Epic $10 million transformation coming to beloved WA brewery
Due to welcome beer lovers in November, the new Little Creatures Fremantle will be located in the former Harbourside nightclub site at 42 Mews Road, next door to the current Great Hall and Brewhouse.
Nestled between the existing venue at 40 Mews Road, which opened in 2000, and the derelict Joe's Fish Shack, the revamped space will span two levels and offer uninterrupted panoramic views of Fremantle Fishing Boat Harbour.
Your local paper, whenever you want it.
The new-look Little Creatures will have capacity for more than 1000 patrons and feature The Den, a new family-friendly zone with an outdoor play area to keep the kids busy while parents enjoy drinks and watch sport.
The Brewhouse will serve as the new tasting room, offering tours, merchandise and a beer school. Lion field sales director for WA, Danny Connolly at Little Creatures in Fremantle. Credit: Supplied
Little Creatures' kitchen will also get a renovation to offer a refreshed menu and streamlined service, according to the brewer's parent company, Lion.
Lion's WA field sales director Danny Connolly said the company was excited to bring something new to the people of Fremantle as well as the many tourists that visit the venue.
'Little Creatures has been a part of the fabric of Fremantle for the past 25 years and this significant investment marks the beginning of an exciting new chapter for the brand,' he said.
Mr Connolly added that the refurbished brewery would inject 'new energy' into the Fremantle dining and entertainment precinct.
Fremantle mayor Hannah Fitzhardinge welcomed the new venue on the Fremantle waterfront.
'We're thrilled Little Creatures can remain at their original site,' she said.
'The new space for Little Creatures will provide locals and tourists with an inviting place to enjoy some of the best views, beers and hospitality in WA.'
The Great Hall will stay open until the end of October, before the launch of the new venue.
Indigenous-owned builder Dundee Rock will oversee design and construction.
Both 40 and 42 Mews are owned by the Department of Transport, which leases the land to Lion.
The Great Hall building at 40 Mews Road originally housed the Kookaburra yachts competing in the 1987 America's Cup and then a crocodile farm before opening as an independent brewery in late 2000.
Little Creatures was established by the original brewers of the Matilda Bay Brewing Company, marketing specialist Howard Cearns, restaurateur Nic Trimboli and master brewer Phil Sexton. Little Creatures has been a brewing institution since opening in Fremantle in November, 2025. Credit: Supplied
The partners named the venture after Talking Heads' 1985 album Little Creatures, which also refers to the live yeast cells that turn sugars into alcohol.
Little Creatures launched its first beer, a pale ale modelled on hop-driven American pale ales, in 2000.
Lion bought Little Creatures' parent company Little World Beverages in 2012 for a reported $380 million before opening a bigger production brewery in Geelong the following year.
A Little Creatures branded venue, operated by Three Pound Group, is due to open at Elizabeth Quay later this year.
In September 2021, Lion announced plans for a purpose-built $30 million venue on the site previously occupied by Joe's Fish Shack.
Those plans were scrapped in December 2022 when Lion, which is part of Japanese giant Kirin, purchased the ground lease for its existing hospitality venue and adjacent production facility.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Man of Many
7 hours ago
- Man of Many
Hellyers Road 22-Year-Old American Oak is the Label's Oldest Whisky Ever
By Nick Hall - News Published: 26 Jul 2025 Share Copy Link 0 Readtime: 3 min The Lowdown: Fiona Coutts, head distiller at Hellyers Road | Image: Hellyers Road Distillery Every product is carefully selected by our editors and experts. If you buy from a link, we may earn a commission. Learn more. For more information on how we test products, click here. Hellyers Road Distillery has unveiled its oldest expression to date, the American Oak 22 Year Old from Single Cask 2325.03 . . The aged expression matured for 22 years, 3 months and 25 days in one American oak, ex-bourbon cask formerly home to Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey. in one American oak, ex-bourbon cask formerly home to Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey. Only 80 bottles have been produced, each retailing for AUD$1,450. To some, 22 years might seem like a lifetime, but for award-winning distillery Hellyers Road, it couldn't have come soon enough. The Australian whisky icon has unveiled its oldest expression to date, the American Oak 22 Year Old from Single Cask 2325.03. Milled, mashed, fermented and distilled on-site, the latest release marks a decidedly home-grown endeavour, buoyed by a unique sense of terroir that is, unapologetically, Tasmanian. Sourced a single 200-litre cask, the aged expression was first laid down in November 2002, where it matured for an extraordinary 22 years, 3 months and 25 days in one American oak, ex-bourbon cask formerly home to Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey. From that cask, just 80 bottles were produced, each exuding notes of soft vanilla, ginger and a rich honeyed finish. According to Fiona Coutts, head distiller at Hellyers Road, the long fruit-forward American Oak 22 Year Old Single Cask 2325.03 represents the pinnacle of the label's maturation approach. Subtle, soft and layered with intricate complexity, the whisky elevates Hellyers Road's house style to another tier of premium production. 'The Hellyers Road American Oak 22 Year Old Single Cask 2325.03 is a stunning example of how our whisky ages so well in large American oak barrels,' Coutts said. 'The influence of the Bass Strait, a stone's throw from our Bond Stores, paired with time in a 200-litre ex-bourbon cask, has resulted in a whisky of depth, complexity and concentration. Honey and vanilla notes are at the fore, complemented by a magic that only time, the right oak and contact with oxygen can create over two decades.' Fiona Coutts, head distiller at Hellyers Road | Image: Hellyers Road Distillery As Coutts explained, a premium whisky of this esteem demanded more than just a standard bottling. Each unit of 22-Year-Old American Oak release is housed in a unique presentation box hand-crafted by local master woodworker Rob van Tholen from prized Tasmanian timbers. The fusion of Huon Pine, Myrtle and Celery Top Pine, speaks not only to the ageing process of the liquid inside, but also to the label's connection to the local land. Hellyers Road has been a staple of the Tasmanian whisky industry since its inception in 1997, producing a stellar back catalogue of single malt expressions and aged whiskies; none more important than this. To mark this milestone moment, the label has also included a letter of authenticity with each bottle, personally signed by Fiona Coutts. Adding to its individuality and intrigue, each presentation box has a secret locking mechanism to safeguard and showcase this treasured release. An exceptional example of aged Australian whisky showing the results of patience and the influence of maturation by the sea, the Hellyers Road American Oak 22 Year Old Single Cask 2325.03 is available now and priced at AUD$1,450. Only 80 bottles have been produced, with the expression expected to sell out. Hellyers Road American Oak 22 Year Old Single Cask 2325.03 | Image: Hellyers Road Hellyers Road American Oak 22 Year Old Single Cask 2325.03 Brand : Hellyers Road : Hellyers Road Release : American Oak 22 Year Old Single Cask 2325.03 : American Oak 22 Year Old Single Cask 2325.03 ABV : 56.5% : 56.5% Cask Filled: 21 November 2002 21 November 2002 Drawn : 18 March 2025 : 18 March 2025 Litres drawn: 62 Litres 62 Litres Yield : 80 bottles : 80 bottles Total Maturation : 22 years, 3 months, 25 days : 22 years, 3 months, 25 days Size : 700ml : 700ml Price: AUD$1,450 Hellyers Road American Oak 22 Year Old Single Cask 2325.03 | Image: Hellyers Road
The Advertiser
a day ago
- The Advertiser
Trump has put USA back on top. Australia should follow his lead
Putting aside all of Donald Trump's personal character flaws, and his contentious international and domestic policy decisions, he has kept his pledge to the "forgotten Americans," or as Hillary Clinton referred to them, the "deplorables" who voted for him. In his first 180 days, he has restored America's position as the dominant superpower and advocate of the free world. Beginning on day one of his administration, President Trump has been laser focused on promoting and ensuring stability, predictability, and flexibility to the American people. He has done precisely what he said he would do during his campaign: stabilise the US/Mexican border, reforge US economic prominence, lower personal taxes, improve government efficiencies, and attempt to distance the US from the global geopolitical entanglements he inherited from President Biden. The One Big Beautiful Bill was the crescendo of what he and the MAGA base set out to accomplish when he took office. It is now the law of the land. More significantly, the bill signifies the passing of the Republican party mantle, undisputedly, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump and the MAGAs. The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was the cornerstone of Reaganomics and the US's defence posture for generations. Trump's bill is America's new foundation for delivering long-term changes, which the White House says will "unleash robust economic growth, restore fiscal sanity, and reestablish America's economic and military might globally." Frustratingly, an unwelcome reality, despite some real economic and national security positives, is the US is still vulnerable to dangerous fiscal fluctuations. The bill doesn't reduce the US's national debt. It doesn't improve the US's unreliable defence acquisition infrastructures. Nor, does it unshackle the US from the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza. Regardless, Trump and the MAGAs see the bill as the catalyst for the US's restoration as the world's preeminent industrial power. As such, US manufacturing and investments, within the dogma of industrial power, will be directed towards the established military-industrial complexes. These have been the engine of trade, innovation, and prosperity in the US since World War II. Industrial power is built on good policies and trade relationships. It's formulated by assessing a nation's security requirements based on the threat's capabilities and their industrial might. That is why the US's planning and policy processes, logically, will look to the US's national security strategy to guide trade negotiations, defence planning and budgeting. Described by many, including Australian politicians, as being unpredictable, President Trump is astonishingly predictable on industrial and national security matters. He has strong convictions, some of them stretching back decades, which makes envisaging what we can expect for the rest of his presidency rather calculated. Donald Trump believes peace is built on industrial and military strength. He believes the only reliable way to secure industrial power and prevent aggression is by threatening rivals with unacceptable industrial - tariffs - or military consequences. That requires the US to have a financial and defence posture second to none. A sizeable portion of the bill restores lost capabilities within the US industrial base. To the MAGAs, the loss of key industrial capabilities to foreign entities is more compelling than having a defence force structure that is too small. READ MORE: The belief is, if you can't equip your forces to deter opponents and achieve victory then you place your service members in peril, you become a strategic liability to your allies, and you are destined to lose the first battle if not the war. Trump has little faith in alliances and defence agreements like AUKUS, however, he accepts them as a reality of global geopolitical security. He, as well as others in his administration, have complained for decades that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and NATO members don't spend enough on their own defence. He has argued that Japan and South Korea need to acquire nuclear forces to deter attacks and if they don't - they should pay America for defending them. A condition he might cogitate for Australia too. Trump and the MAGAs see China as the only credible superpower to America. Although China's global economic power is wanning, its steady modernisation of the People's Liberation Army, coupled with China's subversive global activities, especially in the Timor and Coral Sea regions, make China the central industrial and military threat in all US planning scenarios and operational contingency plans. In Trump's first term, his administration released a drastically revised national security strategy that shifted the US's focus from the global war on terror to great-power competition. Then, US defence secretary Pat Shanahan described the focus of the new strategy as "China, China, China." In that respect, Trump's views, along with key advisers JD Vance and Bridge Colby, remain unchanged, if not more ardent. Specifically as it pertains to Taiwan, the principal lesson Trump has learned from the US's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that tech is better than boots on the ground. In those circumstances where foreign provocations demand a US military response, Trump will habitually favour the use of remote weapons, as seen by US strikes into Iran, Yemen, Africa and the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump used armed drones more than any of his predecessors. Trump and his fellow MAGAs recognise that the death or capture of a single service member by a hostile force is always a divisive development in US domestic politics. He is determined to avoid such incidents, which leaves the defence of Taiwan in a perilous predicament. The last thing Donald Trump and his MAGA base want to see are US soldiers or marines in firefights with Chinese forces in Taiwan. MAGA disciples such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem are Trump's champions of industrial power. Like Reaganomics, which served the Republican party for 45 years, this cohort will be the guardians of the big beautiful bill for years to come. The MAGAs realise that "business as usual" with respect to national security posturing is no longer sufficient by military might alone. It's a realisation that through industrial power, both government and the private sector must determine together how to best proceed in building and sustaining national security capabilities with its foundation being "made in America." Industrial power requires a nation to make strategic public investments designed to strengthen its economic and national security posture. Such investments must be broader in scope than the traditional defence industries. This requires governments to ensure effective production and supply chains exist for goods and manufacturing that serve the needs of the whole economy - not just the defence industrial base. It must be an expanded aperture that strengthens not only a nation's security but collectively strengthens the livelihood of each citizen. Although some in Australia believe America's resolve to its allies is suspect and its global popularity is declining, a national security strategy focused on industrial power that is aligned with the US will ultimately benefit all Australians. The US, under Trump and the MAGAs, is once again seen as the leader of a global alliance of more than 60 partner nations that collectively account for almost 80 per cent of the world's GDP. Australia should view these nations' industrial power as a global security system that supports our industries, our national security, and most of all - our citizens. There is a lesson here for Australia: "Made in Australia" is and always will be our most reliable national security deterrent. Putting aside all of Donald Trump's personal character flaws, and his contentious international and domestic policy decisions, he has kept his pledge to the "forgotten Americans," or as Hillary Clinton referred to them, the "deplorables" who voted for him. In his first 180 days, he has restored America's position as the dominant superpower and advocate of the free world. Beginning on day one of his administration, President Trump has been laser focused on promoting and ensuring stability, predictability, and flexibility to the American people. He has done precisely what he said he would do during his campaign: stabilise the US/Mexican border, reforge US economic prominence, lower personal taxes, improve government efficiencies, and attempt to distance the US from the global geopolitical entanglements he inherited from President Biden. The One Big Beautiful Bill was the crescendo of what he and the MAGA base set out to accomplish when he took office. It is now the law of the land. More significantly, the bill signifies the passing of the Republican party mantle, undisputedly, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump and the MAGAs. The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was the cornerstone of Reaganomics and the US's defence posture for generations. Trump's bill is America's new foundation for delivering long-term changes, which the White House says will "unleash robust economic growth, restore fiscal sanity, and reestablish America's economic and military might globally." Frustratingly, an unwelcome reality, despite some real economic and national security positives, is the US is still vulnerable to dangerous fiscal fluctuations. The bill doesn't reduce the US's national debt. It doesn't improve the US's unreliable defence acquisition infrastructures. Nor, does it unshackle the US from the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza. Regardless, Trump and the MAGAs see the bill as the catalyst for the US's restoration as the world's preeminent industrial power. As such, US manufacturing and investments, within the dogma of industrial power, will be directed towards the established military-industrial complexes. These have been the engine of trade, innovation, and prosperity in the US since World War II. Industrial power is built on good policies and trade relationships. It's formulated by assessing a nation's security requirements based on the threat's capabilities and their industrial might. That is why the US's planning and policy processes, logically, will look to the US's national security strategy to guide trade negotiations, defence planning and budgeting. Described by many, including Australian politicians, as being unpredictable, President Trump is astonishingly predictable on industrial and national security matters. He has strong convictions, some of them stretching back decades, which makes envisaging what we can expect for the rest of his presidency rather calculated. Donald Trump believes peace is built on industrial and military strength. He believes the only reliable way to secure industrial power and prevent aggression is by threatening rivals with unacceptable industrial - tariffs - or military consequences. That requires the US to have a financial and defence posture second to none. A sizeable portion of the bill restores lost capabilities within the US industrial base. To the MAGAs, the loss of key industrial capabilities to foreign entities is more compelling than having a defence force structure that is too small. READ MORE: The belief is, if you can't equip your forces to deter opponents and achieve victory then you place your service members in peril, you become a strategic liability to your allies, and you are destined to lose the first battle if not the war. Trump has little faith in alliances and defence agreements like AUKUS, however, he accepts them as a reality of global geopolitical security. He, as well as others in his administration, have complained for decades that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and NATO members don't spend enough on their own defence. He has argued that Japan and South Korea need to acquire nuclear forces to deter attacks and if they don't - they should pay America for defending them. A condition he might cogitate for Australia too. Trump and the MAGAs see China as the only credible superpower to America. Although China's global economic power is wanning, its steady modernisation of the People's Liberation Army, coupled with China's subversive global activities, especially in the Timor and Coral Sea regions, make China the central industrial and military threat in all US planning scenarios and operational contingency plans. In Trump's first term, his administration released a drastically revised national security strategy that shifted the US's focus from the global war on terror to great-power competition. Then, US defence secretary Pat Shanahan described the focus of the new strategy as "China, China, China." In that respect, Trump's views, along with key advisers JD Vance and Bridge Colby, remain unchanged, if not more ardent. Specifically as it pertains to Taiwan, the principal lesson Trump has learned from the US's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that tech is better than boots on the ground. In those circumstances where foreign provocations demand a US military response, Trump will habitually favour the use of remote weapons, as seen by US strikes into Iran, Yemen, Africa and the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump used armed drones more than any of his predecessors. Trump and his fellow MAGAs recognise that the death or capture of a single service member by a hostile force is always a divisive development in US domestic politics. He is determined to avoid such incidents, which leaves the defence of Taiwan in a perilous predicament. The last thing Donald Trump and his MAGA base want to see are US soldiers or marines in firefights with Chinese forces in Taiwan. MAGA disciples such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem are Trump's champions of industrial power. Like Reaganomics, which served the Republican party for 45 years, this cohort will be the guardians of the big beautiful bill for years to come. The MAGAs realise that "business as usual" with respect to national security posturing is no longer sufficient by military might alone. It's a realisation that through industrial power, both government and the private sector must determine together how to best proceed in building and sustaining national security capabilities with its foundation being "made in America." Industrial power requires a nation to make strategic public investments designed to strengthen its economic and national security posture. Such investments must be broader in scope than the traditional defence industries. This requires governments to ensure effective production and supply chains exist for goods and manufacturing that serve the needs of the whole economy - not just the defence industrial base. It must be an expanded aperture that strengthens not only a nation's security but collectively strengthens the livelihood of each citizen. Although some in Australia believe America's resolve to its allies is suspect and its global popularity is declining, a national security strategy focused on industrial power that is aligned with the US will ultimately benefit all Australians. The US, under Trump and the MAGAs, is once again seen as the leader of a global alliance of more than 60 partner nations that collectively account for almost 80 per cent of the world's GDP. Australia should view these nations' industrial power as a global security system that supports our industries, our national security, and most of all - our citizens. There is a lesson here for Australia: "Made in Australia" is and always will be our most reliable national security deterrent. Putting aside all of Donald Trump's personal character flaws, and his contentious international and domestic policy decisions, he has kept his pledge to the "forgotten Americans," or as Hillary Clinton referred to them, the "deplorables" who voted for him. In his first 180 days, he has restored America's position as the dominant superpower and advocate of the free world. Beginning on day one of his administration, President Trump has been laser focused on promoting and ensuring stability, predictability, and flexibility to the American people. He has done precisely what he said he would do during his campaign: stabilise the US/Mexican border, reforge US economic prominence, lower personal taxes, improve government efficiencies, and attempt to distance the US from the global geopolitical entanglements he inherited from President Biden. The One Big Beautiful Bill was the crescendo of what he and the MAGA base set out to accomplish when he took office. It is now the law of the land. More significantly, the bill signifies the passing of the Republican party mantle, undisputedly, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump and the MAGAs. The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was the cornerstone of Reaganomics and the US's defence posture for generations. Trump's bill is America's new foundation for delivering long-term changes, which the White House says will "unleash robust economic growth, restore fiscal sanity, and reestablish America's economic and military might globally." Frustratingly, an unwelcome reality, despite some real economic and national security positives, is the US is still vulnerable to dangerous fiscal fluctuations. The bill doesn't reduce the US's national debt. It doesn't improve the US's unreliable defence acquisition infrastructures. Nor, does it unshackle the US from the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza. Regardless, Trump and the MAGAs see the bill as the catalyst for the US's restoration as the world's preeminent industrial power. As such, US manufacturing and investments, within the dogma of industrial power, will be directed towards the established military-industrial complexes. These have been the engine of trade, innovation, and prosperity in the US since World War II. Industrial power is built on good policies and trade relationships. It's formulated by assessing a nation's security requirements based on the threat's capabilities and their industrial might. That is why the US's planning and policy processes, logically, will look to the US's national security strategy to guide trade negotiations, defence planning and budgeting. Described by many, including Australian politicians, as being unpredictable, President Trump is astonishingly predictable on industrial and national security matters. He has strong convictions, some of them stretching back decades, which makes envisaging what we can expect for the rest of his presidency rather calculated. Donald Trump believes peace is built on industrial and military strength. He believes the only reliable way to secure industrial power and prevent aggression is by threatening rivals with unacceptable industrial - tariffs - or military consequences. That requires the US to have a financial and defence posture second to none. A sizeable portion of the bill restores lost capabilities within the US industrial base. To the MAGAs, the loss of key industrial capabilities to foreign entities is more compelling than having a defence force structure that is too small. READ MORE: The belief is, if you can't equip your forces to deter opponents and achieve victory then you place your service members in peril, you become a strategic liability to your allies, and you are destined to lose the first battle if not the war. Trump has little faith in alliances and defence agreements like AUKUS, however, he accepts them as a reality of global geopolitical security. He, as well as others in his administration, have complained for decades that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and NATO members don't spend enough on their own defence. He has argued that Japan and South Korea need to acquire nuclear forces to deter attacks and if they don't - they should pay America for defending them. A condition he might cogitate for Australia too. Trump and the MAGAs see China as the only credible superpower to America. Although China's global economic power is wanning, its steady modernisation of the People's Liberation Army, coupled with China's subversive global activities, especially in the Timor and Coral Sea regions, make China the central industrial and military threat in all US planning scenarios and operational contingency plans. In Trump's first term, his administration released a drastically revised national security strategy that shifted the US's focus from the global war on terror to great-power competition. Then, US defence secretary Pat Shanahan described the focus of the new strategy as "China, China, China." In that respect, Trump's views, along with key advisers JD Vance and Bridge Colby, remain unchanged, if not more ardent. Specifically as it pertains to Taiwan, the principal lesson Trump has learned from the US's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that tech is better than boots on the ground. In those circumstances where foreign provocations demand a US military response, Trump will habitually favour the use of remote weapons, as seen by US strikes into Iran, Yemen, Africa and the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump used armed drones more than any of his predecessors. Trump and his fellow MAGAs recognise that the death or capture of a single service member by a hostile force is always a divisive development in US domestic politics. He is determined to avoid such incidents, which leaves the defence of Taiwan in a perilous predicament. The last thing Donald Trump and his MAGA base want to see are US soldiers or marines in firefights with Chinese forces in Taiwan. MAGA disciples such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem are Trump's champions of industrial power. Like Reaganomics, which served the Republican party for 45 years, this cohort will be the guardians of the big beautiful bill for years to come. The MAGAs realise that "business as usual" with respect to national security posturing is no longer sufficient by military might alone. It's a realisation that through industrial power, both government and the private sector must determine together how to best proceed in building and sustaining national security capabilities with its foundation being "made in America." Industrial power requires a nation to make strategic public investments designed to strengthen its economic and national security posture. Such investments must be broader in scope than the traditional defence industries. This requires governments to ensure effective production and supply chains exist for goods and manufacturing that serve the needs of the whole economy - not just the defence industrial base. It must be an expanded aperture that strengthens not only a nation's security but collectively strengthens the livelihood of each citizen. Although some in Australia believe America's resolve to its allies is suspect and its global popularity is declining, a national security strategy focused on industrial power that is aligned with the US will ultimately benefit all Australians. The US, under Trump and the MAGAs, is once again seen as the leader of a global alliance of more than 60 partner nations that collectively account for almost 80 per cent of the world's GDP. Australia should view these nations' industrial power as a global security system that supports our industries, our national security, and most of all - our citizens. There is a lesson here for Australia: "Made in Australia" is and always will be our most reliable national security deterrent. Putting aside all of Donald Trump's personal character flaws, and his contentious international and domestic policy decisions, he has kept his pledge to the "forgotten Americans," or as Hillary Clinton referred to them, the "deplorables" who voted for him. In his first 180 days, he has restored America's position as the dominant superpower and advocate of the free world. Beginning on day one of his administration, President Trump has been laser focused on promoting and ensuring stability, predictability, and flexibility to the American people. He has done precisely what he said he would do during his campaign: stabilise the US/Mexican border, reforge US economic prominence, lower personal taxes, improve government efficiencies, and attempt to distance the US from the global geopolitical entanglements he inherited from President Biden. The One Big Beautiful Bill was the crescendo of what he and the MAGA base set out to accomplish when he took office. It is now the law of the land. More significantly, the bill signifies the passing of the Republican party mantle, undisputedly, from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump and the MAGAs. The 1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act was the cornerstone of Reaganomics and the US's defence posture for generations. Trump's bill is America's new foundation for delivering long-term changes, which the White House says will "unleash robust economic growth, restore fiscal sanity, and reestablish America's economic and military might globally." Frustratingly, an unwelcome reality, despite some real economic and national security positives, is the US is still vulnerable to dangerous fiscal fluctuations. The bill doesn't reduce the US's national debt. It doesn't improve the US's unreliable defence acquisition infrastructures. Nor, does it unshackle the US from the conflicts in Ukraine or Gaza. Regardless, Trump and the MAGAs see the bill as the catalyst for the US's restoration as the world's preeminent industrial power. As such, US manufacturing and investments, within the dogma of industrial power, will be directed towards the established military-industrial complexes. These have been the engine of trade, innovation, and prosperity in the US since World War II. Industrial power is built on good policies and trade relationships. It's formulated by assessing a nation's security requirements based on the threat's capabilities and their industrial might. That is why the US's planning and policy processes, logically, will look to the US's national security strategy to guide trade negotiations, defence planning and budgeting. Described by many, including Australian politicians, as being unpredictable, President Trump is astonishingly predictable on industrial and national security matters. He has strong convictions, some of them stretching back decades, which makes envisaging what we can expect for the rest of his presidency rather calculated. Donald Trump believes peace is built on industrial and military strength. He believes the only reliable way to secure industrial power and prevent aggression is by threatening rivals with unacceptable industrial - tariffs - or military consequences. That requires the US to have a financial and defence posture second to none. A sizeable portion of the bill restores lost capabilities within the US industrial base. To the MAGAs, the loss of key industrial capabilities to foreign entities is more compelling than having a defence force structure that is too small. READ MORE: The belief is, if you can't equip your forces to deter opponents and achieve victory then you place your service members in peril, you become a strategic liability to your allies, and you are destined to lose the first battle if not the war. Trump has little faith in alliances and defence agreements like AUKUS, however, he accepts them as a reality of global geopolitical security. He, as well as others in his administration, have complained for decades that countries like Australia, the UK, Japan, and NATO members don't spend enough on their own defence. He has argued that Japan and South Korea need to acquire nuclear forces to deter attacks and if they don't - they should pay America for defending them. A condition he might cogitate for Australia too. Trump and the MAGAs see China as the only credible superpower to America. Although China's global economic power is wanning, its steady modernisation of the People's Liberation Army, coupled with China's subversive global activities, especially in the Timor and Coral Sea regions, make China the central industrial and military threat in all US planning scenarios and operational contingency plans. In Trump's first term, his administration released a drastically revised national security strategy that shifted the US's focus from the global war on terror to great-power competition. Then, US defence secretary Pat Shanahan described the focus of the new strategy as "China, China, China." In that respect, Trump's views, along with key advisers JD Vance and Bridge Colby, remain unchanged, if not more ardent. Specifically as it pertains to Taiwan, the principal lesson Trump has learned from the US's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is that tech is better than boots on the ground. In those circumstances where foreign provocations demand a US military response, Trump will habitually favour the use of remote weapons, as seen by US strikes into Iran, Yemen, Africa and the Red Sea. During his first term, Trump used armed drones more than any of his predecessors. Trump and his fellow MAGAs recognise that the death or capture of a single service member by a hostile force is always a divisive development in US domestic politics. He is determined to avoid such incidents, which leaves the defence of Taiwan in a perilous predicament. The last thing Donald Trump and his MAGA base want to see are US soldiers or marines in firefights with Chinese forces in Taiwan. MAGA disciples such as JD Vance, Marco Rubio and Kristi Noem are Trump's champions of industrial power. Like Reaganomics, which served the Republican party for 45 years, this cohort will be the guardians of the big beautiful bill for years to come. The MAGAs realise that "business as usual" with respect to national security posturing is no longer sufficient by military might alone. It's a realisation that through industrial power, both government and the private sector must determine together how to best proceed in building and sustaining national security capabilities with its foundation being "made in America." Industrial power requires a nation to make strategic public investments designed to strengthen its economic and national security posture. Such investments must be broader in scope than the traditional defence industries. This requires governments to ensure effective production and supply chains exist for goods and manufacturing that serve the needs of the whole economy - not just the defence industrial base. It must be an expanded aperture that strengthens not only a nation's security but collectively strengthens the livelihood of each citizen. Although some in Australia believe America's resolve to its allies is suspect and its global popularity is declining, a national security strategy focused on industrial power that is aligned with the US will ultimately benefit all Australians. The US, under Trump and the MAGAs, is once again seen as the leader of a global alliance of more than 60 partner nations that collectively account for almost 80 per cent of the world's GDP. Australia should view these nations' industrial power as a global security system that supports our industries, our national security, and most of all - our citizens. There is a lesson here for Australia: "Made in Australia" is and always will be our most reliable national security deterrent.
The Age
a day ago
- The Age
A China shock 2.0 is emerging to rock America
Yet instead of pursuing the policies needed to meet this threat head-on, the MAGA agenda is heavily focused on fighting the last war – on bringing manufacturing jobs lost to China and elsewhere back to the US. The challenge, Autor and Hanson argue, is not that of attempting to resuscitate the industrial might of a bygone age, but ensuring that the US is front and centre of the new technologies and able to convincingly harness them to its own ends. This endeavour is not obviously helped by Trump's scattergun approach to tariffs, punishing friend and foe alike, his propensity to alienate rather than co-operate with allies, the stupefying attacks on scientific research and the repudiation of foreign talent – once the very lifeblood of American advancement. Nor is it helped by the administration's casual disregard for the great asset of dollar hegemony which, bizarrely, Stephen Miran, Trump's chief economic adviser, seems to regard as in some way partly responsible for America's de-industrialisation. An administration seemingly hell-bent on fiscal ruin, and on weakening the dollar for the purposes of making US goods more competitive, doesn't exactly inspire international confidence in the dollar as a reserve currency asset. Loading China, by contrast, is investing heavily in the digital yuan as a way of internationalising its own currency, of offering an alternative to the fool's gold of cryptocurrency and of usurping the dollar for cross-border payments. Already, it is making steady progress. Why any longer should Brazil use the dollar for selling soybeans to China when Trump threatens the country with punitive tariffs for the sin of prosecuting his friend, Jair Bolsonaro, the former Brazilian president? Why indeed should it employ the dollar at all when the US regularly uses its power for extraterritorial purposes? In the developing world, Western influence is waning fast; China has been quick and single-minded at moving into its place. China has many problems and challenges, from the demographic to the still-deflating credit and property bubbles. But its catch-up and overtake approach to the technologies of the future is already paying big dividends. As, too, is the aggressive expansion of China's universities sector, originally begun under Jiang Zemin's presidency in the late 1990s, and heavily focused on Stem (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) subjects. According to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), the US-led China in 60 of 64 frontier technologies as recently as 2007, judged by share of the world's most-cited research, while China led the US in three. However, by 2023, these rankings were reversed, with China leading in 57 of 64 key technologies, and the US in seven. 'China has built the foundations to position itself as the world's leading science and technology superpower, by establishing a sometimes stunning lead in high-impact research across the majority of critical and emerging technology domains,' the ASPI says. All of the world's top 10 research institutions in some technologies are based in China, and are already collectively generating nine times more high-impact research papers than the second-ranked country (most often the US). The potential threat from Chinese AI is too great to ignore. Now, globally recognised companies at the forefront of their industries – such as Huawei in telecommunications, BYD in electric vehicles and Longi in solar wafers – have come from nowhere in less than 30 years to achieve world-leading positions. Industrial policy in China has, moreover, deliberately targeted key choke points in the supply chain, such that the US was this week forced to abandon its ban on the export of H20 Nvidia chips to China in return for China lifting similar export restrictions on the rare earth minerals vital to many hi-tech industries. The Nvidia ban was completely pointless in any case, serving only to turbocharge Chinese attempts to develop alternatives. Autor and Hanson suggest that the correct response to the China 2.0 shock is for the US to act in unison with commercial allies such as the EU, Japan, Canada, the UK, Australia and South Korea. Loading Counter-intuitively, Chinese companies should also be encouraged to set up production facilities in the US and elsewhere, rather similarly to the way that China once enticed Western companies to do the same in China as a way of speeding up technology transfer. Replicating Chinese industrial policy by aggressively promoting innovation in new fields, as happened in America and Europe during the Second World War, could also help narrow China's lead. It scarcely needs saying that Trump's America is at present doing the opposite of all these things. But just because Trump has got his head buried in the sand doesn't mean other nations should do the same. The potential threat from Chinese AI is too great to ignore. If China gets there first, it will reshape the world in its own image, and 'the end of history' will look very different from the one outlined by Francis Fukuyama back in 1992, when he declared the final triumph of liberal democracy.
