Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Politics

Donald Trump has cast a long shadow over the Australian election

Published

on

Donald Trump has cast a long shadow over the Australian election. Will it prove decisive?

Emma Shortis, RMIT University

Donald Trump is everywhere, inescapable. His return to power in the United States was always going to have some impact on the Australian federal election. The question was how disruptive he would be.

The answer is very – but not in the ways we might have thought.

As soon as Trump was elected president, the political debate in Australia focused on whether Prime Minister Anthony Albanese or Opposition Leader Peter Dutton would be best suited to managing him – and keeping the US-Australia security alliance intact.

Initially, at least, this conversation was predictable.

The Coalition looked set to continue an ideological alignment with Trumpism that had flourished under the prime ministership of Scott Morrison. Dutton prosecuted the argument that given his party’s experience with the first Trump administration, it would be better placed than Labor to handle the second.

Albanese, meanwhile, appeared caught off guard by Trump’s victory and timid in his response.

But as has become all too clear, the second Trump administration is radically different from the first. That has rattled the right of Australian politics and worked to Labor’s advantage.

A turning point at the White House

In January, the Coalition announced that NT Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price had been appointed shadow minister for government efficiency – a direct importation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) being led by Elon Musk in the US.

In a barely disguised imitation of the Trump administration’s attacks on “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) measures, members of the Coalition, including Price, singled out Welcome to Country ceremonies as evidence of the kind of “wasteful” spending it would cut.

When the Coalition seemed to be riding high in the polls, Dutton, too, nodded at “wokeism” and singled out young white men feeling “disenfranchised”.

Soon after, however, this began to change. The first few weeks of Trump’s second term were marked by a cascade of executive actions targeting trans people, climate action and immigration. Trump and his new appointees began the process of radically reshaping the United States and its role in the world.

In February, polling by the independent think tank The Australia Institute found Australians saw Trump as a bigger threat to world peace than Russian President Vladimir Putin or Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

And then Volodymyr Zelensky went to the White House.

The Ukrainian president was humiliated in an Oval Office meeting with Trump and Vice President JD Vance, laying bare how the administration was willing to treat the leader of an ally devastated by a war it hadn’t started.

Trump’s territorial threats towards Canada and Greenland, in addition to his dismissive statements about European allies, shattered the long-held assumptions about the US as a force for stability in the world.

MAGA ideology isn’t ‘pick and choose’

After this incident, Dutton was careful to distance himself from Trump’s abandonment of Ukraine. He even went so far as to say that leadership might require “standing up to your friends and to those traditional allies because our views have diverged”.

Similarly, influential Coalition powerbroker Peta Credlin wrote in The Australian:

it’s hard to see America made great again if the Trump administration’s message to the world is that the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.

Therein lies the bind for the Coalition – an ideological alignment with “Make America Great Again” cannot be fully reconciled with a nationalism that puts Australian interests first.

MAGA ideology is all-or-nothing, not pick-and-choose.

During the election campaign, the Coalition attempted to walk the path of “pick-and-choose”. And Labor quite successfully used this against them. Assertions the opposition leader was nothing but a “Temu Trump”, or “DOGE-y Dutton”, stuck because they had at least a ring of truth to them.

The opposition’s pledge to dramatically reduce the size of the public service, for example, was clearly linked to Musk’s efforts at DOGE to take a chainsaw to the public service in the US. This idea has been deeply unpopular with Australian voters, and the Coalition has faced innumerable questions about it.

For all the talk of “shared values” and how essential the US alliance is to Australian security, this campaign shows that Australia is not like America.

Most Australians concerned about Trump’s impact

When Trump’s tariffs arrived on “Liberation Day” in early April, both leaders claimed they were best placed to negotiate.

Albanese insisted Australia had got one of the best results in the world, while Dutton asserted, without evidence, that he would be able to negotiate a better one.

More broadly, the Trump tariffs have contributed to a growing sense of unease in the electorate.

A recent YouGov poll found that 66% of Australians no longer believe the US can be relied on for defence and security. According to Paul Smith, the director of YouGov, this is a “fundamental change of worldview”.

In the same poll, 71% of Australians also said they were either concerned or very concerned Trump’s policies would make Australia worse off.

While neither party has signalled it would make a fundamental shift in Australia’s alliance with the US if elected, that doesn’t mean changes aren’t possible.

Independents and minor parties may well play a significant role in the formation of the next government. Some, like Zoe Daniel and Jacqui Lambie, are increasingly vocal about the risks the Trump administration poses to Australia.

A limit to Trumpism’s appeal

As election day approaches, many of the assumptions driving conventional Australian political thinking are under pressure.

Labor’s recovery in the polls, and the Liberals’ election win in Canada, suggest assumptions about the dangers of incumbency might have been misplaced. The dissatisfaction with incumbent governments last year may have had more to do with unresponsive political parties and systems.

There’s evidence emerging, instead, that in more responsive democracies with robust institutions like Australia and Canada, Trumpism does not have great appeal.

The idea that “kindness is not a weakness” may yet prove to be a winning political strategy.

Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Politics

Sussan Ley sacks Jacinta Price after she refuses to declare leadership loyalty

Published

on

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Opposition Leader Sussan Ley has sacked Jacinta Nampijinpa Price from the shadow ministry, citing the senator’s failure to endorse her leadership as well as her refusal to apologise over her comment about Indian immigrants.

The battle with Price came to a head late on Wednesday, after Price declined to express conference in Ley’s leadership when pressed by reporters in Perth. Price said that was “a matter for our party room”.

Ley told a press conference in Hobart: “Today, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price critically failed to provide confidence in my leadership of the Liberal Party. Confidence in the Leader is a requirement for serving in the shadow ministry”.

Ley also said despite being given “the time and space to apologise” for her remarks about Indian immigration, Price “did not offer an apology today – and many Australians, not just of Indian heritage, have been calling for that apology – for remarks that were deeply hurtful”.

Last week Price said the Labor Party encouraged Indian immigrants because they voted for it. She has subiquently walked back her position but steadfastly refused calls from within and outside the Liberal Party to apologise for them.

Ley said: “My team and I have been out listening to Australians of Indian heritage and we have heard their response and the pain and hurt that these remarks provided for them.”

After Ley told her she was out of the shadow ministry, Price said in a statement, “this has been a disappointing episode for the Liberal Party. I will learn from it. I’m sure others will too. No individual is bigger than a party. And I’m sure events of the past week will ultimately make our party stronger.”

Price has been shadow minister for defence industry. She defected from the Nationals to the Liberals after the election, hoping to become deputy opposition leader on a ticket with Angus Taylor. In the event, she did not contest the deputy position after Taylor lost to Ley.

Price’s relegation to the backbench leaves her free to speak out, not just on immigration issues but on many other issues as well, including the party debate on its commitment to net zero greenhouse emissions.

Ley hopes her action against Price will shore up her authority in the party, but it remains to be seen whether it could instead be destabilising for her.The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Politics

Coalition declares it would revoke Australia’s Palestinian statehood recognition if it wins office

Published

on

Coalition declares it would revoke Australia’s Palestinian statehood recognition if it wins office

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

The bipartisanship about the path to a long-term settlement in the Middle East has finally been irrevocably broken.

The shadow cabinet, meeting Tuesday morning, did not just confirm the Coalition’s disagreement with the government’s decision to recognise a Palestinian state. It also decided that recognition would be revoked by a Coalition government.

In a statement after the shadow cabinet, Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and the shadow foreign minister, Michaelia Cash, said: “A Coalition government would only recognise a Palestine state at the conclusion of a proper peace process”.

On Monday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced Australia would recognise a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly next month. The government is not putting preconditions on recognition, but is relying on assurances the Palestinian Authority has given.

In its statement, the opposition said Albanese had specified recognition was “predicated on there being no role for Hamas; the demilitarisation of Palestine; an acknowledgement of Israel’s right to exist; free and fair elections in Palestine; and, reform of [Palestinian] governance, financial transparency and the education system, including international oversight to guard against the incitement of violence and hatred”.

But, the Coalition said, “unfortunately the Albanese government has made it clear that they will still recognise a Palestinian state, regardless of whether or not their own conditions are met.”

Former Prime Minister Scott Morrison said that in government, the Coalition had listed Hamas as a terrorist organisation. “Our Labor successors have regrettably rewarded them through this action.

“I know this is not their intention, but it is the result. The caravan of appeasement is not one we should join”, Morrison said on his website.

While the split in bipartisanship has come to a head this week, it has been in the making for a considerable time.

The Coalition has been steadfastly rusted onto Israel (despite having some members, including Ley, who in the past had expressed support for the Palestinians).

In recent years, Labor has become increasingly divided between those wanting to stick to its traditional alignment with Israel and a growing number of pro-Palestinian supporters, who eventually succeeded in getting recognition of a Palestinian state into the party’s platform.

In the recent election, the Liberals pitched to and attracted many Jewish voters, while Labor was concerned with keeping the support of its Muslim constituency, located especially in western Sydney.

The government’s criticism of Israel’s approach to the war has intensified as the conflict has dragged on with no sign of resolution.

Once the current conflict reached its present impasse, with ever-more graphic footage of the suffering in Gaza, and countries such as France, Britain and Canada signalling Palestinian recognition, it was almost inevitable the Albanese government would follow, and the Coalition would oppose that decision.

The government argues something has to be done. It chooses to believe assurances given by the Palestinian Authority. It speaks as though the intractable players in this Middle East conflict can be influenced, even though the ongoing conflict makes this a heroic assumption.

Albanese undertook a round of Tuesday interviews to defend the government’s decision. Often reluctant to spell out the content of private conversations with overseas counterparts, the prime minister is being expansive about his conversation last Thursday  with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“It was a conversation which reflected the conversation that I had with him in 2024. And I expressed to him my concern that he was putting the same argument that he did in 2024, that military action against Hamas would produce an outcome. That hasn’t produced an outcome. What it’s produced is a lot of innocent lives, tens of thousands of innocent lives being lost.

“I expressed my concern about the blocking of aid that occurred  as a conscious decision by the Israeli government  earlier this year,” Albanese said.

“He again reiterated to me what he has said publicly as well, which is to be in denial about the consequences that are occurring for innocent people.”The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Politics

Anthony Albanese marches cautiously towards Palestinian recognition

Published

on

Grattan on Friday: Anthony Albanese marches cautiously towards Palestinian recognition

Michelle Grattan, University of Canberra

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has been putting it succinctly, declaring it’s a question of when, not if, Australia recognises Palestine as a state.

It’s a line Foreign Minister Penny Wong used more than a year ago. This week Wong was sounding impatient. “The reason for urgency behind recognition is this. There is a risk there will be no Palestine left to recognise if the world does not act,” she said.

For the government, recognition is as much about domestic politics as foreign policy. Australia has no influence on what’s happening in the Middle East (other than donating aid). But the Australian public is increasingly horrified by the images of the humanitarian crisis.

It’s a reminder of the power of the visual. More than half a century ago, the pictures coming out of Vietnam helped turn the US public against that war.

Right now, however, Australia remains in limbo on its journey towards recognition. The destination might seem clear but the exact arrival date is less so.

Observers are expecting it by the time of the United Nations General Assembly in late September. Anthony Albanese will be there, delivering an address during leaders’ week. The announcement could be made in the run up, or in that week.

France, the United Kingdom and Canada have all flagged recognition, the latter two with varying conditions attached.

Asked in late July about whether Australia would announce recognition at the UN, Albanese said Australia would make a decision “at an appropriate time”.

“We won’t do any decision as a gesture. We will do it as a way forward if the circumstances are met,” he said. He spelled out a couple of these. “How do you exclude Hamas from any involvement there? How do you ensure that a Palestinian state operates in an appropriate way which does not threaten the existence of Israel?”

In any likely scenario, there will be no positive answers to those questions in the foreseeable future. Nor does there seem, so far, much chance the Netanyahu government in Israel will take much notice of more countries recognising Palestine. The only country, if any, it appears likely to be influenced by is the United States, and President Donald Trump’s future actions are unpredictable.

But, leaving aside the prime minister’s longstanding personal pro-Palestinian views, Albanese has to be seen to be doing something. Pressure has been long mounting in the Labor base and among the party membership for recognition. The Sydney Harbour Bridge march last weekend, attracting at least some 90,000 people (march organisers estimated many more), reemphasised to Albanese that he needs to be in tune with his base on this issue.

An instructive lesson comes from the situation in which NSW Labor Premier Chris Minns finds himself. Minns and the NSW police opposed the march going over the bridge on the grounds it would be too disruptive – they were overridden by a court decision. But ten of Minns’ caucus members marched, including environment minister Penny Sharpe.

In the federal caucus, Ed Husic, now on the backbench, is out in front on Palestine recognition. But whatever impatience there may be in caucus generally about the government’s perceived slowness, it is so far being contained. Still, Albanese won’t want to lag behind his colleagues on what is an electorally sensitive issue for Labor in some seats.

As the government prepares its timing, Albanese has embarked on a diplomatic round. It was not unexpected that he spoke with French President Emmanuel Macron this week. More surprising was his phone call with the Palestine Authority’s President Mahmoud Abbas, who is widely regarded as a discredited figure.

According to the official readout from the Prime Minister’s Office, Albanese “reiterated Australia’s call for the immediate entry of aid to meet needs of people of Gaza, a permanent ceasefire, and the release of all hostages”.

Albanese “also reinforced Australia’s commitment to a two state solution because a just and lasting peace depends upon it”. Abbas thanked the PM “for Australia’s economic and humanitarian support. The leaders discussed deepening cooperation across a range of areas, and agreed to meet on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.”

If Albanese made the point directly to Abbas that the Palestinian Authority needed to reform itself to have a role in a future Palestinian state, it was not recorded in the readout. But Albanese did tell a news conference on Thursday, “We as well want to see commitments from the Palestinian Authority, commitments of their governance reforms, of reforms in education, reforms across a whole range of issues”.

Before that conversation, Albanese had sought a call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As of Thursday, the call had not yet come.

Israeli authorities can be quick to respond to what they see as anti-Israel events in Australia. There was a social media post from the Israeli foreign minister after the bridge march, urging Australians to “wake up”.

On Thursday, Albanese was asked whether he would talk with Trump before he made the decision about Palestinian recognition. “We’re a sovereign government and Australia makes decisions on behalf of the Australian government,” he said.

Incidentally, while there has been speculation that Albanese will catch up with Trump when he is in the US in September, there don’t seem any locked-in plans.

It’s hard to get the president’s time in Washington when so many leaders are knocking on the White House door in September. And there is no guarantee the president will be in New York during the leaders’ week at the UN, or have an opportunity for a meeting if he is. When the prime minister will catch up with the president continues to be a work in progress.

The opposition, which has remained steadfastly signed up to Israel, strongly opposes Palestinian recognition, saying this would be a win for Hamas. But at least some Liberals are readjusting their rhetoric to take more account of the humanitarian disaster in Gaza.

If, or when, Labor recognises a Palestinian state, the opposition would condemn the decision. But what would it say about whether a Coalition government would reverse the decision? That might be one for the convenient line, “we’d look at that when we were in office”.The Conversation

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Trending Now