Speaker 1: From Sports Media. I'm Daniel James. This is seven AM.
Speaker 1: As Anthony Alberinezi heads to the G seven, the future
Speaker 1: of Australia's most important defense pact is suddenly uncertain. The
Speaker 1: Trump administration is reviewing UCAS, pushing for more military spending,
Speaker 1: and condemning Australia's new sanctions on Israeli ministers. All signs
Speaker 1: of a once stable alliance under pressure. Today Press Gallery
Speaker 1: journalist and columnists for Inside Story Karen Middleton on what's
Speaker 1: testing the US Australia relationship and whether a meeting on
Speaker 1: neutral ground can patch things up. It's Friday, June thirteen.
Speaker 2: Well, the future of Australia's most expensive and expansive security agreement.
Speaker 2: He's under a cloud this morning, with the Pentagon undertaking
Speaker 2: a review of the aucust Defense Agreement between the US,
Speaker 2: UK and Australia.
Speaker 1: Karen Anthony Albernez. He is heading to Canada for the
Speaker 1: G seven, where he's hoping to meet face to face
Speaker 1: with President Trump. His administration has just confirmed that they
Speaker 1: are reviewing orcast to make sure it's aligned with their
Speaker 1: America First agenda. What does that mean for US?
Speaker 3: Well, from the government's point of view, it's not terrific news.
Speaker 3: They'll be concerned that any review might lead to some
Speaker 3: kind of revision downward to the US commitment to ucas.
Speaker 3: Australia has thrown an awful lot into that agreement that
Speaker 3: was forged under the Morrison government four years ago, and
Speaker 3: we've just handed over hundreds of millions of dollars towards
Speaker 3: the US's submarine development program to try and make sure
Speaker 3: that Australia gets the submarines that it's ordered. So they'll
Speaker 3: be watching that review with a great deal of interest.
Speaker 4: Richard Miles joins you.
Speaker 5: He's Defense Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.
Speaker 4: Good morning, morning rap. How are you? I'm okay. Can
Speaker 4: you guarantee that we'll get submarines out of this deal? Well,
Speaker 4: I'm very confident this is going to happen.
Speaker 3: Certainly the Minister, Richard Miles, is playing down the significance
Speaker 3: of it.
Speaker 4: Look, I think the review that's been announced is not
Speaker 4: a surprise. We've been aware of this for some time.
Speaker 4: We welcome it. It's something which is perfectly natural for
Speaker 4: an incoming administration to do.
Speaker 3: But I'm sure given the unpredictability of the Trump administration
Speaker 3: that there'll be some level of anxiety in the Australian
Speaker 3: government about it.
Speaker 1: What do we know about the review so far? What
Speaker 1: have the TRAP administration officials said about it?
Speaker 3: Not a lot really, the reporting suggesting that it could
Speaker 3: be completed within about thirty days. It seems to be
Speaker 3: instigated by the Undersecretary for Defense, Elbridge Colby, who we
Speaker 3: know from his previous comments, has been a bit of
Speaker 3: a skeptic.
Speaker 5: About the Orchest deal.
Speaker 3: So that also will be adding to the Australian anxiety.
Speaker 5: I think yeah, as you said that.
Speaker 3: They're looking at the whole arrangement, which was struck under
Speaker 3: a previous Australian government and a previous US administration under
Speaker 3: the Biden administration, just to measure it up against the
Speaker 3: current President Donald Trump's America First policies.
Speaker 1: We know that TRIUM administration has called on Australia to
Speaker 1: top up our defense spending to three point five percent
Speaker 1: of GDP, something alban Easy has rejected. So is this
Speaker 1: review part of the US strategy to pull us into line?
Speaker 3: Well, there's been some speculation I guess since the review
Speaker 3: emerged overnight Thursday night, that maybe this is associated with
Speaker 3: adding extra pressure to the Australian government. What we saw
Speaker 3: in terms of the sequence of events was the US
Speaker 3: Defense Secretary Pete Hegzef went to the annual Shangri La
Speaker 3: Security Dialogue in Singapore, as did Richard Miles, and that
Speaker 3: is where they had a meeting on the sidelines, and
Speaker 3: then Secretary Hegzef issued a sort of readout from that
Speaker 3: meeting and interestingly put on the record that he had
Speaker 3: asked for an increase in Australian defense spending to three
Speaker 3: and a half percent.
Speaker 5: Now currently it's just over two percent.
Speaker 3: It's dudiized to about two point three within the next
Speaker 3: few years or so, but it is certainly not scheduled
Speaker 3: to rise as high as the Americans want. So when
Speaker 3: Richard Marles was asked about this, he said on the
Speaker 3: record that he was happy to have the conversation. He
Speaker 3: seemed to be amenable to talking about an increase in spending,
Speaker 3: but when the Prime Minister was asked about it, he
Speaker 3: put the kibosh on it.
Speaker 6: Well, I think that Australia should decide what we spend
Speaker 6: on Australia's defense, simple as that. That's my view. Now
Speaker 6: if others think that that's not the case, then it's
Speaker 6: up to them to make that case.
Speaker 3: We may well increase spending further, but it will all
Speaker 3: depend on our capability needs and the strategic environment.
Speaker 6: There is no reason why defense shouldn't be governed by
Speaker 6: anything other than one factor. What do we need? What
Speaker 6: is the capability we need to keep us safe?
Speaker 3: Whether this review is now a sort of pushback on
Speaker 3: that and suggestion that the US is serious and there
Speaker 3: could be a lot at stake if we don't commit
Speaker 3: to extra spending. People are speculating, but it's an interesting
Speaker 3: coincidence of timing.
Speaker 1: Aucas hasn't exactly been popular here in Australia. Does this
Speaker 1: in some way, shape or form give Albanies an opportunity
Speaker 1: to reconsider that going ahead at all?
Speaker 3: I don't think there's any suggestion from the government that
Speaker 3: they are reconsidering it.
Speaker 6: And we want to make sure as well that every
Speaker 6: single dollar that if ED spends results in actual assets.
Speaker 6: And under the former government there are a lot of
Speaker 6: media releases, just not many assets.
Speaker 3: There isn't really a backup plan for submarines that could
Speaker 3: get Australia submarines in a timely way other than the
Speaker 3: ones that they are planning to buy. Firstly, we all
Speaker 3: remember that the Morrison government canceled the contract with France
Speaker 3: for conventionally powered submarines, and the proposal to do with
Speaker 3: UCUS is that they would then refurbish the existing Collins
Speaker 3: class submarines further to fill the gap until we've got
Speaker 3: the new ones. I don't think anyone in government is
Speaker 3: suggesting we're going to pull out of UCUS. So really
Speaker 3: the government needs this to work because it's committed to it.
Speaker 3: It's supported what the Morrison government has done, and it's
Speaker 3: carried it on. And increasingly the United States is interested
Speaker 3: in boosting its presence here in Australia, and certainly in
Speaker 3: the readout of that conversation between Pete Hexas and Richard Marles,
Speaker 3: the Americans also said that Secretary Hexas raised the issue
Speaker 3: of accelerating the US force posture in Australia. So they're
Speaker 3: clearly putting pressure on to be able to do more
Speaker 3: in Australia. I don't see a way that Australia can
Speaker 3: back out of it all now.
Speaker 1: So Albanez is going to be at the G seven
Speaker 1: in Canada. At this stage, no meeting between him and
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has been confirmed. Do you think that tensions
Speaker 1: between the US and Australia are making that less likely
Speaker 1: to happen.
Speaker 3: It's not very and I guess it's anyone's guests. I mean,
Speaker 3: we've seen not only the defense spending issue. We've seen Australia,
Speaker 3: like a whole lot of other countries, upset about the tariffs.
Speaker 3: The imposition of steel and aluminium tariffs and the doubling
Speaker 3: of those then up towards fifty percent, is a real
Speaker 3: blow for Australia. So that is another sticking point between
Speaker 3: the two leaders. We've seen mister Albanezi, the Prime Minister,
Speaker 3: speak out very strongly about what he said was the
Speaker 3: targeting of an Australian journalist.
Speaker 6: That footage was horrific. That was the footage of an
Speaker 6: Australian journalist doing what journalists do at their very best.
Speaker 3: The Nine networks Lauren Tamarsi while she was reporting on
Speaker 3: the Los Angeles riots.
Speaker 6: And so we have already raised these issues with the
Speaker 6: US administration. We don't find it acceptable that it occurred.
Speaker 3: And then we've seen the imposition of sanctions against these
Speaker 3: two sort of far right Israeli ministers, Imar Benvie and
Speaker 3: Bezalel Smotrich that's joining with a number of other countries
Speaker 3: in imposing those sanctions, but that has displeased the United
Speaker 3: States as well, so it's not the most warm and
Speaker 3: fuzzy backdrop to a possible meeting between the two leaders.
Speaker 3: Of course, Anthony Albernizi is invited as an observer. We're
Speaker 3: not a member of the G seven, that's the seven
Speaker 3: biggest economies globally, so if that meeting with President Trump
Speaker 3: goes ahead, it will be on the sidelines. If indeed
Speaker 3: President Trump attends that gathering.
Speaker 1: After the break the beef between Australia and the United States, Karen,
Speaker 1: we're at a time when the US alliance has never
Speaker 1: been more tested. You mentioned that just this week Australia
Speaker 1: committed the sanctions on two ministers in the Israeli government.
Speaker 1: Can you tell me what that will mean in practice
Speaker 1: and how to affect our relationship with the US.
Speaker 3: The sanctions of freezing assets and restricting travel and then
Speaker 3: freezing assistance financial assistance to those two ministers as well.
Speaker 3: What we don't know is what assets they might have
Speaker 3: that might be affected by that here in Australia, or
Speaker 3: what links they might have, So in that regard, it's
Speaker 3: a symbolic gesture. I guess it's a number of countries
Speaker 3: banding together to make this statement and it's certainly a
Speaker 3: diplomatic tool or weapon to make it very clear from
Speaker 3: Australia's point of view that the government is unhappy with
Speaker 3: the comments of these two ministers. They've made very extreme
Speaker 3: comments in relation to the creation of settlements in the
Speaker 3: West Bank. The government says that they are undermining the
Speaker 3: quest that all parties profess to be moving towards, which
Speaker 3: is a two party solution to the current crisis in
Speaker 3: the Middle East. So the government is saying they're not
Speaker 3: ruling out making further steps. They haven't spelled out exactly
Speaker 3: what they think practical implications of these ones are. But
Speaker 3: it's definitely a diplomatic statement and it's displeased, certainly enraged Israel,
Speaker 3: but it's also displeased the United States, and the US
Speaker 3: is called it unhelpful to the peace process.
Speaker 1: Politically, the most pressing thing for Anthony Albanezi will be
Speaker 1: fighting to secure an exemption from US tariffs. If he
Speaker 1: does get a face to face with Trump, how do
Speaker 1: you think he'll approach that conversation. Do we know what
Speaker 1: kind of arguments he won't be putting forward.
Speaker 5: Well, that's an excellent question.
Speaker 3: We know the President is a transactional person, so you
Speaker 3: would have to assume that Australia would be going there
Speaker 3: offering something and seeking something in return. We've heard in
Speaker 3: recent days that the government had already been reviewing the
Speaker 3: arrangements for US beef.
Speaker 5: The sort of hardline ban on.
Speaker 3: US beef has been lifted some years ago, but the
Speaker 3: problem Australia still had with US beef was that he
Speaker 3: couldn't track it.
Speaker 5: It wasn't traceable.
Speaker 3: So if beef was going into the United States, for example,
Speaker 3: from Mexico and Canada, live cattle being slaughtered in the
Speaker 3: US and then brought onto Australia, Australia was requiring that
Speaker 3: the beast to be able to be traced all the
Speaker 3: way through that chain, and that wasn't happening. So the
Speaker 3: government seems confident that there are things within those arrangements
Speaker 3: that might be able to be clarified that wouldn't undermine
Speaker 3: our biosecurity, but that may represent a facilitation of US
Speaker 3: beef into Australia.
Speaker 6: Now we'll only sign up to things that are in
Speaker 6: Australia's national interest, so on things like the pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme,
Speaker 6: the media Bargaining Code, our biosecurity in agriculture. They're not
Speaker 6: on the table as far as we're concerned. But are
Speaker 6: there areas in which Australia and the United States can
Speaker 6: have win wins? Yes, I believe that there are.
Speaker 3: There are a couple of other issues that Australia might
Speaker 3: be hoping to use. Some US concern about the treatment
Speaker 3: of the shareholders in our US style and joint venture company.
Speaker 3: It's a complicated case, but there was a compensation plea
Speaker 3: in relation to the treatment of this company called New Coal,
Speaker 3: and there's a suggestion that perhaps the federal government might
Speaker 3: seek to intervene between sort of the US's concerns and
Speaker 3: the New South Wales government where this was an issue,
Speaker 3: and whether they can offer that and.
Speaker 5: Put that on the table isn't clear.
Speaker 3: But I think Anthony Alberanezi the suggestion from his demeanor
Speaker 3: is that he doesn't want to cowtao to the US president.
Speaker 3: He doesn't want to go in there and acquiesce. But
Speaker 3: at the same time you've got to walk that fine
Speaker 3: line because we've seen how the president responds when people
Speaker 3: push back in some cases on what he wants. Certainly
Speaker 3: he's made an example of a couple of leaders in
Speaker 3: the Oval office in front of all the cameras, so
Speaker 3: I think the Prime Minister wouldn't.
Speaker 5: Be wanting that to be occurring with him.
Speaker 1: Finally, Cana, if we turned back domestically. This week, Anthony
Speaker 1: Alberanezi gave a press club address which was his first
Speaker 1: major speech since being re elected. He say, and what
Speaker 1: did he tell us about his priorities for this term.
Speaker 3: Well, his big message was we're going to do what
Speaker 3: we said we're going to do and we're not going
Speaker 3: to overextend. So he's still trying to manage expectations among
Speaker 3: his own constituency and support base that, having won such
Speaker 3: a huge majority in the Parliament, that he should push
Speaker 3: further and do more than he's already said he would do.
Speaker 3: So he's trying to manage those expectations. At the same time,
Speaker 3: he's talking about having another gathering later in the year
Speaker 3: that is like the Jobs and Skills summit that he
Speaker 3: held after the twenty twenty two election, where he brought
Speaker 3: a whole lot of stakeholders together, from business, from the
Speaker 3: union movement, from the community, sector, a range of organizations
Speaker 3: to talk about ideas for the economy, and in this
Speaker 3: case this is going to be focused on productivity, which
Speaker 3: the government has said it is a big focus for this.
Speaker 6: Term, our own way, on our terms, in our interests,
Speaker 6: not seeking to imitate low wage economies, not leaving people
Speaker 6: behind in the scramble for some perceived advantage.
Speaker 3: But he's clearly very focused on taking people with him,
Speaker 3: not getting out ahead of people, because he recognizes that
Speaker 3: if public opinion turns as it can do during the
Speaker 3: course of his term and he is seen to be
Speaker 3: overextending his mandates somehow, that that could go badly for
Speaker 3: him at the next election.
Speaker 5: Despite his large margin.
Speaker 6: My colleagues and I understand that every day in government
Speaker 6: is a privilege and with optimism, urgency, purpose and determination,
Speaker 6: we intend to make every single day account Thanks very much.
Speaker 3: He looks to other elections in the past, Campbell Newman
Speaker 3: in Queensland being the most recent example, where there was
Speaker 3: an enormous swing in favor of an incoming government and
Speaker 3: then an enormous swing against in the course of one
Speaker 3: term and he was out. And he does not want
Speaker 3: that to happen to him.
Speaker 1: Karen thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 5: Thanks Daniel.
Speaker 1: Just before we go, you might have heard that there's
Speaker 1: some news around that seven AM has been sold by
Speaker 1: Schwartz Media. We learned this week that we've been acquired
Speaker 1: by Solstice Media, the company behind in new Daily and
Speaker 1: other titles. Seven Am will continue, but we will have
Speaker 1: more information for you in the coming weeks about what
Speaker 1: that means. In the meantime, thanks for listening. Seven Am
Speaker 1: is daily show from Schwartz Media in the Saturday Paper.
Speaker 1: Is made by Attigus Basto, Shane Anderson, Chris Dngate, Eric Jensen,
Speaker 1: Ruby Jones, Sarah mcveee, Travis Evans, Zoltenfat Joe and me
Speaker 1: Daniel James. Our theme music is by Ned Beckley and
Speaker 1: Josh Hogan of Envelope Audio. A Spain siven i am
Speaker 1: for this week. Thanks for listening and have a great weekend.