Latest news with #Seven'sSunrise
The Advertiser
6 days ago
- Business
- The Advertiser
Minister plays down American review of AUKUS deal
A US review of a deal to provide Australia with nuclear submarines is routine, the defence minister says, despite calls for a backup plan in case the Trump administration scraps AUKUS. The Pentagon on Thursday announced a review of the three-nation pact that would give Australia nuclear submarines, to see if the agreement lined up with President Donald Trump's "America First" agenda. But Defence Minister Richard Marles has downplayed the significance of the review, saying it's standard procedure. "We engaged with the United Kingdom when they did their review, which is perfectly natural, and of course, when we did the defence strategic review, we also went to both the United States and the United Kingdom and sought their views," the acting prime minister told ABC Radio on Monday. "It's a pretty natural process that we all engage in each other's reviews. "We'll engage with the reviews and the (US) Department of Defense about how AUKUS is tracking in Australia." The AUKUS deal is set to be raised when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meets with Mr Trump for a one-on-one meeting on the sidelines of the G7 meeting in Canada on Tuesday. The American review has prompted calls for the federal government to consider a contingency plan in the event the submarine deal is called off. One-time coalition deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce said the US review was a concern. "You should have a contingency plan, as soon as the United States said 'we're reviewing AUKUS', alarm bells should have rung everywhere," he told Seven's Sunrise program. "We absolutely should have a contingency plan, but I haven't heard of any contingency plan." Under the $368 billion program, Australia will buy at least three Virginia-class submarines from the US sometime in the early 2030s. A new class of nuclear submarines will be built in Adelaide to be delivered in the 2040s. Former Australian ambassador to the US Arthur Sinodinos said he was confident AUKUS would survive. "There's a lot of bipartisan support for the deal, from day one in the (US) Congress, both Republican and Democrat," he told the Seven Network. "Trump himself would see that we're pulling our weight, we're going to spend $370 billion." Mr Sinodinos, who was ambassador when the deal was announced in 2021 under then-prime minister Scott Morrison, said if the US backed away from the agreement, that would play into the hands of China. "If we look at any stage like we're second guessing ourselves, or we're not committed to really doing this ... the Chinese will say, 'well, look at the end of the day, they're all paper tigers'," he said. "The Americans see that by having more subs actually built in the region, and being serviced in the region, that enhances their capacity to do things in the region. "We don't need a plan B." A US review of a deal to provide Australia with nuclear submarines is routine, the defence minister says, despite calls for a backup plan in case the Trump administration scraps AUKUS. The Pentagon on Thursday announced a review of the three-nation pact that would give Australia nuclear submarines, to see if the agreement lined up with President Donald Trump's "America First" agenda. But Defence Minister Richard Marles has downplayed the significance of the review, saying it's standard procedure. "We engaged with the United Kingdom when they did their review, which is perfectly natural, and of course, when we did the defence strategic review, we also went to both the United States and the United Kingdom and sought their views," the acting prime minister told ABC Radio on Monday. "It's a pretty natural process that we all engage in each other's reviews. "We'll engage with the reviews and the (US) Department of Defense about how AUKUS is tracking in Australia." The AUKUS deal is set to be raised when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meets with Mr Trump for a one-on-one meeting on the sidelines of the G7 meeting in Canada on Tuesday. The American review has prompted calls for the federal government to consider a contingency plan in the event the submarine deal is called off. One-time coalition deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce said the US review was a concern. "You should have a contingency plan, as soon as the United States said 'we're reviewing AUKUS', alarm bells should have rung everywhere," he told Seven's Sunrise program. "We absolutely should have a contingency plan, but I haven't heard of any contingency plan." Under the $368 billion program, Australia will buy at least three Virginia-class submarines from the US sometime in the early 2030s. A new class of nuclear submarines will be built in Adelaide to be delivered in the 2040s. Former Australian ambassador to the US Arthur Sinodinos said he was confident AUKUS would survive. "There's a lot of bipartisan support for the deal, from day one in the (US) Congress, both Republican and Democrat," he told the Seven Network. "Trump himself would see that we're pulling our weight, we're going to spend $370 billion." Mr Sinodinos, who was ambassador when the deal was announced in 2021 under then-prime minister Scott Morrison, said if the US backed away from the agreement, that would play into the hands of China. "If we look at any stage like we're second guessing ourselves, or we're not committed to really doing this ... the Chinese will say, 'well, look at the end of the day, they're all paper tigers'," he said. "The Americans see that by having more subs actually built in the region, and being serviced in the region, that enhances their capacity to do things in the region. "We don't need a plan B." A US review of a deal to provide Australia with nuclear submarines is routine, the defence minister says, despite calls for a backup plan in case the Trump administration scraps AUKUS. The Pentagon on Thursday announced a review of the three-nation pact that would give Australia nuclear submarines, to see if the agreement lined up with President Donald Trump's "America First" agenda. But Defence Minister Richard Marles has downplayed the significance of the review, saying it's standard procedure. "We engaged with the United Kingdom when they did their review, which is perfectly natural, and of course, when we did the defence strategic review, we also went to both the United States and the United Kingdom and sought their views," the acting prime minister told ABC Radio on Monday. "It's a pretty natural process that we all engage in each other's reviews. "We'll engage with the reviews and the (US) Department of Defense about how AUKUS is tracking in Australia." The AUKUS deal is set to be raised when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meets with Mr Trump for a one-on-one meeting on the sidelines of the G7 meeting in Canada on Tuesday. The American review has prompted calls for the federal government to consider a contingency plan in the event the submarine deal is called off. One-time coalition deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce said the US review was a concern. "You should have a contingency plan, as soon as the United States said 'we're reviewing AUKUS', alarm bells should have rung everywhere," he told Seven's Sunrise program. "We absolutely should have a contingency plan, but I haven't heard of any contingency plan." Under the $368 billion program, Australia will buy at least three Virginia-class submarines from the US sometime in the early 2030s. A new class of nuclear submarines will be built in Adelaide to be delivered in the 2040s. Former Australian ambassador to the US Arthur Sinodinos said he was confident AUKUS would survive. "There's a lot of bipartisan support for the deal, from day one in the (US) Congress, both Republican and Democrat," he told the Seven Network. "Trump himself would see that we're pulling our weight, we're going to spend $370 billion." Mr Sinodinos, who was ambassador when the deal was announced in 2021 under then-prime minister Scott Morrison, said if the US backed away from the agreement, that would play into the hands of China. "If we look at any stage like we're second guessing ourselves, or we're not committed to really doing this ... the Chinese will say, 'well, look at the end of the day, they're all paper tigers'," he said. "The Americans see that by having more subs actually built in the region, and being serviced in the region, that enhances their capacity to do things in the region. "We don't need a plan B." A US review of a deal to provide Australia with nuclear submarines is routine, the defence minister says, despite calls for a backup plan in case the Trump administration scraps AUKUS. The Pentagon on Thursday announced a review of the three-nation pact that would give Australia nuclear submarines, to see if the agreement lined up with President Donald Trump's "America First" agenda. But Defence Minister Richard Marles has downplayed the significance of the review, saying it's standard procedure. "We engaged with the United Kingdom when they did their review, which is perfectly natural, and of course, when we did the defence strategic review, we also went to both the United States and the United Kingdom and sought their views," the acting prime minister told ABC Radio on Monday. "It's a pretty natural process that we all engage in each other's reviews. "We'll engage with the reviews and the (US) Department of Defense about how AUKUS is tracking in Australia." The AUKUS deal is set to be raised when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meets with Mr Trump for a one-on-one meeting on the sidelines of the G7 meeting in Canada on Tuesday. The American review has prompted calls for the federal government to consider a contingency plan in the event the submarine deal is called off. One-time coalition deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce said the US review was a concern. "You should have a contingency plan, as soon as the United States said 'we're reviewing AUKUS', alarm bells should have rung everywhere," he told Seven's Sunrise program. "We absolutely should have a contingency plan, but I haven't heard of any contingency plan." Under the $368 billion program, Australia will buy at least three Virginia-class submarines from the US sometime in the early 2030s. A new class of nuclear submarines will be built in Adelaide to be delivered in the 2040s. Former Australian ambassador to the US Arthur Sinodinos said he was confident AUKUS would survive. "There's a lot of bipartisan support for the deal, from day one in the (US) Congress, both Republican and Democrat," he told the Seven Network. "Trump himself would see that we're pulling our weight, we're going to spend $370 billion." Mr Sinodinos, who was ambassador when the deal was announced in 2021 under then-prime minister Scott Morrison, said if the US backed away from the agreement, that would play into the hands of China. "If we look at any stage like we're second guessing ourselves, or we're not committed to really doing this ... the Chinese will say, 'well, look at the end of the day, they're all paper tigers'," he said. "The Americans see that by having more subs actually built in the region, and being serviced in the region, that enhances their capacity to do things in the region. "We don't need a plan B."
Perth Now
6 days ago
- Business
- Perth Now
Minister plays down American review of AUKUS deal
A US review of a deal to provide Australia with nuclear submarines is routine, the defence minister says, despite calls for a backup plan in case the Trump administration scraps AUKUS. The Pentagon on Thursday announced a review of the three-nation pact that would give Australia nuclear submarines, to see if the agreement lined up with President Donald Trump's "America First" agenda. But Defence Minister Richard Marles has downplayed the significance of the review, saying it's standard procedure. "We engaged with the United Kingdom when they did their review, which is perfectly natural, and of course, when we did the defence strategic review, we also went to both the United States and the United Kingdom and sought their views," the acting prime minister told ABC Radio on Monday. "It's a pretty natural process that we all engage in each other's reviews. "We'll engage with the reviews and the (US) Department of Defense about how AUKUS is tracking in Australia." The AUKUS deal is set to be raised when Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meets with Mr Trump for a one-on-one meeting on the sidelines of the G7 meeting in Canada on Tuesday. The American review has prompted calls for the federal government to consider a contingency plan in the event the submarine deal is called off. One-time coalition deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce said the US review was a concern. "You should have a contingency plan, as soon as the United States said 'we're reviewing AUKUS', alarm bells should have rung everywhere," he told Seven's Sunrise program. "We absolutely should have a contingency plan, but I haven't heard of any contingency plan." Under the $368 billion program, Australia will buy at least three Virginia-class submarines from the US sometime in the early 2030s. A new class of nuclear submarines will be built in Adelaide to be delivered in the 2040s. Former Australian ambassador to the US Arthur Sinodinos said he was confident AUKUS would survive. "There's a lot of bipartisan support for the deal, from day one in the (US) Congress, both Republican and Democrat," he told the Seven Network. "Trump himself would see that we're pulling our weight, we're going to spend $370 billion." Mr Sinodinos, who was ambassador when the deal was announced in 2021 under then-prime minister Scott Morrison, said if the US backed away from the agreement, that would play into the hands of China. "If we look at any stage like we're second guessing ourselves, or we're not committed to really doing this ... the Chinese will say, 'well, look at the end of the day, they're all paper tigers'," he said. "The Americans see that by having more subs actually built in the region, and being serviced in the region, that enhances their capacity to do things in the region. "We don't need a plan B."
The Advertiser
11-06-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
'Don't agree': Former Labor MP who pushed for sanction powers speaks out against Albanese's Israel move
A former Labor MP who spent years advocating for laws giving Australia the power to sanction foreign actors for international law breaches has spoken out against the Albanese government's decision to join four other countries in using them against two Israeli ministers. Michael Danby, who served as the member for Melbourne Ports (now Macnamara) for 20 years before retiring from politics in 2019, was a key architect - along with the late Victorian Labor senator Kimberley Kitching - of Australia's Magnitsky-style sanctions legislation passed in 2022, which enables travel bans to be imposed and assets frozen without warning. He took aim at Foreign Minister Penny Wong for sanctioning Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich overnight, telling The Canberra Times this was not the way the law was designed to be used. "I don't agree with [the decision]," Mr Danby, who is Jewish and has long been a vocal supporter of Israel, said. "Magnitsky sanctions were only meant to be focused on authoritarian states - not democratic states like Israel, where elections or the rule of law can deal with violations by individuals, including local politicians. "Foreign Minister Wong's action against a democratic state throws into sharp relief her failure to employ Magnitsky laws against big fish from authoritarian states - like Beijing's cruel communist commissars in Tibet and East Turkestan ... Whose children often try and get educated here, who like to come on holidays to the Gold Coast here." Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong told Seven's Sunrise on Wednesday morning that the decision to sanction the two ministers over their expansion of illegal settlement in the West Bank had been made "after a long process of deliberation and consideration". "We're doing that because we are all deeply concerned about the extremist settler enterprise of the Netanyahu government," she said. "We're concerned about it because it is undermining the prospects of two states. And ultimately, we, along with those other countries and the broader international community, believe we can only see peace in the Middle East when we deal with two states and when both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security." It is believed to be the first time Magnitsky laws, which are in force across many Western countries, have been used against individuals from democratic countries. Australia has previously using the laws to sanction individuals and entities in Russia, Iran, and Myanmar. Mr Danby said he agreed with criticism from United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the move did "not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire" in the Hamas-Israel war. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese rejected this criticism on Wednesday, telling ABC radio: "I think those responses are predictable, frankly." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley said in a statement: "The sanctioning of democratically elected officials of a key ally, Israel, is a very serious development." "The Magnitsky sanctions regime was designed to respond to serious matters of international concern, such as human rights abuses and terrorist acts," Ms Ley said. "The government must explain, in full, why it is being applied in these circumstances ... We have not received a briefing about this matter but would expect there to be a very high threshold for this decision." She called on the government to "explain why they have seemingly lowered the threshold for imposing Magnitsky-style sanctions, and whether this new approach will be applied to comments made by officials from other countries." "This may have serious implications for our international relationships," Ms Ley said. She said the government's explanatory materials "make clear that Minister Wong exercised a discretionary power to impose the sanctions because of public comments made by the two Israeli Ministers, which "appears to be a new development in our foreign policy." "We are concerned that there is a pattern of decisions by the Albanese government targeting the Israeli government, rather than Hamas, including the decision to block the Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister from travelling to Australia." Mr Albanese told the ABC his government continued to "engage with the Israeli government", while standing firm on the decision, saying the two Israeli ministers had "incited violence against Palestinians in the West Bank". He said the Israeli government needed to "uphold its obligations under international law", saying that "expansionist rhetoric ... from these hardline right-wing members of the Netanyahu government" contradicted this. Senator Wong would not be drawn on whether sanctions against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself had been considered when Australia joined Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom in sanctioning the Israeli ministers. She said only that while the two ministers were "not the only members of the Israeli government whose actions have been problematic, they are certainly the most extreme." As to other matters, we don't speculate about the approach," Senator Wong told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday morning. The Israeli ministers are accused of inciting and supporting systemic violence against Palestinians and aggressively expanding illegal Israeli settlements. They will face travel bans and have any Australian assets frozen under laws. A former Labor MP who spent years advocating for laws giving Australia the power to sanction foreign actors for international law breaches has spoken out against the Albanese government's decision to join four other countries in using them against two Israeli ministers. Michael Danby, who served as the member for Melbourne Ports (now Macnamara) for 20 years before retiring from politics in 2019, was a key architect - along with the late Victorian Labor senator Kimberley Kitching - of Australia's Magnitsky-style sanctions legislation passed in 2022, which enables travel bans to be imposed and assets frozen without warning. He took aim at Foreign Minister Penny Wong for sanctioning Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich overnight, telling The Canberra Times this was not the way the law was designed to be used. "I don't agree with [the decision]," Mr Danby, who is Jewish and has long been a vocal supporter of Israel, said. "Magnitsky sanctions were only meant to be focused on authoritarian states - not democratic states like Israel, where elections or the rule of law can deal with violations by individuals, including local politicians. "Foreign Minister Wong's action against a democratic state throws into sharp relief her failure to employ Magnitsky laws against big fish from authoritarian states - like Beijing's cruel communist commissars in Tibet and East Turkestan ... Whose children often try and get educated here, who like to come on holidays to the Gold Coast here." Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong told Seven's Sunrise on Wednesday morning that the decision to sanction the two ministers over their expansion of illegal settlement in the West Bank had been made "after a long process of deliberation and consideration". "We're doing that because we are all deeply concerned about the extremist settler enterprise of the Netanyahu government," she said. "We're concerned about it because it is undermining the prospects of two states. And ultimately, we, along with those other countries and the broader international community, believe we can only see peace in the Middle East when we deal with two states and when both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security." It is believed to be the first time Magnitsky laws, which are in force across many Western countries, have been used against individuals from democratic countries. Australia has previously using the laws to sanction individuals and entities in Russia, Iran, and Myanmar. Mr Danby said he agreed with criticism from United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the move did "not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire" in the Hamas-Israel war. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese rejected this criticism on Wednesday, telling ABC radio: "I think those responses are predictable, frankly." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley said in a statement: "The sanctioning of democratically elected officials of a key ally, Israel, is a very serious development." "The Magnitsky sanctions regime was designed to respond to serious matters of international concern, such as human rights abuses and terrorist acts," Ms Ley said. "The government must explain, in full, why it is being applied in these circumstances ... We have not received a briefing about this matter but would expect there to be a very high threshold for this decision." She called on the government to "explain why they have seemingly lowered the threshold for imposing Magnitsky-style sanctions, and whether this new approach will be applied to comments made by officials from other countries." "This may have serious implications for our international relationships," Ms Ley said. She said the government's explanatory materials "make clear that Minister Wong exercised a discretionary power to impose the sanctions because of public comments made by the two Israeli Ministers, which "appears to be a new development in our foreign policy." "We are concerned that there is a pattern of decisions by the Albanese government targeting the Israeli government, rather than Hamas, including the decision to block the Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister from travelling to Australia." Mr Albanese told the ABC his government continued to "engage with the Israeli government", while standing firm on the decision, saying the two Israeli ministers had "incited violence against Palestinians in the West Bank". He said the Israeli government needed to "uphold its obligations under international law", saying that "expansionist rhetoric ... from these hardline right-wing members of the Netanyahu government" contradicted this. Senator Wong would not be drawn on whether sanctions against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself had been considered when Australia joined Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom in sanctioning the Israeli ministers. She said only that while the two ministers were "not the only members of the Israeli government whose actions have been problematic, they are certainly the most extreme." As to other matters, we don't speculate about the approach," Senator Wong told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday morning. The Israeli ministers are accused of inciting and supporting systemic violence against Palestinians and aggressively expanding illegal Israeli settlements. They will face travel bans and have any Australian assets frozen under laws. A former Labor MP who spent years advocating for laws giving Australia the power to sanction foreign actors for international law breaches has spoken out against the Albanese government's decision to join four other countries in using them against two Israeli ministers. Michael Danby, who served as the member for Melbourne Ports (now Macnamara) for 20 years before retiring from politics in 2019, was a key architect - along with the late Victorian Labor senator Kimberley Kitching - of Australia's Magnitsky-style sanctions legislation passed in 2022, which enables travel bans to be imposed and assets frozen without warning. He took aim at Foreign Minister Penny Wong for sanctioning Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich overnight, telling The Canberra Times this was not the way the law was designed to be used. "I don't agree with [the decision]," Mr Danby, who is Jewish and has long been a vocal supporter of Israel, said. "Magnitsky sanctions were only meant to be focused on authoritarian states - not democratic states like Israel, where elections or the rule of law can deal with violations by individuals, including local politicians. "Foreign Minister Wong's action against a democratic state throws into sharp relief her failure to employ Magnitsky laws against big fish from authoritarian states - like Beijing's cruel communist commissars in Tibet and East Turkestan ... Whose children often try and get educated here, who like to come on holidays to the Gold Coast here." Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong told Seven's Sunrise on Wednesday morning that the decision to sanction the two ministers over their expansion of illegal settlement in the West Bank had been made "after a long process of deliberation and consideration". "We're doing that because we are all deeply concerned about the extremist settler enterprise of the Netanyahu government," she said. "We're concerned about it because it is undermining the prospects of two states. And ultimately, we, along with those other countries and the broader international community, believe we can only see peace in the Middle East when we deal with two states and when both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security." It is believed to be the first time Magnitsky laws, which are in force across many Western countries, have been used against individuals from democratic countries. Australia has previously using the laws to sanction individuals and entities in Russia, Iran, and Myanmar. Mr Danby said he agreed with criticism from United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the move did "not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire" in the Hamas-Israel war. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese rejected this criticism on Wednesday, telling ABC radio: "I think those responses are predictable, frankly." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley said in a statement: "The sanctioning of democratically elected officials of a key ally, Israel, is a very serious development." "The Magnitsky sanctions regime was designed to respond to serious matters of international concern, such as human rights abuses and terrorist acts," Ms Ley said. "The government must explain, in full, why it is being applied in these circumstances ... We have not received a briefing about this matter but would expect there to be a very high threshold for this decision." She called on the government to "explain why they have seemingly lowered the threshold for imposing Magnitsky-style sanctions, and whether this new approach will be applied to comments made by officials from other countries." "This may have serious implications for our international relationships," Ms Ley said. She said the government's explanatory materials "make clear that Minister Wong exercised a discretionary power to impose the sanctions because of public comments made by the two Israeli Ministers, which "appears to be a new development in our foreign policy." "We are concerned that there is a pattern of decisions by the Albanese government targeting the Israeli government, rather than Hamas, including the decision to block the Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister from travelling to Australia." Mr Albanese told the ABC his government continued to "engage with the Israeli government", while standing firm on the decision, saying the two Israeli ministers had "incited violence against Palestinians in the West Bank". He said the Israeli government needed to "uphold its obligations under international law", saying that "expansionist rhetoric ... from these hardline right-wing members of the Netanyahu government" contradicted this. Senator Wong would not be drawn on whether sanctions against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself had been considered when Australia joined Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom in sanctioning the Israeli ministers. She said only that while the two ministers were "not the only members of the Israeli government whose actions have been problematic, they are certainly the most extreme." As to other matters, we don't speculate about the approach," Senator Wong told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday morning. The Israeli ministers are accused of inciting and supporting systemic violence against Palestinians and aggressively expanding illegal Israeli settlements. They will face travel bans and have any Australian assets frozen under laws. A former Labor MP who spent years advocating for laws giving Australia the power to sanction foreign actors for international law breaches has spoken out against the Albanese government's decision to join four other countries in using them against two Israeli ministers. Michael Danby, who served as the member for Melbourne Ports (now Macnamara) for 20 years before retiring from politics in 2019, was a key architect - along with the late Victorian Labor senator Kimberley Kitching - of Australia's Magnitsky-style sanctions legislation passed in 2022, which enables travel bans to be imposed and assets frozen without warning. He took aim at Foreign Minister Penny Wong for sanctioning Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich overnight, telling The Canberra Times this was not the way the law was designed to be used. "I don't agree with [the decision]," Mr Danby, who is Jewish and has long been a vocal supporter of Israel, said. "Magnitsky sanctions were only meant to be focused on authoritarian states - not democratic states like Israel, where elections or the rule of law can deal with violations by individuals, including local politicians. "Foreign Minister Wong's action against a democratic state throws into sharp relief her failure to employ Magnitsky laws against big fish from authoritarian states - like Beijing's cruel communist commissars in Tibet and East Turkestan ... Whose children often try and get educated here, who like to come on holidays to the Gold Coast here." Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong told Seven's Sunrise on Wednesday morning that the decision to sanction the two ministers over their expansion of illegal settlement in the West Bank had been made "after a long process of deliberation and consideration". "We're doing that because we are all deeply concerned about the extremist settler enterprise of the Netanyahu government," she said. "We're concerned about it because it is undermining the prospects of two states. And ultimately, we, along with those other countries and the broader international community, believe we can only see peace in the Middle East when we deal with two states and when both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security." It is believed to be the first time Magnitsky laws, which are in force across many Western countries, have been used against individuals from democratic countries. Australia has previously using the laws to sanction individuals and entities in Russia, Iran, and Myanmar. Mr Danby said he agreed with criticism from United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio that the move did "not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire" in the Hamas-Israel war. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese rejected this criticism on Wednesday, telling ABC radio: "I think those responses are predictable, frankly." Opposition Leader Sussan Ley said in a statement: "The sanctioning of democratically elected officials of a key ally, Israel, is a very serious development." "The Magnitsky sanctions regime was designed to respond to serious matters of international concern, such as human rights abuses and terrorist acts," Ms Ley said. "The government must explain, in full, why it is being applied in these circumstances ... We have not received a briefing about this matter but would expect there to be a very high threshold for this decision." She called on the government to "explain why they have seemingly lowered the threshold for imposing Magnitsky-style sanctions, and whether this new approach will be applied to comments made by officials from other countries." "This may have serious implications for our international relationships," Ms Ley said. She said the government's explanatory materials "make clear that Minister Wong exercised a discretionary power to impose the sanctions because of public comments made by the two Israeli Ministers, which "appears to be a new development in our foreign policy." "We are concerned that there is a pattern of decisions by the Albanese government targeting the Israeli government, rather than Hamas, including the decision to block the Deputy Israeli Foreign Minister from travelling to Australia." Mr Albanese told the ABC his government continued to "engage with the Israeli government", while standing firm on the decision, saying the two Israeli ministers had "incited violence against Palestinians in the West Bank". He said the Israeli government needed to "uphold its obligations under international law", saying that "expansionist rhetoric ... from these hardline right-wing members of the Netanyahu government" contradicted this. Senator Wong would not be drawn on whether sanctions against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself had been considered when Australia joined Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom in sanctioning the Israeli ministers. She said only that while the two ministers were "not the only members of the Israeli government whose actions have been problematic, they are certainly the most extreme." As to other matters, we don't speculate about the approach," Senator Wong told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday morning. The Israeli ministers are accused of inciting and supporting systemic violence against Palestinians and aggressively expanding illegal Israeli settlements. They will face travel bans and have any Australian assets frozen under laws.
West Australian
06-06-2025
- Business
- West Australian
American beef key issue in Trump tariff talks
The US is pushing for looser rules on American beef imports in tariff talks, a senior Albanese government minister says. Australia has been vying for an exemption from both the Trump administration's baseline 10 per cent levies on foreign goods and the 50 per cent imposts on steel and aluminium. Donald Trump had told Anthony Albanese that an Australian carve out was 'under consideration' but ultimately decided there would be 'no exemptions' as he set about prosecuting his 'America first' agenda. Health Minister Mark Butler said on Friday that Australian officials were working through a request to accept beef from cattle slaughtered in the US that originated in third countries. 'We will be making a decision in the national interest,' Mr Butler told Seven's Sunrise. 'That's what we've done in relation to pharmaceuticals – we've said there's no way our PBS will be on the negotiating table and we won't compromise our biosecurity laws either.' He said the government had been 'reviewing this issue for some time'. 'This is US beef that's raised in Canada or Mexico, not cattle raised in the US itself but then brought into America, slaughtered there and proposed for exports,' Mr Butler said. 'This will be a decision taken on its merits, not for convenience, not to get a deal.' Noting Australia's 'very strict biosecurity laws', he said the officials had been reviewing the safety of American beef with third country origins even before the request was made. Appearing opposite Mr Butler, opposition senator Jane Hume said the Coalition supported the caution. 'We certainly don't want to see a watering down of our biosecurity laws that would potentially put our beef industry in danger,' Senator Hume said. 'This isn't about protecting an industry's prosperity, it's about protecting an industry's integrity. 'If you are tweaking biosecurity laws by watering them down that's something I think we would be very concerned about.' The Prime Minister has also ruled out watering down biosecurity laws to get a deal. 'No, we will not change or compromise any of the issues regarding biosecurity, full stop, exclamation mark,' Mr Albanese told the ABC. 'It's simply not worth it, so it's that simple.' Only the UK has been able to secure a partial exemption from the US President's blanket tariffs. A key UK concession was scrapping its 20 per cent duties on American beef and raising the import quota to 13,000 metric tonnes. But with many British goods still subject to tariffs, analysts have questioned whether the deal was worth it. The US has trade surpluses with both the UK and Australia. Australia also has a free-trade agreement with the US, meaning goods should be traded mostly uninhibited. The Albanese government has repeatedly criticised Mr Trump's decision to slap tariffs on Australian products as 'economic self-harm' and 'not the act of a friend'. Trade Minister Don Farrell is in Europe this week for high-level negotiations on a free-trade deal with the EU. He also met with his US counterpart and pressed for an Australian exemption from the 'unjustified' tariffs. 'Australia's position has been consistent and clear,' Senator Farrell said in a statement. 'These tariffs are unjustified and not the act of a friend. 'They are an act of economic self-harm that will only hurt consumers and businesses who rely on free and fair trade. 'We will continue to engage and advocate strongly for the removal of the tariffs.' Mr Albanese has vowed to raise tariffs with Mr Trump when the two leaders meet at the G7 in Canada later this month.
Perth Now
06-06-2025
- Business
- Perth Now
Stumbling block in Trump tariff talks
The US is pushing for looser rules on American beef imports in tariff talks, a senior Albanese government minister says. Australia has been vying for an exemption from both the Trump administration's baseline 10 per cent levies on foreign goods and the 50 per cent imposts on steel and aluminium. Donald Trump had told Anthony Albanese that an Australian carve out was 'under consideration' but ultimately decided there would be 'no exemptions' as he set about prosecuting his 'America first' agenda. Health Minister Mark Butler said on Friday that Australian officials were working through a request to accept beef from cattle slaughtered in the US that originated in third countries. American beef of third country origins is a key negotiating item in tariff talks with the US. NewsWire / Nikki Short Credit: News Corp Australia 'We will be making a decision in the national interest,' Mr Butler told Seven's Sunrise. 'That's what we've done in relation to pharmaceuticals – we've said there's no way our PBS will be on the negotiating table and we won't compromise our biosecurity laws either.' He said the government had been 'reviewing this issue for some time'. 'This is US beef that's raised in Canada or Mexico, not cattle raised in the US itself but then brought into America, slaughtered there and proposed for exports,' Mr Butler said. 'This will be a decision taken on its merits, not for convenience, not to get a deal.' Noting Australia's 'very strict biosecurity laws', he said the officials had been reviewing the safety of American beef with third country origins even before the request was made. Health Minister Mark Butler says biosecurity officials are reviewing the US request. NewsWire / Martin Ollman Credit: News Corp Australia Appearing opposite Mr Butler, opposition senator Jane Hume said the Coalition supported the caution. 'We certainly don't want to see a watering down of our biosecurity laws that would potentially put our beef industry in danger,' Senator Hume said. 'This isn't about protecting an industry's prosperity, it's about protecting an industry's integrity. 'If you are tweaking biosecurity laws by watering them down that's something I think we would be very concerned about.' The Prime Minister has also ruled out watering down biosecurity laws to get a deal. 'No, we will not change or compromise any of the issues regarding biosecurity, full stop, exclamation mark,' Mr Albanese told the ABC. 'It's simply not worth it, so it's that simple.' Only the UK has been able to secure a partial exemption from the US President's blanket tariffs. A key UK concession was scrapping its 20 per cent duties on American beef and raising the import quota to 13,000 metric tonnes. But with many British goods still subject to tariffs, analysts have questioned whether the deal was worth it. The US has trade surpluses with both the UK and Australia. Australia also has a free-trade agreement with the US, meaning goods should be traded mostly uninhibited. The Albanese government has repeatedly criticised Mr Trump's decision to slap tariffs on Australian products as 'economic self-harm' and 'not the act of a friend'. Trade Minister Don Farrell is in Europe this week for high-level negotiations on a free-trade deal with the EU. He also met with his US counterpart and pressed for an Australian exemption from the 'unjustified' tariffs. 'Australia's position has been consistent and clear,' Senator Farrell said in a statement. 'These tariffs are unjustified and not the act of a friend. 'They are an act of economic self-harm that will only hurt consumers and businesses who rely on free and fair trade. 'We will continue to engage and advocate strongly for the removal of the tariffs.' Mr Albanese has vowed to raise tariffs with Mr Trump when the two leaders meet at the G7 in Canada later this month.
