Albanese's allies work to kill off anti-AUKUS push before Labor conference
The party's Victorian Left faction, led by minister Andrew Giles and who back the prime minister, are lobbying behind the scenes to water down a motion submitted by the anti-US Labor Against War to Labor's state conference on Saturday that slams US President Donald Trump and demands the government 'withdraw' from AUKUS.
The push comes at a time when the Pentagon is reviewing the $360 billion nuclear deal and the US Navy is concerned the country is not building enough nuclear submarines to sell any to Australia in the 2030s without a dramatic increase in production.
Australian officials are emphasising to the US that AUKUS gives it a more powerful military position in the Indo-Pacific to persuade it to stay committed to the deal, but the push from rank-and-file Labor members highlights discomfort in the party about closer ties with the US military.
Loading
Powerbrokers loyal to Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles in the Victoria Right faction are trying to kill off debate on AUKUS entirely, according to sources in both factions who asked to remain anonymous because talks about the Left faction-dominated Victorian Labor conference were private.
'There is a general view in the membership that AUKUS is a crock of shit,' one senior party figure said, 'but we're all going along with it because it's like a federal version of the Suburban Rail Loop that we can't ditch.'
The loop is an expensive Victorian infrastructure project announced with little scrutiny. Since 2018, it has provoked fierce criticism from transport academics and Labor's political opponents, but the state Labor government attributes its thumping election wins to the project.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
13 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Work-from-home is for employers to decide
Should business owners lose the right to determine where their staff should work? It's a radical notion, but it's being proposed by the Victorian government. Employers have always had the right to say where their staff should be sited, but the proposal is to take away this foundational right and force employers to accept two days of work-from-home for employees who want it. Lest governments in other jurisdictions are tempted to go down this path, let's be more specific about the flaws in this proposal. I'll start by explaining how businesses maximise productivity regarding work arrangements and what we stand to lose. The critical element is that each employer has the right to set those work arrangements themselves. Having this choice allows employers to decide on work-from-home arrangements that work best for the business, depending on their individual circumstances. A travel agent in town A, for example, might have lots of work-from-home employees, and that works for them for the type of staff they're looking for and, as a result, they enjoy high productivity levels. That's great. Loading On the other hand, a consulting firm in town B might insist all staff be on deck to foster teamwork and camaraderie, which result in high productivity. That's also great. The key point here is to allow individual firms the choice of whether to have work-from-home or work-from-work arrangements, or indeed some sort of hybrid arrangement. Allowing that choice allows the town A as well as the town B business to thrive. Denying that choice would – by definition – cause one of those businesses to suffer a productivity hit. The importance of allowing individual businesses to choose is critical not only to the success of millions of businesses across the country, but also to the national economy. Some people make the mistake of making sweeping generalisations about what level of work-from-home is best for Australian businesses, but these one-size-fits-all proposals fail to account for what works best for each enterprise. They come in all shapes and sizes, with all sorts of business models, meeting all sorts of customer needs, and that is as it should be in a modern, dynamic economy.
The Age
13 minutes ago
- The Age
Work-from-home is for employers to decide
Should business owners lose the right to determine where their staff should work? It's a radical notion, but it's being proposed by the Victorian government. Employers have always had the right to say where their staff should be sited, but the proposal is to take away this foundational right and force employers to accept two days of work-from-home for employees who want it. Lest governments in other jurisdictions are tempted to go down this path, let's be more specific about the flaws in this proposal. I'll start by explaining how businesses maximise productivity regarding work arrangements and what we stand to lose. The critical element is that each employer has the right to set those work arrangements themselves. Having this choice allows employers to decide on work-from-home arrangements that work best for the business, depending on their individual circumstances. A travel agent in town A, for example, might have lots of work-from-home employees, and that works for them for the type of staff they're looking for and, as a result, they enjoy high productivity levels. That's great. Loading On the other hand, a consulting firm in town B might insist all staff be on deck to foster teamwork and camaraderie, which result in high productivity. That's also great. The key point here is to allow individual firms the choice of whether to have work-from-home or work-from-work arrangements, or indeed some sort of hybrid arrangement. Allowing that choice allows the town A as well as the town B business to thrive. Denying that choice would – by definition – cause one of those businesses to suffer a productivity hit. The importance of allowing individual businesses to choose is critical not only to the success of millions of businesses across the country, but also to the national economy. Some people make the mistake of making sweeping generalisations about what level of work-from-home is best for Australian businesses, but these one-size-fits-all proposals fail to account for what works best for each enterprise. They come in all shapes and sizes, with all sorts of business models, meeting all sorts of customer needs, and that is as it should be in a modern, dynamic economy.
AU Financial Review
13 minutes ago
- AU Financial Review
Recognising Palestine would play into Israeli extremists' hands
The government is moving with unstoppable momentum towards recognising a Palestinian state without a negotiated end to the conflict with Israel. It is a longstanding bipartisan Australian policy, and the policy of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, to support the notion of two states for two peoples.
