Home Affairs minister met with FBI director during secretive Australia visit
Mr Patel, who is a loyalist of US President Donald Trump, stopped in Sydney earlier this week before travelling to New Zealand to announce the US would expand its FBI office in Wellington.
Neither Australia nor the United States publicly flagged the visit, but after he was approached by the ABC Mr Burke said he "enjoyed" his evening with Mr Patel.
"We share a commitment to keeping our people safe, and I'm optimistic about what we can achieve together in the interest of national security," he said.
A source confirmed the FBI chief met with other officials from the security community while in Sydney, but played-down the significance of the stop-off, suggesting Mr Patel's main focus was on his New Zealand visit.
Mr Patel wields significant power as the head of the US's law enforcement but he is also a controversial figure, in part because he's called some of those jailed for the January 6 assault on Capitol Hill "political prisoners".
Greens home affairs spokesperson David Shoebridge on Thursday called on the government to provide "more transparency" over the meeting.
"The minister, understandably, wanted his meeting with a defender of the January 6 rioters, kept secret," he said.
"Equally understandably, the Australian public has an interest in knowing who our minister for home affairs is meeting with, and why.
"Going forward the best way to avoid public concern about meeting with Trump appointees who defend the January 6 riots is not to meet them in the first place."
While opening the FBI's new permanent office in New Zealand, Mr Patel said he was looking forward to working closely with New Zealand to counter the Chinese Communist Party and other threats in the region.
New Zealand is a member of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance, alongside Australia, the United States, Britain and Canada.
"Some of the most important global issues of our times are the ones that New Zealand and America work on together," he said.
"The FBI cannot do it alone. The FBI, in my opinion, is the greatest law enforcement agency in the world, and our partners in the Five Eyes are our greatest partners around the world. But we need all of them ... to get after the fight and put the mission first."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
2 minutes ago
- ABC News
Live updates: Sydney Harbour Bridge closes to traffic ahead of pro-Palestinian march
Thousands are expected to walk across the Sydney Harbour Bridge as part of a pro-Palestinian march today. The bridge will remain closed to traffic for several hours. Follow our live blog below for updates.
ABC News
2 minutes ago
- ABC News
Vote counting done, the deal-making begins for Tasmania's next government
So here it is. The final seat chart for Tasmania's parliament: Liberals with 14, Labor with 10, five Greens and six other members of the crossbench. Sound familiar? Well, aside from some shuffling of the deckchairs, the 2025 Tasmanian election — not to be confused with the 2024 one (although you'd be forgiven for doing so) — ended up almost exactly where it was before Premier Jeremy Rockliff pulled the trigger. We can get to the whole what was the point later, but there is one rather vital question that has yet to be answered — who will be the government? Gone are the days when who would form government was known on election night. And, apparently, gone are the days when knowing the final makeup of parliament means we know which party will be leading the state at the end of the year. That answer may not be known for over a month. But at least the players are known, because the pathways to government or a no-confidence motion have become slightly clearer. Let's start with the Liberals on 14 seats. That may seem, on the face of things, to be a better chance. Whichever party hopes to form government will need 18 votes on their side. Finding four votes from a crossbench of 11 does not sound that hard in theory — until you start to break down who is in the crossbench. The Greens won't be offering up their five. Craig Garland is so infuriated by the way the Liberals have handled Marinus Link that he would be willing to vote for a no-confidence motion. Kristie Johnston voted for the last no-confidence motion and, while she hasn't ruled out offering supply and confidence, it may not be encouraging. That's six, maybe seven votes down, leaving four for the Liberals to truly court, with three of them newbies. The Shooters, Fishers and Farmers' Carlo Di Falco and former Launceston Councillor George Razay have both said they are open to working with either side. For the record, so has anti-salmon campaigner Peter George, but his progressive values don't mesh particularly well with either major party. The easiest person for the Liberals get, or in this case keep onside, is independent David O'Byrne. Mr O'Byrne offered support in the last parliament, voted against the no-confidence motion in Premier Jeremy Rockliff and has spoken about how difficult it was for Labor to govern with 10 when there were just 25 members of the lower house as opposed to the 35 they now have. Mind you, last election Labor ruled out trying to form government, so Mr O'Byrne had no other option. As a former Labor leader with those values, he has to entertain the idea. Labor's rather mammoth effort of securing eight votes is made so much easier by the fact the Greens want to engage with it. Greens Leader Rosalie Woodruff gave Labor Leader Dean Winter the opportunity to work together during that weird time between the no-confidence motion and the election. Mr Winter flat-out refused. But things look very different from the other side of this election. The party is out of options, down on votes, and staring down four years of opposition, assuming this parliament makes it that long. The very fact that Mr Winter is playing phone tag with Dr Woodruff says it all. But the two clearly have some different ideas about how a minority Labor government might work. Labor is continuing to insist it will not do a deal with the Greens, while Dr Woodruff maintains there must be an agreement for it to work. She may not be sure what that looks like, but has said "there is no possibility of any minority government without some movement". That suggests compromise. So, is Labor just playing semantics with the word deal? Will it accept a so-called agreement with the Greens? They will be roasted by the Liberals if they do, but how much does that matter if the Libs are the ones sitting on the Opposition benches? Perhaps, Labor thinks it can avoid doing any sort of agreement with The Greens. After all, the Greens seem very determined to kick out the Rockliff Government — even more so post Marinus drama — and Labor is their only path to do so. Maybe that is all Labor has to offer up. Be it on the Greens if they want to be the key reason the Liberals stay in power. But there is a middle ground. The parties' values overlap, why not lean into that? After all, it was the Greens and Labor, with others on the crossbench, that banded together last parliament to lower the political donation disclosure threshold to $1,000, introduce industrial manslaughter laws and decriminalise begging. Surely working together could be about finding the middle space in the Venn diagram where no one compromises their values. Banning conversion therapy, working towards a treaty for First Nations peoples and strengthening the Integrity Commission are a few commonalities that spring to mind. If Labor gets the Greens on board, and with Craig Garland's vote, the party is only crossbenchers away from seizing power through a vote of no confidence. Of course, it may not come to that, but the backup plan is looking viable. And how wild would that be? Labor, which recorded its lowest ever primary vote, taking government and installing a premier that could not even pull a quota in his own right. If it pulls this off, Labor MPs will make up just over half of the 18 votes that they need in the lower house. What mandate do they really have? Then again, Tasmanians voted for 11 MPs that are neither Labor nor Liberal and the vast majority of those 11 MPs hold values that are far closer to Labor than the Liberals. Whether it can be called a progressive parliament is debatable. Winter's 'jobs jobs jobs' Labor is big on industries like mining, forestry and aquaculture and rarely delves into social issues. In fact, some have observed Mr Rockliff appears more socially progressive. But it certainly is not a Liberal friendly parliament either. They may have seen an uptick in their primary vote of more than three per cent and Mr Rockliff's 22,000 first preference votes, but their right-wing values do not appear to have won over the vast majority of Tasmanians. If the result was a true endorsement of the Liberals, wouldn't they have gained a single seat? In the end, all of this pondering does not matter, because both parties want government. One is trying to keep it, the other trying to claim it — and that means it is going to take a while. It is unclear exactly when Tasmanians will know who is going the lead the state. But while the parties play their power games, parliament is paused. No legislation is being passed, no big brave decisions (save Marinus) are being made — and the state is effectively left on standby.
ABC News
32 minutes ago
- ABC News
Opposition says Labor's indigenous plans 'insufficient'
Opposition leader Susan Ley says the Prime Minister's indigenous funding announcement at the Garma festival was insufficient and won't fix Indigenous disadvantage. But reporter Bridget Brennan says there are also questions about the opposition leader's absence from the annual Arnhem Land event.
