James Paterson, Angus Taylor call out US' demand to Australia on China-Taiwan conflict
It follows reports Australian officials had been questioned by Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby.
First reported in the Financial Times on Saturday, the news up-ended the start of Anthony Albanese's six-day trip in China, ahead of his Tuesday meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
It has also sparked questions as to whether Australia would be asked to deploy any Virgina-class submarines acquired under the AUKUS deal in the event of a conflict.
Mr Colby is also leading the review into the defence partnership.
Senator Paterson said that as the US had not declared whether it would come to Taiwan's aid if it faced an invasion from China, Australia should not have to either.
'It's had that policy consistently since 1979 - when the Taiwan Relations Act passed Congress - so it wouldn't be appropriate for the US government to ask Australia to do more than the United States is willing to do in relation to that,' he told ABC RN on Tuesday.
'And I'm not sure ... what they're asking for is for us to pre-emptively and publicly declare what we would do in the event of a hypothetical Taiwan contingency.'
Senator Patterson said while Australia's interests were clearly about deterring and preventing conflict, potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan posed 'the greatest risk'.
'That would be disastrous for Taiwan, for China, for the whole region and the world, and we should be working as hard as we can with our allies to prevent that,' he said.
Coalition defence spokesman Angus Taylor said it was not possible or realistic to 'codify every possible scenario around a conflict'.
'The Americans won't do that, and nor will we,' he said.
'What we can do is jointly commit to peace through strength and deterrence in the Taiwan Strait (and) in our region more generally - that's what we all want to see.'
Mr Taylor said the Prime Minister needed to be clearer about Australia's strategic position as China pursues 'a massive military build-up'.
'We have to be clear about where our strategic position is, jointly working with allies like the United States and Japan and India and others across our region to make sure we have that peace through strength,' he told Sky.
'Deterrence is an absolute priority right now, and yet it seems that the priority of this Prime Minister is to is to meet with the President of China, rather than the President of the United States'.
He also criticised Labor for not heeding calls from the US to boost defence spending from 2 per cent to 3.5 per cent, and pointed to the Coalition's election commitment to increase investment to 3 per cent by 2030.
Labor will instead boost spending to 2.33 per cent by 2033.
Mr Taylor said Mr Albanese was 'not prepared' to admit the defence strategic review and critical facilities such as Western Australia's proposed submarine facility in Henderson were not properly funded.
'That's simply not good enough at a time like this,' he said.
Originally published as James Paterson says it 'wouldn't be appropriate' for US to demand Australia's response to China-Taiwan conflict
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
9 News
22 minutes ago
- 9 News
Australia lifts ban on US beef imports
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here Australia has lifted remaining bans on beef imports from the US as the ongoing battle to secure an exemption from Donald Trump's tariff regime continues. Employment Minister Amanda Rishworth confirmed on Today that a decade-long review into the imports of US beef had been completed. "That review has been undertaken and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry believe that there are the right controls in place in the US to lift that ban," she said. Imports of beef from the US will be permitted after a government review. (Getty) "My understanding is that will be lifted as a result of a decade-long review." That source emphasised that Australia's biosecurity would remain uncompromised by the change, a stance Rishworth also took. Donald Trump announces his global tariffs in April. (Nine) "We are not we are not compromising on biosecurity. I need to make that very clear," she said. "We believe in free and fair trade. And our farmers very much benefit from being able to export their products right around the world." The revelation comes ahead of US President Donald Trump's proclaimed August 1 deadline for increased blanket tariffs on imports to the US. There are fears for Australia's biosecurity. (Getty Images/iStockphoto) Australia is currently subjected to a baseline 10 per cent tariff on all US exports, including beef, with a 50 per cent tariff on steel and aluminium. Trump has also threatened to increase the tariff on imported pharmaceuticals to 200 per cent. The baseline tariff could as much as double to 20 per cent on the August 1 deadline, Trump warned in recent weeks. In April, when rolling out his "Liberation Day" tariff plan, Trump singled out Australian beef. "Australia bans – and they're wonderful people, and wonderful everything – but they ban American beef," he said then. "Yet we imported $US3 billion of Australian beef from them just last year alone. "They won't take any of our beef. "They don't want it because they don't want it to affect their farmers and you know, I don't blame them but we're doing the same thing right now starting at midnight tonight, I would say." A ban on beef imports from the US was put in place more than 20 years ago after an outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease, which can lead to fatal brain disease in humans. The blanket ban was lifted in 2019 for cattle raised and slaughtered in the US, but remained for cattle that had been raised in Canda and Mexico, but slaughtered in and exported from the US. It's those latter bans which have now been lifted, after the review reportedly found the US had improved its tracking protocols. Trade tariffs agriculture Australia national USA World CONTACT US
Sky News AU
22 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Australia makes $800 million payment to US for AUKUS submarine deal
Australia has paid another $800 million to the US for the AUKUS submarine deal despite the Trump administration beginning a review into the agreement. The Sydney Morning Herald reports the second payment was made this year along the approved schedule. The first payment was announced with fanfare in February, but the second payment was made without any public acknowledgment. Labor has now paid a total of $1.6 billion towards the deal.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Albanese's guru talkfest won't make you richer – he's chosen the wrong people
Why isn't there a seat for the CSIRO, which has given us life-changing and productivity-enhancing inventions as Wi-Fi, solar hot water, gene shears, polymer banknotes and permanent-crease clothing? Where is the expert in AI or cancer therapy or environmental trends or agricultural science? Scott Farquhar, co-founder and former chief executive of Atlassian, will be there as the lone voice of the technological future. He'll be sitting next to three former or current state treasurers who will tell us all about the fiscal problems they face. If you were to list the most important developments that have made the world more productive, would tax reform even get a look in? (Perhaps the creation of income tax to help Britain fight Napoleon might get a mention.) The telephone, the internal combustion engine and the lightbulb are three of the most transformative pieces of technology in humanity's development. The phone allowed us to communicate quickly. The internal combustion engine enabled us to move goods and people really quickly. And the lightbulb – the creation of cheap light – meant we could work when we wanted to. Loading These three pivotal productivity enhancements weren't driven by tax reform. They were driven by ingenuity, by the circumstances faced by their creators, by the need to improve the lives of everyone. What's also important – and more than a little disheartening – is that all three came into being between 1876 and 1879. Three inventions that underpin today's society are approaching their 150th birthdays. That's why there is so much interest in AI at present. This is an invention that could utterly change our lives. As US Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook noted in a speech last week, AI is a general-purpose technology (a transformative invention like the steam engine and electricity). 'AI is poised to alter the contours of the global economy. AI is transforming the economy, including by accelerating how quickly we generate ideas and making workers more efficient,' she noted. It's ideas that make the world, the economy and productivity go round. That's not to say tax doesn't matter. If you impose huge imposts on businesses or individuals, then you distort the economy in a way that is unlikely to be productive. If you don't raise revenue, then say goodbye to roads, hospitals, a judicial system and defence networks. Governments often build incentives into the tax system for a major policy aim. That's the whole reason, for instance, that superannuation is taxed lightly and why excises on cigarettes and alcohol are so high. Loading The idea put up by the Labor-aligned McKell Institute this week, to increase the capital gains tax concession on new apartment builds (and reduce it for investors who simply buy an existing detached house), is another example of how the tax system can help. However, it's aimed at acting as an incentive for investors to build more homes – not to build those homes more productively. Apart from, perhaps, some incentives directly aimed at research and development, inventions and productivity-enhancing breakthroughs are rarely driven by the tax system. Terrible events and diseases drive change (Alexander Fleming's penicillin discovery was transformed into a useable medicine by Howard Florey and German-born Ernst Chain, but it was only World War II that made it cheap and mass-produced lifesaver). Penicillin has saved an estimated 500 million lives. In terms of productivity improvement, this single medicine has done more than any tax concession to improve our lives and our economy. Yet when you look around the cabinet table next month, don't expect to see anyone carrying out health-related research. We can hope that some of the specialists who get to sit in on certain parts of the roundtable might pique the interest of those who will ultimately have a say over what policies get supported. But I wouldn't bet on it. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
