High-level Chinese diplomat probes Newcastle City Lord Mayor for AUKUS submarine location in private meeting
Australia's ability to secure nuclear submarines is a main pillar of the trilateral AUKUS security agreement and the country has already committed $3 billion to assist United States defence manufacturing in exchange for being able to purchase Virginia class vessels.
However, questions have been raised over the availability of US-built of submarines following the Trump administration's announcement it was reviewing the deal, which Australia sees as a critical defence investment of deterrence in the region.
The Daily Telegraph has now revealed an encounter on July 17 where the future docking location of AUKUS submarines was discussed, prompted by the Consul General of China in Syndey, Wang Yu.
According to minutes of the meeting obtained by masthead, notes taken show that the diplomat asked if submarines secured under AUKUS would be based at Newcastle.
'(Consul General) explained that China is concerned that Chinese interests in Australia will be affected by strategic defence decisions,' the meeting document read, according to the masthead.
'For example, is Newcastle Port a potential base for AUKUS submarines?
'(The Lord Mayor) explained that we are a nuclear free city, but we will not have the means to stop a decision of this nature taken by the state and/or federal governments.
'China expects that Australia and Newcastle will have good relations with other countries and is also looking to build good relations, but would not like us… to use our good relations with other countries to adversely affect China.'
The Daily Telegraph also reported the New South Wales city's Taiwanese and Tibetan communities were talked about during the meeting.
It comes just days after The Australian revealed Shanghai Xinyang Chamber of Commerce president Wang Yongxin's family ties to the purchase of commercial port properties at Newcastle and Kembla.
Wang family members have reportedly denied they have links to the Chinese Communist Party's United Front.
Meanwhile, there have been suggestions Australia may need to increase its financial commitments to ensure Virginia class submarines are provided in line with the terms of the original AUKUS agreement.
Last month, Defence Minister Richard Marles said he was not prepared to "speculate" on the Trump administration's review of the pact and insisted the government's focus was directed at "pursuing the optimal pathway" that would see Virginia class submarines being available to Australia from 2032.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
6 minutes ago
- Perth Now
'Crisis of trust': Epstein furore to hurt Republicans
The uproar over disgraced financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein is undermining public trust in the Trump administration, as well as Republican hopes of retaining control of Congress in the 2026 mid-term elections, two congressmen say. Republican Representative Thomas Massie and Democratic Representative Ro Khanna, who want the House of Representatives to vote on their bipartisan resolution requiring full release of the government's Epstein files, said the lack of transparency is reinforcing public perceptions that the rich and powerful live beyond the reach of the judicial system. "This is going to hurt Republicans in the mid-terms. The voters will be apathetic if we don't hold the rich and powerful accountable," Massie, a hardline conservative from Kentucky, told NBC's Meet the Press program. Republicans hope to add to their current 219-212 House majority - with four seats currently vacant - and 53-47 Senate majority in November 2026, although the US political cycle traditionally punishes the party of the sitting president during midterm elections. The Washington Post reported that Trump was increasingly frustrated with his administration's handling of the furore around Epstein. Even so, the president was hesitant to make personnel changes to avoid creating a "bigger spectacle" as his top officials underestimated the outrage from Trump's own base over the issue, the newspaper reported, citing unnamed sources. Khanna said Attorney General Pam Bondi triggered "a crisis of trust" by saying there was no list of Epstein clients after previously implying that one existed. The change in position unleashed a tsunami of calls for her resignation from Trump's MAGA base. "This is about trust in government," the California Democrat told Meet the Press. "This is about being a reform agent of transparency." President Donald Trump has been frustrated by continued questions about his administration's handling of investigative files related to Epstein's criminal charges and 2019 death by suicide in prison. Massie and Khanna believe they can win enough support from fellow lawmakers to force a vote on their resolution when Congress returns from its summer recess in September. But they face opposition from Republican leaders including House Speaker Mike Johnson, who sent lawmakers home a day early to stymie Democratic efforts to force a vote before the break. Johnson, who also appeared on NBC's Meet the Press, said he favours a non-binding alternative resolution that calls for release of "credible" evidence, but which he said would better protect victims including minors. "The Massie and Khanna discharge petition is reckless in the way that it is drafted and presented," Johnson said. "It does not adequately include those protections." Massie dismissed Johnson's claim as "a straw man" excuse. "Ro and I carefully crafted this legislation so that the victims' names will be redacted," he said. "They're hiding behind that." Trump has tried and failed so far to distract attention from the Epstein controversy six months into his second term. On Saturday, Trump repeated his claims without evidence that 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris and other Democrats should be prosecuted over payment for endorsements from celebrities including Oprah Winfrey, Beyonce and the Reverend Al Sharpton. Last week he accused former president Barack Obama of "treason" over how his administration treated intelligence about Russian interference in US elections nine years ago, drawing a rebuke from an Obama spokesperson. 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) National Sexual Abuse and Redress Support Service 1800 211 028
Sky News AU
18 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Communications Minister once hailed YouTube as a place for kids — now she appears ready to ban it
Communications Minister Anika Wells once fawned over YouTube as a way to entertain her young children — now she appears ready to ban it as a legal furore erupts in the tech world. Minister wells is considering banning children under 16 from YouTube, but just a few years ago she praised the video sharing platform as a means for a young parent to navigate the "parliament hustle". "How do I handle the parliament hustle? Sturdy baby gates and The Wiggles on YouTube," she wrote in December, 2022, at a time she was sports minister. Minister Wells appeared to confirm for the first time publicly that she would formally adopt a push from eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant to prohibit children from creating accounts on YouTube. 'The eSafety Commissioner made it clear in her advice to the Minister that the law relates to children under the age of 16 having their own social media accounts,' Minister Wells told 'eSafety's recommendation does not prevent children from watching videos like The Wiggles on YouTube Kids or on their parent's account.' Under this scenario, kids would still be able to access YouTube logged out, which means they would not be protected by Google's sophisticated parental controls. YouTube has argued this move would make the internet less safe, a clear contradiction with the original intent of the Act. A formal decision is expected as early as Thursday this week but the government has been criticised for confusion around the rollout of these new laws. And it isn't just parents confused by Labor's flip-flopping on the social media ban. The rushed implementation of the laws and the lack of industry clarity has infuriated multiple platforms involved in negotiations, leading to tense and highly complex legal discussions behind closed doors. TikTok is understood to have made a legal threat on constitutional grounds over the ban. TikTok denies this but in a submission to the government, the Chinese owned platform alleged the laws would be fundamentally unworkable and anti-competitive in nature, if YouTube was exempt. Labor appears to have listened to these warnings and could announce a major change to the child ban policy as early as next week. After learning Labor was preparing to U-turn on a pledge to exempt YouTube, Google also called in the lawyers. The video sharing platform argued the child ban breaches the implied constitutional protections Australians have to engage in political speech. In March, TikTok wrote a scathing submission to the government which focused almost entirely on lobbying for YouTube to also be banned. TikTok's submission alleged the laws were "unsupportable" and "anti-competitive" in nature, and accused Labor of reverse engineering legislation. "Excluding any major platform by name from the minimum age obligation on educative grounds is unsupportable without evidence," the submission said. "What is clear is that the Government has begun its analysis from the starting position that YouTube must be exempt and then attempted, half-heartedly, to reverse-engineer defensible supporting evidence. "Handing one major social media platform a sweetheart deal of this nature - while subjecting every other platform in Australia to stringent compliance obligations - would be illogical, anti-competitive, and short-sighted." TikTok also warned that an exemption for YouTube raised anti-competition legal issues which, it argued, had already been highlighted by the ACCC. 'That Google or any rational economic actor in its position would seek to lobby Government for favourable treatment is comprehensible. That the Government would accede to it, against the warnings of its own competition watchdog, is not,' the submission said. In a forward to the submission TikTok warned the government the laws "would not work" if YouTube was exempt. "For the reasons set out in this submission, we have grave concerns that the Rules, if implemented in their current form, would not work," TikTok said. "We are particularly concerned that carving out any major platform by name - in this case, YouTube - from the minimum age obligation would result in a law that is illogical, anti-competitive, and short-sighted." eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant was accused earlier this month of misleading Australians after her push to have children banned from the platform was not supported in her own research. It was revealed that even Ms Inman Grant's office used YouTube to educate children as part of her own publishing strategy, specifically targeting the demographic. In late 2022, while Ms Inman Grant was in charge of the body, a series of videos called 'eSafety Mighty Heroes' including characters such as Dusty the frilled neck lizard, River the sugar glider, Billie the bilby, and Wanda the echidna was released on the same day - content clearly published with the intent to educate children.
Sydney Morning Herald
36 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Trump's latest clumsy deal has unintended consequences
The threat of a full-scale trans-Atlantic trade war has been averted with the deal, or at least the outline of one, struck between the US and the European Union at the weekend. As was the case with last week's deal with Japan, however, both sides have differing interpretations of what they've agreed to. There's no disagreement on the baseline tariff of 15 per cent on all EU exports to the US imposed by the deal, which the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, said was 'the best we could get.' Before Trump regained office, the average tariff on EU exports was 2.5 per cent. Exactly what the new rate will apply to, however, isn't clear. Von der Leyen said it would apply to European cars, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, while Donald Trump said pharmaceuticals were 'unrelated to this deal.' The US has separate investigations of pharmaceuticals and semiconductors underway that could lead to sectoral tariffs on imports of those products – and another bout of confrontation and negotiation. The new baseline tariff was, Trump said, in exchange for the EU 'opening up their countries at zero tariff,' whereas the EU says the agreement for 'zero for zero' tariffs relates to certain strategic products and their parts, like chemicals, semiconductor equipment and some agricultural products, and is a framework agreement that could lead to a lowering of tariffs on other products in future. Loading The deal, like the handful of others the Trump administration has struck in recent weeks, has been described as a 'roadmap' for a detailed agreement rather than a conventional trade deal. There are, therefore, many grey areas in the agreement that will need to be filled in. The agreement, once there is a document to agree to, would also have to be ratified by the European Parliament and the 27 individual national parliaments of the EU's members before it could take effect. All Trump's bigger trade deals involve headlines rather than substantive detail. Like the deal with Japan, it envisages the EU buying a lot of US energy – $US750 billion ($A1.14 billion) of energy over the next three years, as well as weaponry. Trump also said the EU would invest $US600 billion in the US.
