of military targets, including missile production sites, a research body it said was involved in nuclear weapons development in Tehran and military facilities in western and central Iran. The Israeli military later said they had struck surface-to-air missile batteries in southwestern Iran as part of efforts to achieve air superiority over the country. Explosions were heard in Iran's southwestern Khuzestan province and at least four people there were killed, IRNA news agency reported. At least five people were injured when Israel hit a five-storey building in Tehran housing a bakery and a hairdresser's, Fars news agency reported. Iran fired missiles at Beersheba in southern Israel and Haifa in the north, causing damage to an Ottoman-era mosque, according to Foreign Minister Gideon Saar. A foreign ministry video also showed extensive damage to a nearby high-rise building that houses a branch of Israel's Interior Ministry. Haifa is home to Israel's busiest seaport and a naval base. Fars news agency quoted an Iranian military spokesman as saying Tehran's missile and drone attacks on Friday had used long-range and ultra-heavy missiles against military sites, defence industries and command and control centres. About 20 missiles were fired in those latest Iranian strikes, an Israeli military official said, and at least two people were hurt, according to the Israeli ambulance service.