YIMBYs vs NIMBYs as the battle for affordable housing moves into your backyard
On a cold June night in Sydney's eastern suburbs dozens of residents, most insulated by navy puffer coats and vests, have piled into the Double Bay Bowling Club to air their concerns at a housing forum.
They're not happy that apartments are going up in their suburbs — some of Sydney's most affluent. They're concerned more people will clog the roads and strain infrastructure, especially in an area without a "decent supermarket". They're nervous a six-story "monstrosity" will block their sunlight. They're anxious the "runoff from construction" into the harbour will impact their children who "enjoy sailing". They want legal recourse.
A resident who owns multiple investment properties in North Bondi is struggling with interest repayments and land tax and worries the onus is on him as a landlord to make rent more affordable. They're angry "existing homeowners" are being blamed for the housing crisis when the government is allowing migration.
"We should move out and accept higher density and unliveable suburbs?" one woman asks into the microphone. "Well excuse me, it's not our fault."
The room murmurs in agreement.
This small gathering of homeowners and politicians is just one of the many local fronts of resistance to the Albanese government's plan to deliver 1.2 million homes across the country by June 2029. The prime minister recently conceded it is "too hard" to build housing in Australia and promised to cut red tape to help boost supply. While many are saying no to development in their suburbs, there is a growing appetite for "housing abundance" helped by Australia's blossoming Yes In My Backyard (YIMBY) movement. YIMBYs want denser cities, they want more housing in places people want to work and live, and they want them built yesterday. 'Not because of a New York Times bestseller'
While rolling back regulations and boosting construction isn't usually associated with those on the left of politics, support for a "liberalism that builds" is gathering momentum globally. It has been helped by the popularity of Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's book Abundance, in which the authors attempt to reorient progressive politics around the provocation: "can we solve our problems with supply?"
Treasurer Jim Chalmers keeps mentioning it, Competition Minister Andrew Leigh has quoted it and Productivity Commission head Danielle Wood even claims she read it "before it was cool". So popular is the book in Australia's political capital that two Canberra bookstores told the Australian Financial Review they'd sold out.
Housing Minister Clare O'Neil says her focus is "absolutely on building more homes".
"It's been the defining motivation of our Labor government for the last three years — not because of a New York Times bestseller — but because we're working to correct a 40-year failure of governments to build enough of them," she tells the ABC.
"So many of the housing issues people face are solved by improving our ability to build more homes at scale. Because more homes means more affordable housing — for renters, first home buyers and downsizers alike."
In NSW, the government is attempting to build some 112,000 new homes by overriding council restrictions to allow denser housing near public transport. The state posted the biggest increase in approvals of higher-density housing (apartments, townhouses, terrace and semi-detached houses) in the year to May.
Just three of the 171 centres the Minns government is targeting are located in Sydney's east where the housing forum in Double Bay is heating up.
Local state member Liberal Kellie Sloane, who is hosting the forum, asks how many people have been doorknocked by a real estate agent and a sea of hands go up. One woman, who lives on Rose Bay's Wilberforce Avenue where 12 owners are asking for $165 million from developers for their properties, says says real estate agents won't leave her alone: "I'm very scared that I'm going to be forced out of my home." A house up the road from her that "couldn't get a nibble at $8 million" sold earlier this year for $16 million.
In the 1.6 square kilometres that incorporate these inner-eastern suburbs of Edgecliff, Double Bay and Darling Point population density has remained more or less stagnant for a decade, according to figures provided by CoreLogic to the ABC.
Up goes another puffy navy sleeve with a question.
Tom, an Edgecliff resident, says there has been a lot of "fair comments" about the need for infrastructure to support more housing but suggests the community could reflect on its history of opposing any infrastructure development. Woollahra residents objected to a train station (chasing an injunction all the way to the High Court) and also opposed a plan to turn a derelict service station into a Woolworths and apartment block. Those in the front rows turn around to take a better squiz at the questioner.
Sloane identifies Tom as a member of YIMBY Sydney and thanks him for coming — "we've got to build!" — but she maintains the train station was a bad idea. A suspicion of developers
Australia's most beloved, if fictional, NIMBY — The Castle's protagonist Darryl Kerrigan — reminds us of a time when the arguments for and against development were simpler: humble home owners taking on greedy developers, or environmentalists trying to save the trees.
But Australia's sprawling YIMBY movement is gaining political power amid a national housing crisis when a mortgage or even affordable rent has become further out of reach. Last month the average house price in Australia surpassed $1 million (Sydney's median house price is predicted to hit $1.8m next year). If you've been lucky enough to overcome the average savings period for a deposit that now often extends beyond a decade, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council's recent report found that by the end of 2024 it took half of median household income to service a new mortgage. Meanwhile low rental vacancy rates mean people are climbing over each other for the luxury of forking out 33 per cent of median household income to cover a new lease. Affordable rent, attainable mortgages and the ability to live closer to work, family and schools? Tell him he's dreamin'.
In Queensland there has historically been suspicion of development, says Travis Jordan of YIMBY group Greater Brisbane. He reckons the state's planning, environment and heritage laws were shaped in the 1990s in reaction to a period of questionable — and in some cases outright corrupt — relationships between politicians and developers when the concerns of communities and local councils were dismissed in favour of demolition and rezoning.
Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen, in office from 1968-1987, famously disregarded Brisbane's heritage. His connections with the "white-shoe brigade" of property developers and the midnight destruction of iconic Brisbane landmarks like the Cloudland Ballroom at the hands of the infamous Deen Bros looms large in the memories of Queenslanders.
"The people fighting up-zoning are stuck in the '90s and they want their neighbourhoods to be stuck there too," Jordan says.
NIMBYs tend to be home owners and home owners tend to be older — Jordan sees a generation in Brisbane who went from fighting for "green bans" in the '80s and '90s to fighting to "save our suburbs".
He says opponents of density are contributing to a situation in which many people face a choice between renting in "barely-habitable character homes" with poor energy ratings or getting into the property market hours from their workplace and family.
"In Brisbane, it's hard to look at the townhouse ban or how widespread our character housing protections are and think we've got the balance right," he says. "We started by bringing in regulations that stop the worst harms and ended up with ones that — by the Lord Mayor's own admission — stop anything at all."
Jordan thinks that future housing is being held to standards that didn't apply to the very housing people want to safeguard.
"[NIMBYs will] wax lyrical about a street where every old home looks the same while whinging that every apartment looks the same." 'The climate crisis is a housing crisis'
In Queensland frequent flooding has left "whole neighbourhoods unlivable" and people are accepting harder trade-offs, he says.
"For a lot of people in Brisbane — especially renters and older people — the climate crisis is a housing crisis."
Jordan, a former Greens staffer, rents one of the state's iconic Queenslanders and says they were designed to suit the sunshine state's tropical climate but have now become an impediment to climate-resilient homes.
"They're by design near impossible to insulate and drought-proof. Can't cool down in summer and can't stay warm in winter," he says.
New housing is often opposed on grounds of preserving something, whether it is heritage, privacy, or as one local mayor at Sydney's Double Bay housing forum described, the ill-defined and apparently static "character" of the community.
But for many conservationists, increasing density in cities and stopping the creep of low-density residential development over large areas of land is crucial to preserving something else: biodiversity.
A 2023 report from the Queensland Conservation Council found that urban sprawl was fast-tracking the extinction crisis in the state. The council's urban sustainability lead, Jen Hasham, says urban sprawl is the "biggest threat to the unique biodiversity and liveability", particularly in South East Queensland where there is a projected population growth of more than two million people by 2046.
"Waterways are being impacted, wildlife, such as our beloved koalas, are being killed and displaced, not just by the initial developments but then the years of infrastructure that has to follow it," she says.
Conservationists are supportive of the grassroots YIMBY movement, Hasham says, and Australia needs to "build up, not out" but YIMBYs have found a mixed response from Greens politicians at all levels of government. In Perth the West Australian Greens leader Brad Pettitt recently said that his colleagues on the west coast should relinquish inner-city NIMBYism as "we need to get rid of red tape". In Sydney, Greens councillors have been voting against high density developments, most recently against the Inner West Council's push to have the state government rezone former WestConnex sites, on the grounds the housing wouldn't be 100 per cent public housing.
Nevertheless, this month the NSW government announced one of the sites, a slab of land on Sydney's Parramatta Road, would be transformed into 577 apartments, 220 of which will be set aside for essential workers at a discounted rate. (A 2024 Anglicare Australia report looked at more than 45,000 rental listings across a weekend and found just 1.4 per cent were affordable for a nurse, and 0.9 per cent for an early childcare educator.)
Izabella Antoniou, one of the Greens councillors who has voted against development, says even if deregulation does lead to a greater supply of housing, it won't help affordability.
"We have incentives such as negative gearing and land banking that continue to drive up prices and ensure housing is an investment not a human right," she says. "To deliver genuine affordability, we need targeted interventions such as rent controls, strong inclusionary zoning targets, and the mass building of public housing by governments."
Antoniou maintains that government intervention is the only way out of this housing crisis as "private housing developers won't fix a system they're benefiting from".
"We need to ensure we're building homes, not investment portfolios," she says.
University of Melbourne social policy researcher Max Holleran says the YIMBY movement has come under attack from anti-gentrification progressives who, as Holleran puts it, argue these groups are "merely social justice shells concealing property interests".
Unlike housing activists in decades past, YIMBYs are not prioritising the fight to protect existing public housing stock and push against evictions but are instead what Holleran calls "supply-side believers" who are more preoccupied with building more of everything.
"They're basically saying 'you're not going to get entirely inclusionary zoning in every neighborhood and you are going to have to work with the developers'," he says. Resistance to the cult of supply-side economics
While no one at Double Bay's housing forum is arguing for more public housing, the question of affordability is raised repeatedly — how would a few luxury apartments in such a posh part of the city even help a generation of people locked out of the property market?
YIMBYs are clear it isn't a one for one process but instead a game of musical chairs — the multi-million dollar apartments going up in Sydney's exclusive east aren't immediately helping your average Australian with a piddling house deposit. Instead wealthy people who can afford them will move out of older stock and the person who buys that home will move out of theirs and so forth, speeding up the process of low quality stock at the back end of the line devaluing or getting redeveloped.
"This is actually really intuitive," says Justin Simon, co-founder of YIMBY Sydney.
"New cars start at around $30K and you have used cars right down the price spectrum but when production stopped during COVID-19, those new car customers had to buy used instead, and the price went up dramatically.
"The same thing is happening when you don't build new units in Woollahra or [Sydney's] north shore: those people will buy a terrace in Ashfield instead, gut it and turn it into a luxury home. The family they beat at the auction has to move out to Liverpool, and the nurse who was living in Liverpool is now moving to Queensland.
"Everyone in this chain would have a better living situation and a shorter commute if we built an extra unit in the eastern suburbs — how transformative would it be if we built tens of thousands?"
YIMBYs often point across the ditch to Auckland where studies of a 2016 reform to allow more townhouses and apartments showed an increase in construction and decrease in rents. Simon cites 2019 research from the RBA, which found that every 1 per cent increase in housing supply eventually brings prices down by 2.5 per cent.
But the notion that addressing supply will help the housing crisis has its critics. ANZ's chief economist has said focusing on new supply alone "is unlikely to materially improve affordability, even in the medium term". Australian urban planning academics have instead suggested winding back tax breaks like negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount to reinvest into social housing and here at the ABC Michael Janda has written that other policies discourage Australians to free up their capital and spare rooms (including the tax-free status of the family home). A shortage of planners but an excess of planning
But others say unlocking supply hasn't happened fast enough. Despite Labor's housing abundance rhetoric, the Liberal Party's housing spokesperson Senator Andrew Bragg isn't impressed and thinks Australia is yet to have a government that fully backs the YIMBY movement.
A recent report from the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council found Australia is already likely to miss its target by about 262,000 homes.
"Ultimately the numbers aren't moving," Bragg tells the ABC. "I think one of the reasons is that, because too many developments are still being kiboshed and I would say that a lot of the agencies, including federal agencies, have not been effective in actually getting houses or supporting the development of housing."
YIMBY Melbourne's Jonathan O'Brien says it can be easy to focus on the headline-grabbing behaviour of NIMBY councillors but behind them sits teams of professional planners. New analysis released today by YIMBY Melbourne, in a new "pro-growth" online journal Inflection Points, claims the number of planners Australia-wide has increased dramatically over the past three decades but key productivity outcomes — including the number of home completions — have only worsened.
"We've gone to planning meetings where there have been 40 rejections for a single subdivision and we've had members who have been the sole person speaking in favour of that subdivision," O'Brien says. "Legacy planning is essentially like a set of normative claims, like 'this should go here and this should look like this' but it doesn't actually make anything happen — things usually happen despite planning, not because of it."
O'Brien says there's not a shortage of planners but an excess of planning. YIMBY Melbourne's analysis found there are almost nine times as many planners today as there were in 1986. For every planner in 1986, we built more than 50 homes, we now build fewer than 10 homes per planner. The fight for the missing middle
Canberra's YIMBY movement took off almost a decade ago with memes — specifically a Facebook page called Bush Capital Memes for Action-Oriented Teens (in reference to Canberra's bus operator Action).
Greater Canberra organiser Howard Maclean says it became a place for people to talk about the city's urbanism and established transit in particular as "really core" to how Australian YIMBYs think about housing policy. A meme from a Facebook page called Bush Capital Memes for Action-Oriented Teens. ( Facebook: Bush Capital Memes for Action-Oriented Teens )
Maclean says YIMBYs across the country are not just fighting for more apartments but for what they call the missing middle: a "gentle density" between the urban sprawl of free-standing single family dwellings and large apartment blocks. They want more townhouses, terrace homes, low-rise apartments and multi-occupancy blocks near public transport.
From conservation councils, to renting advocacy groups, to architects, to community housing groups Missing Middle Canberra is a coalition for medium-density housing. Its activism has helped along a proposal for planning rules that is currently open to public feedback.
Maclean, a member of the Labor party, says these reforms would be the largest single increase in Canberra's zoned capacity in the capital's history, boosting the number of homes that can legally be built in the previously untouchable and "practically sacrosanct" RZ1 (suburban low-density, single-dwelling housing) alone "by at least a factor of four".
The reforms have been introduced for consultation, then they could be referred to a legislative committee.
"This is a very long and slow process of zoning and supply-side reform to housing," Maclean says. "There are no quick wins and persistence is really key in order to actually see results." The changing faces of YIMBYs and NIMBYs
Max Holleran, who wrote the book on YIMBYs, says NIMBYism has become a "dirty word" not just for its parochialism but for its anti-urbanism as it resists density and transport in favour of the white picket fence single-family home streets of suburbia.
Holleran has written the YIMBY movement of "disgruntled millennials alarmed by rising rent prices" was founded in San Francisco in 2013 by maths teacher Sonia Trauss who began showing up to zoning and council meetings where she found even modest two or three story apartment buildings under review were opposed for problems such as "casting shadows".
He says that developers often build in lower income areas where they face less opposition.
"These [residents] might be working a bunch of jobs, English might not be their first language, they might not have a university degree and they don't have the time or energy to go to [planning or council] meetings," he says.
The people who would benefit from increased housing stock aren't turning up to housing forums. Or as YIMBY Melbourne's O'Brien puts it: "We are the voice of the most important stakeholder, which is the people who want to live somewhere but can't and the planning process favours incumbents."
YIMBY Sydney's Justin Simon says politicians and planners are used to dealing with "a very narrow, very noisy class of people who like to say no" which skews their perceptions of what a community will allow.
"We can show those planners and those councillors that actually there is debate within the community on this and if they want to go out on a limb and try really hard to build more housing there will be somebody there who is going to say, like, 'good job'."
Simon says NIMBYs shift their arguments depending on the context but the goal is the same: "no new people, and no changes to the urban environment". He's seen people in Leichhardt, just a few kilometres west of the city's CBD, declare their backyards "wildlife corridors". When the Sydney Morning Herald asked the head of the Haberfield Association, who successfully secured his entire suburb as heritage conserved, where young people should live he was stumped, before suggesting Orange (250 km away) or Bathurst (550 km away).
"From any person's perspective there can be good or bad things about development, but when you own your home the biggest positive is just not relevant to you, because you're not getting rent increases," Simon says. "That means you can engage in whatever motivated reasoning you like — it's a luxury belief."
In one message, seen by the ABC, a man in Sydney's inner west tells YIMBY Sydney he signed up to the movement after he was evicted from his inner west home when his rent went up from $492 to $741 within two years.
"Often we're accused of being funded by developers, and that shows there is such a gulf in values that the only reason they could conceive of being a YIMBY is because they're being paid off," Simon says. "This barrier will be immediately familiar to many who've had their parents tell them to 'just move a bit further out'."
But while stereotypes about who wants to build more — namely, only developers — aren't adhering as securely to YIMBYs, who now claim a level of ideological and socioeconomic diversity, those rallying to oppose development are also challenging the silhouette of a grouchy, heritage-obsessed crank.
Last month dozens of kids in football jerseys and residents gathered in Sydney's inner west to protest a planning proposal lodged by a developer to build 200 apartments on industrial land next to where APIA Leichhardt Football Club trains.
Although many of those gathered admitted to the ABC they didn't live in the suburb, they didn't look like your typical NIMBYs — they were young families concerned a new apartment block would force their kids' football club to adjust training hours to avoid noise complaints. They were not thinking about housing density or affordability. They were thinking about a potential disruption to their own lives.
Tony Raciti, the club's president and the face of the campaign, insists he is all for housing density.
"We'd love to see skyscrapers here," he tells the ABC, gesturing to the suburb's empty skyline.
"Love it! No problem!"
The caveat?
"Not here!" Credits
Words: Gina Rushton
Editor: Catherine Taylor
Illustrations: Kylie Silvester Posted 13m ago 13 minutes ago Sat 12 Jul 2025 at 7:00pm
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Perth Now
28 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Albo flaunts Aussie iron amid China fears
In a display of classic supply and demand salesmanship, Anthony Albanese will flaunt Australian iron ore at a roundtable with China's biggest steelmakers on Monday. The country's behemoth construction industry has slowed in recent years, fuelling fears a downturn in steel production could smash demand for Australian iron ore and threaten jobs as well as the national bottom-line. Both countries have also committed to cleaning up big polluting industries in line with their broader climate goals. With Australia the world's largest iron ore producer and China Australia's top customer, the Prime Minister will make the case for closer co-operation. 'I'm pleased to be here for an important discussion between Australian iron ore miners and Chinese steelmakers,' Mr Albanese will tell the roundtable, according to speech extracts seen by NewsWire. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will speak with China's biggest steelmakers at a roundtable on Monday. Joseph Olbrycht-Palmer / NewsWire Credit: News Corp Australia 'Australia and China's iron ore and steel sector partnership has contributed to both countries' economic development for decades. 'Australian miners are reliable and stable suppliers of iron ore, responsible for almost 60 per cent of China's iron ore imports. 'That iron ore goes into Chinese steel production which accounts for over 50 per cent of global supply.' BHP, Hancock, Rio Tinto and Fortescue will all be seated at the roundtable, with Twiggy Forrest among the executives showing up. Nearly 145,000 Australians work in the metal ore mining industry, according to the latest official figures. In 2024, iron ore exports alone were worth north of $150bn. But it is a dirty business in a world scrambling for greener options. 'Steelmaking value chains are also responsible for 7 to 9 per cent of global emissions,' Mr Albanese will say. 'Achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement will require the decarbonising of steel value chains, presenting an opportunity for Australia and China to progress our long-term economic interests.' Mr Albanese will raise the 'challenges' of steel decarbonisation, but aim to reassure both the Australian mining chiefs and the Chinese steel bosses that Australia is willing to front up the cash investments and tweak policies. The Prime Minister will tell industry leaders the challenge of decarbonisation presents an opportunity for the Australia-China relationship. PMO via NewsWire Credit: News Corp Australia 'What we need are enabling policy environments, extensive investments in research to develop new technologies, and collaboration across academia, industry and government,' he will say. 'Australia and China each have major stakes in how the decarbonisation efforts develop. 'As both countries co-operate to advance decarbonisation, we also need to work together to address global excess steel capacity. 'It is in both countries' interests to ensure a sustainable and market-driven global steel sector.' Later on Monday, Mr Albanese will have a lunch with Australian and Chinese business leaders. Both roundtables are key parts of his six-day diplomatic and big business blitz in China. Against a backdrop of an increasingly militaristic regional rivalry with Beijing, Mr Albanese has been keen to reframe the bilateral relationship in friendlier terms, such as tariff-free trade.

ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
China was the big disruptor in our region. Now the US is determined to take that title
Australia and China, the prime minister told the secretary of the CCP's Shanghai Municipal Committee on Sunday, "deal with each other in a calm and consistent manner". "And we want to continue to pursue our national interests, and it is in our interest to have good relations with China". It's the sort of polite diplomatic language that can often sound eye glazing at bilateral meetings on official trips. But it had a particularly pointed resonance this time, given there is little that feels 'calm and consistent' emanating from our other major international partner: the United States of America. There is the ongoing and escalating trade war that President Trump has unleashed upon the globe, and notably on countries that have close economic relationships with China. And there has also been his continuing pressure on allies to increase their defence spending, facing the prospect of a US withdrawal of its forces — and military spending — around the world. Over the weekend, the US president has made more declarations about tariffs he plans to impose on the European Union and Mexico. To date, Australia hasn't been subjected to talk of any further punitive tariffs. But on the strategic front, an intervention by his Under Secretary of Defence for Strategy, Elbridge Colby, signalled that pressure that has, to date, been most notably seen on NATO countries in Europe to increase their defence spending, is now turning to the Asia Pacific. The Financial Times reported that the Pentagon is pressing Japan and Australia to make clear what role they would play if the US and China went to war over Taiwan. Apart from being the latest attempt by the US administration to pressure all its allies on spending, the issue raises a whole set of separate issues for Australia, because of the AUKUS agreement. The AUKUS agreement — which includes, in the shorter term, the purchases by Australia of US nuclear-powered submarines — is built on a so-called 'forward defence' strategy — one that envisages a conflict fought out in the South China Sea, rather than in the maritime approaches to Australia closer to home. AUKUS sceptics have long argued that the increasing intermeshing of Australia's defence capability with that of the US (even before AUKUS), tied us intrinsically into whatever military operations the United States might undertake in the future. The AUKUS deal escalated that possibility, raising the question of whether the submarine deal would link us into a conflict between our biggest trading partner and our biggest ally over Taiwan. The leaking of news about Secretary Colby's pressure on Australia and Japan makes that question over our position on a war over Taiwan — which has tended to be fobbed off as hypothetical until now — a much sharper one. The irony of course is that the United States has always maintained a position of 'strategic ambiguity' about what it would do in the case of China invading Taiwan. Yet now it is pressuring Australia and Japan to say what they would do. What's more the story appeared just as the Australian prime minister touched down in Shanghai: timing that few believe was coincidental and possibly designed to disrupt any improvement in relations between the two countries, and to dominate the coverage of the visit. Prime Minister Albanese and his foreign minister Penny Wong have been significantly changing their language about Australia's strategic approach to both the US and China in the past couple of weeks, and China hawks in Australia have been warning that the change in tone in the way the PM has reflected on, and defined the ANZUS alliance, would not be welcomed in Washington. In a major speech, Mr Albanese spoke of the decision of his predecessor John Curtin to turn the United States during World War II involved "an Australian foreign policy anchored in strategic reality, not bound by tradition". It was "dealing with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be", he said, a statement with clear resonances in the present. While Australia's position between the two superpowers is often seen as a binary choice of one or the other, the times compel a different, more nuanced and independent approach. After a decade of discussion in Australia about China seen largely through a national security lens, understandably provoked by China's increasing defence position, the PM's message ahead of this trip to China has been a nod to our huge trade relationship and to people-to-people contacts. Chinese tourism to Australia, for one thing, was worth $9 billion alone last year. But Mr Albanese's foreign minister, Penny Wong, has been taking the role of 'bad cop', putting on record with her counterpart on the sidelines of an ASEAN meeting in Kuala Lumpur that Australia was not happy about China's live fire exercises off our coast, or a range of other issues. For the always carefully spoken, the language was stronger than it has been in the past, and came on the back of a speech in which she expressed Australia's concern about China's military build up, including nuclear weaponry. It seemed to signal a balanced approach to the good and bad of the Australia-China relationship, just as the government was also sending a clear signal that it would take a more independent approach, less frightened of offending the Americans, than has been the case in recent years. But just as Australia is asserting that its national interests are different from those of both China and the US, it seems the United States may force us into a choice we don't want to make. Mr Albanese was careful in his response to the Elbridge story, agreeing that there was some irony in the US expecting Australia to outline its position on an issue which the Americans have not done. And also insisting that Australia's preference is for the status quo over Taiwan to continue. Five years ago it seemed China was the big disruptor in our region. Now the United States appears determined to take that title for itself. Laura Tingle is the ABC's Global Affairs Editor.

Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Pauline Hanson claims Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is avoiding Donald Trump after Zelensky's Oval Office ‘dressing down'
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has claimed Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is avoiding President Donald Trump after Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky was given a 'dressing down' in the Oval Office earlier this year. Ukraine's leader was accused of being "disrespectful" to the United States after it provided billions worth of military equipment to aid it defence against Russia. Following the heated meeting, President Zelensky received the backing from several world leaders, including Mr Albanese who said Australia 'proudly supported' Ukraine. Speaking to Sky News on Sunday, Senator Hanson said the Prime Minister was not going to 'get in touch' with President Trump despite the US-Australia alliance appearing to be on the rocks. Mr Albanese, who arrived in China late on Saturday evening, beginning a six-day-long trip that will include a meeting with China's President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang, has insisted he would 'have a meeting when it's scheduled' with the President and suggested there would be plenty of opportunities in coming months. However, Senator Hanson claimed Mr Albanese saw President Zelensky 'get a dressing down by Trump' and decided to avoid a similar altercation. 'He thought: 'I'm not going to go through that. I will actually not get in touch. I won't have a visit with him',' she said. Mr Albanese's delay in meeting President Trump has prompted criticism over the strength of the alliance and the Prime Minister's personal engagement with the Trump administration. President Trump's former pollster revealed last month that the US President does not like US Ambassador Kevin Rudd. 'I think he doesn't like the current ambassador and that's one of the biggest issues,' US pollster Brent Buchanan said on Monday. 'Donald Trump needs to find an Australian that he likes - or Australia needs to find an Australian that Donald Trump likes and let that person take point.' Senator Hanson said she had travelled with the Prime Minister and witnessed first-hand his interaction with leaders overseas. 'It's not good. He has not got leadership qualities about him to interact with these people. He might have improved over the years, but my impression of him was not very high at all,' she said. The Senator said the Prime Minister was 'very poor' in his conversation with leaders in India, including governors, when a delegation went there in 2017. 'I just didn't feel that he interacted with them. I think he was very poor in his conversation, the questions, even his answers to the questions,' she said. During his first press conference of his China trip, Mr Albanese was asked about what role Australia would play if the US and China went to war over Taiwan. 'Our aim of investing in our capability and as well investing in our relationships is about advancing peace and security in our region. That's our objective and that is why we invest in our region,' he replied. Senator Hanson said the Prime Minister was 'not prepared' to say how Australia would use the nuclear submarines bequeathed by the US under the AUKUS agreement. 'I don't trust this government,' she said. 'He has an obligation to tell the people what he thinks… to leave this in the hands of a Prime Minister solely at his whim I think is a big mistake.' Senator Hanson said when it came to defence, she wanted the two major political parties to commit to a long-term goal and objective of 'where we lie as a nation'. 'We've seen a changeover and turnover of too many Prime Ministers in this country. I would like to see a united front that will give us long-term vision for this country and security to the people,' she said.