PM Anthony Albanese is questioned on local terror threat level amid US strikes on Iran
America's Donald Trump administration confirmed it had completed an attack on three nuclear sites in Iran on Saturday, including Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.
Concern has been mounting the unilateral action could increase the terror threat in western cities, including Australia.
Iran threatened the US with 'sleeper cell' attacks if they were attacked, according to NBC.
The message was sent to Trump through an intermediary at the G7 in Canada last week, which forced the US president to leave the summit early to deal with the crisis in the Middle East.
On Monday, Albanese was asked about the terror threat, which is currently 'probable'.
'Look, we are constantly monitoring (the threat),' Albanese said.
'The ASIO Director-General and our security intelligence agencies are constantly engaged in monitoring. There's been no change in any of the advice that has been issued.'
Later in the press conference, Albanese touched on the possibility Aussies could become targets of attacks: 'Obviously we're opposed to any action against Australians or indeed against anyone else.'
Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong said she was looking into reviewing advice for Australians travelling to the Middle East.
'There are always risks not only from escalation in the region but also potential for risk more broadly,' Wong said.
'I indicated publicly this morning that I have asked my department to consider whether there are any ... if there's any alteration to travel advice more generally, which we will obviously make sure is updated.'
Albanese was asked a number of questions about the use of Australian military support in the region.
He refused to answer if Australia had intelligence in Iran 'imminently' at the point of securing a nuclear weapon, prior to the attacks.
'Well, we don't talk about intelligence matters, but we confirm, of course, that this was a unilateral action by the United States,' Albanese told reporters.
Albanese was questioned if his government was briefed by the US, prior to the attack on Iran.
Albanese confirmed it was 'unilateral' action by the country.
He confirmed he has not spoken to President Donald Trump since the G7 summit.
Albanese wrapped-up the press conference by saying Iran still had a significant stake in diplomacy and peace, even after the bombing of its nuclear sites.
'Iran has an interest, an interest very clearly as well,' he said.
'I believe in in ensuring that there is not an escalation in the region.
'That is the incentive that they have. The United States have made clear their position, and we continue to call for dialogue.
'Had Iran complied with the very reasonable requests that were made, including by the IAEA, then circumstances would have been different.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
The average home is now worth $1 million. This boom is blowing up in a bad way
More than two decades ago, former prime minister John Howard said, "I don't get people stopping me in the street and saying, 'John you're outrageous, under your government the value of my house has increased".' The nation's home owners would have been pleased by recent news from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) that the national mean price of residential dwellings had risen to $1,002,500, the first time it has passed the million-dollar mark. Of course, that level was exceeded long ago in many city suburbs, with prices in regional areas also going sky-high as sea and tree changers took real estate windfalls and relocated. Around 66 per cent of Australian households own their own home with or without a mortgage. Home ownership, with a consistent rise in values, is Australians' most important asset, along with superannuation, which ticks over in the background, accessible only in later years. Renters, numbering one-third of Australian households, have also experienced the impacts of the ongoing property boom, except not in a good way. They are mostly dependent on the one-in-five households that own residential properties other than their usual domicile. For the record, one in 25 of these owners has four or more properties. Yet very few are affordable to low-income earners. Anglicare Australia's 2025 Rental Affordability Snapshot surveyed 51,238 rental listings across Australia and found that just 352 rentals (0.7 per cent) were affordable for a person earning a full-time minimum wage. Almost none was affordable for a person on JobSeeker wanting a room in a share house, and none for a person on Youth Allowance. Median advertised rents have risen 35 per cent since this government came to office, more than three times the rise in wages. Another recent report, Rights at risk: Rising rents and repercussions, by ACOSS and the University of NSW, carries further alarming findings. Almost seven in 10 people who rent privately worry about asking for repairs in case they face a rent increase, with 56 per cent fearing it would lead to eviction and 52 per cent fearing being placed on a blacklist that would prevent them renting another property. Half of all renters live in homes that need repairs, one in 10 urgently. Almost one-in-five bathrooms has mould, which is a major health risk. Some 82 per cent of renters would find a 5 per cent rent hike "difficult or very difficult". A significant problem, and a major eyesore, is that many potential rentals are left empty - around a million Australia-wide. If occupied, these so-called "speculative vacancies" could greatly assist would-be renters. St Vincent de Paul Society calls for taxation reform to incentivise the use of long-term vacant residential properties and land. Homes that are rented have the added benefit (to owners) of generous tax concessions, both during ownership and at point of sale. This creates a considerable loss to the Treasury, with the Parliamentary Budget Office calculating that tax revenue foregone over the decade to 2034-35 due to negative gearing deductions and the capital gains tax (CGT) discount on residential investment properties will total a massive $165 billion. This is money lost to healthcare, education, housing and other social essentials. St Vincent de Paul Society regards housing as a basic human right and we firmly believe all Australians deserve a secure place to live. Properties should be treated primarily as homes, not investment opportunities. The Society supports reducing CGT concessions from 50 per cent to 37.5 per cent to generate revenue that could be used to improve social services, plus a review of negative gearing. The government should increase needs-based funding of homelessness services and permanent supportive housing, including client-led support services. If not now, when? The last census recorded 122,494 people experiencing homelessness, and that was four years ago. Governments should fund and perhaps mandate policies that improve energy efficiency in low-income households, including apartment buildings. This goes hand in hand with funding and legislating national minimum standards for renters. The package known as "A Better Deal for Renters" was endorsed by national cabinet in 2023 with the promise that, "These changes will make a tangible impact for the almost one-third of Australian households who rent". The plan is yet to be fully implemented. Meanwhile, rent increases have accelerated, and pests are the most common tenant complaint, affecting one-third of premises. We're urging for a compassionate review of the base rate of working-age payments to lift recipients above the poverty line. So many people simply cannot afford decent housing. Achieving this basic goal is fundamental to Australia's future and for our much-prized social harmony. As the Human Rights Law Centre puts it, "every person should have a safe, secure and healthy place to call home, regardless of your postcode or bank balance. Yet too many Australians are homeless, live in inadequate, insecure or unsafe housing, or need to sacrifice other necessities - from food to school uniforms - to keep a roof over their heads." Our members see these challenges every day, and while we can offer assistance within our means, structural change to the national housing market is needed urgently. More than two decades ago, former prime minister John Howard said, "I don't get people stopping me in the street and saying, 'John you're outrageous, under your government the value of my house has increased".' The nation's home owners would have been pleased by recent news from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) that the national mean price of residential dwellings had risen to $1,002,500, the first time it has passed the million-dollar mark. Of course, that level was exceeded long ago in many city suburbs, with prices in regional areas also going sky-high as sea and tree changers took real estate windfalls and relocated. Around 66 per cent of Australian households own their own home with or without a mortgage. Home ownership, with a consistent rise in values, is Australians' most important asset, along with superannuation, which ticks over in the background, accessible only in later years. Renters, numbering one-third of Australian households, have also experienced the impacts of the ongoing property boom, except not in a good way. They are mostly dependent on the one-in-five households that own residential properties other than their usual domicile. For the record, one in 25 of these owners has four or more properties. Yet very few are affordable to low-income earners. Anglicare Australia's 2025 Rental Affordability Snapshot surveyed 51,238 rental listings across Australia and found that just 352 rentals (0.7 per cent) were affordable for a person earning a full-time minimum wage. Almost none was affordable for a person on JobSeeker wanting a room in a share house, and none for a person on Youth Allowance. Median advertised rents have risen 35 per cent since this government came to office, more than three times the rise in wages. Another recent report, Rights at risk: Rising rents and repercussions, by ACOSS and the University of NSW, carries further alarming findings. Almost seven in 10 people who rent privately worry about asking for repairs in case they face a rent increase, with 56 per cent fearing it would lead to eviction and 52 per cent fearing being placed on a blacklist that would prevent them renting another property. Half of all renters live in homes that need repairs, one in 10 urgently. Almost one-in-five bathrooms has mould, which is a major health risk. Some 82 per cent of renters would find a 5 per cent rent hike "difficult or very difficult". A significant problem, and a major eyesore, is that many potential rentals are left empty - around a million Australia-wide. If occupied, these so-called "speculative vacancies" could greatly assist would-be renters. St Vincent de Paul Society calls for taxation reform to incentivise the use of long-term vacant residential properties and land. Homes that are rented have the added benefit (to owners) of generous tax concessions, both during ownership and at point of sale. This creates a considerable loss to the Treasury, with the Parliamentary Budget Office calculating that tax revenue foregone over the decade to 2034-35 due to negative gearing deductions and the capital gains tax (CGT) discount on residential investment properties will total a massive $165 billion. This is money lost to healthcare, education, housing and other social essentials. St Vincent de Paul Society regards housing as a basic human right and we firmly believe all Australians deserve a secure place to live. Properties should be treated primarily as homes, not investment opportunities. The Society supports reducing CGT concessions from 50 per cent to 37.5 per cent to generate revenue that could be used to improve social services, plus a review of negative gearing. The government should increase needs-based funding of homelessness services and permanent supportive housing, including client-led support services. If not now, when? The last census recorded 122,494 people experiencing homelessness, and that was four years ago. Governments should fund and perhaps mandate policies that improve energy efficiency in low-income households, including apartment buildings. This goes hand in hand with funding and legislating national minimum standards for renters. The package known as "A Better Deal for Renters" was endorsed by national cabinet in 2023 with the promise that, "These changes will make a tangible impact for the almost one-third of Australian households who rent". The plan is yet to be fully implemented. Meanwhile, rent increases have accelerated, and pests are the most common tenant complaint, affecting one-third of premises. We're urging for a compassionate review of the base rate of working-age payments to lift recipients above the poverty line. So many people simply cannot afford decent housing. Achieving this basic goal is fundamental to Australia's future and for our much-prized social harmony. As the Human Rights Law Centre puts it, "every person should have a safe, secure and healthy place to call home, regardless of your postcode or bank balance. Yet too many Australians are homeless, live in inadequate, insecure or unsafe housing, or need to sacrifice other necessities - from food to school uniforms - to keep a roof over their heads." Our members see these challenges every day, and while we can offer assistance within our means, structural change to the national housing market is needed urgently. More than two decades ago, former prime minister John Howard said, "I don't get people stopping me in the street and saying, 'John you're outrageous, under your government the value of my house has increased".' The nation's home owners would have been pleased by recent news from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) that the national mean price of residential dwellings had risen to $1,002,500, the first time it has passed the million-dollar mark. Of course, that level was exceeded long ago in many city suburbs, with prices in regional areas also going sky-high as sea and tree changers took real estate windfalls and relocated. Around 66 per cent of Australian households own their own home with or without a mortgage. Home ownership, with a consistent rise in values, is Australians' most important asset, along with superannuation, which ticks over in the background, accessible only in later years. Renters, numbering one-third of Australian households, have also experienced the impacts of the ongoing property boom, except not in a good way. They are mostly dependent on the one-in-five households that own residential properties other than their usual domicile. For the record, one in 25 of these owners has four or more properties. Yet very few are affordable to low-income earners. Anglicare Australia's 2025 Rental Affordability Snapshot surveyed 51,238 rental listings across Australia and found that just 352 rentals (0.7 per cent) were affordable for a person earning a full-time minimum wage. Almost none was affordable for a person on JobSeeker wanting a room in a share house, and none for a person on Youth Allowance. Median advertised rents have risen 35 per cent since this government came to office, more than three times the rise in wages. Another recent report, Rights at risk: Rising rents and repercussions, by ACOSS and the University of NSW, carries further alarming findings. Almost seven in 10 people who rent privately worry about asking for repairs in case they face a rent increase, with 56 per cent fearing it would lead to eviction and 52 per cent fearing being placed on a blacklist that would prevent them renting another property. Half of all renters live in homes that need repairs, one in 10 urgently. Almost one-in-five bathrooms has mould, which is a major health risk. Some 82 per cent of renters would find a 5 per cent rent hike "difficult or very difficult". A significant problem, and a major eyesore, is that many potential rentals are left empty - around a million Australia-wide. If occupied, these so-called "speculative vacancies" could greatly assist would-be renters. St Vincent de Paul Society calls for taxation reform to incentivise the use of long-term vacant residential properties and land. Homes that are rented have the added benefit (to owners) of generous tax concessions, both during ownership and at point of sale. This creates a considerable loss to the Treasury, with the Parliamentary Budget Office calculating that tax revenue foregone over the decade to 2034-35 due to negative gearing deductions and the capital gains tax (CGT) discount on residential investment properties will total a massive $165 billion. This is money lost to healthcare, education, housing and other social essentials. St Vincent de Paul Society regards housing as a basic human right and we firmly believe all Australians deserve a secure place to live. Properties should be treated primarily as homes, not investment opportunities. The Society supports reducing CGT concessions from 50 per cent to 37.5 per cent to generate revenue that could be used to improve social services, plus a review of negative gearing. The government should increase needs-based funding of homelessness services and permanent supportive housing, including client-led support services. If not now, when? The last census recorded 122,494 people experiencing homelessness, and that was four years ago. Governments should fund and perhaps mandate policies that improve energy efficiency in low-income households, including apartment buildings. This goes hand in hand with funding and legislating national minimum standards for renters. The package known as "A Better Deal for Renters" was endorsed by national cabinet in 2023 with the promise that, "These changes will make a tangible impact for the almost one-third of Australian households who rent". The plan is yet to be fully implemented. Meanwhile, rent increases have accelerated, and pests are the most common tenant complaint, affecting one-third of premises. We're urging for a compassionate review of the base rate of working-age payments to lift recipients above the poverty line. So many people simply cannot afford decent housing. Achieving this basic goal is fundamental to Australia's future and for our much-prized social harmony. As the Human Rights Law Centre puts it, "every person should have a safe, secure and healthy place to call home, regardless of your postcode or bank balance. Yet too many Australians are homeless, live in inadequate, insecure or unsafe housing, or need to sacrifice other necessities - from food to school uniforms - to keep a roof over their heads." Our members see these challenges every day, and while we can offer assistance within our means, structural change to the national housing market is needed urgently. More than two decades ago, former prime minister John Howard said, "I don't get people stopping me in the street and saying, 'John you're outrageous, under your government the value of my house has increased".' The nation's home owners would have been pleased by recent news from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) that the national mean price of residential dwellings had risen to $1,002,500, the first time it has passed the million-dollar mark. Of course, that level was exceeded long ago in many city suburbs, with prices in regional areas also going sky-high as sea and tree changers took real estate windfalls and relocated. Around 66 per cent of Australian households own their own home with or without a mortgage. Home ownership, with a consistent rise in values, is Australians' most important asset, along with superannuation, which ticks over in the background, accessible only in later years. Renters, numbering one-third of Australian households, have also experienced the impacts of the ongoing property boom, except not in a good way. They are mostly dependent on the one-in-five households that own residential properties other than their usual domicile. For the record, one in 25 of these owners has four or more properties. Yet very few are affordable to low-income earners. Anglicare Australia's 2025 Rental Affordability Snapshot surveyed 51,238 rental listings across Australia and found that just 352 rentals (0.7 per cent) were affordable for a person earning a full-time minimum wage. Almost none was affordable for a person on JobSeeker wanting a room in a share house, and none for a person on Youth Allowance. Median advertised rents have risen 35 per cent since this government came to office, more than three times the rise in wages. Another recent report, Rights at risk: Rising rents and repercussions, by ACOSS and the University of NSW, carries further alarming findings. Almost seven in 10 people who rent privately worry about asking for repairs in case they face a rent increase, with 56 per cent fearing it would lead to eviction and 52 per cent fearing being placed on a blacklist that would prevent them renting another property. Half of all renters live in homes that need repairs, one in 10 urgently. Almost one-in-five bathrooms has mould, which is a major health risk. Some 82 per cent of renters would find a 5 per cent rent hike "difficult or very difficult". A significant problem, and a major eyesore, is that many potential rentals are left empty - around a million Australia-wide. If occupied, these so-called "speculative vacancies" could greatly assist would-be renters. St Vincent de Paul Society calls for taxation reform to incentivise the use of long-term vacant residential properties and land. Homes that are rented have the added benefit (to owners) of generous tax concessions, both during ownership and at point of sale. This creates a considerable loss to the Treasury, with the Parliamentary Budget Office calculating that tax revenue foregone over the decade to 2034-35 due to negative gearing deductions and the capital gains tax (CGT) discount on residential investment properties will total a massive $165 billion. This is money lost to healthcare, education, housing and other social essentials. St Vincent de Paul Society regards housing as a basic human right and we firmly believe all Australians deserve a secure place to live. Properties should be treated primarily as homes, not investment opportunities. The Society supports reducing CGT concessions from 50 per cent to 37.5 per cent to generate revenue that could be used to improve social services, plus a review of negative gearing. The government should increase needs-based funding of homelessness services and permanent supportive housing, including client-led support services. If not now, when? The last census recorded 122,494 people experiencing homelessness, and that was four years ago. Governments should fund and perhaps mandate policies that improve energy efficiency in low-income households, including apartment buildings. This goes hand in hand with funding and legislating national minimum standards for renters. The package known as "A Better Deal for Renters" was endorsed by national cabinet in 2023 with the promise that, "These changes will make a tangible impact for the almost one-third of Australian households who rent". The plan is yet to be fully implemented. Meanwhile, rent increases have accelerated, and pests are the most common tenant complaint, affecting one-third of premises. We're urging for a compassionate review of the base rate of working-age payments to lift recipients above the poverty line. So many people simply cannot afford decent housing. Achieving this basic goal is fundamental to Australia's future and for our much-prized social harmony. As the Human Rights Law Centre puts it, "every person should have a safe, secure and healthy place to call home, regardless of your postcode or bank balance. Yet too many Australians are homeless, live in inadequate, insecure or unsafe housing, or need to sacrifice other necessities - from food to school uniforms - to keep a roof over their heads." Our members see these challenges every day, and while we can offer assistance within our means, structural change to the national housing market is needed urgently.
The Advertiser
2 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Senate passes massive US tax cut and spending bill
US Senate Republicans have passed President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill by the narrowest of margins, advancing a package that would slash taxes, reduce social safety net programs and boost military and immigration enforcement spending while adding $US3.3 trillion ($A5 trillion) to the national debt. The legislation now heads to the House of Representatives for possible final approval, though a handful of Republicans there have already voiced opposition to some of the Senate provisions. Trump wants to sign it into law by the July 4 Independence Day holiday, and House Speaker Mike Johnson said he aimed to meet that deadline. The measure would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, give new tax breaks for income from tips and overtime pay and increase spending on the military and immigration enforcement. It also would cut about $US930 billion ($A1.4 trillion) of spending on the Medicaid health program and food aid for low-income Americans, and repeal many of Democratic former president Joe Biden's green-energy incentives. The legislation, which has exposed Republican divides over the nation's fast-growing $US36.2 trillion debt, would raise the federal government's self-imposed debt ceiling by $US5 trillion. Congress must raise the cap in the coming months or risk a devastating default. The Senate passed the measure in a 51-50 vote with Vice President JD Vance breaking a tie after three Republicans - Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky - joined all 47 Democrats in voting against the bill. The vote followed an all-night debate in which Republicans grappled with the bill's price tag and its impact on the US healthcare system. The vote in the House, where Republicans hold a 220-212 majority, is likely to be close. A White House official told reporters that Trump would be "deeply involved" in pushing House Republicans to approve the bill. "It's a great bill. There is something for everyone," Trump said at an event in Florida on Tuesday. "And I think it's going to go very nicely in the House." Republicans have struggled to balance conservatives' demands for deeper spending cuts to reduce the impact on the deficit with moderate lawmakers' concerns that the Medicaid cuts could hurt their constituents, including service cutbacks in rural areas. A group of more moderate House Republicans, especially those who represent lower-income areas, have objected to the steeper Medicaid cuts in the Senate's plan. The legislation has also drawn criticism from billionaire Elon Musk, the former Trump ally who has railed against the bill's enormous cost and vowed to back challengers to Republican lawmakers in next year's midterm elections. House Democrats are expected to remain unanimously opposed to the bill. "This is the largest assault on American healthcare in history," House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters. "It's the largest assault on nutrition in American history." US Senate Republicans have passed President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill by the narrowest of margins, advancing a package that would slash taxes, reduce social safety net programs and boost military and immigration enforcement spending while adding $US3.3 trillion ($A5 trillion) to the national debt. The legislation now heads to the House of Representatives for possible final approval, though a handful of Republicans there have already voiced opposition to some of the Senate provisions. Trump wants to sign it into law by the July 4 Independence Day holiday, and House Speaker Mike Johnson said he aimed to meet that deadline. The measure would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, give new tax breaks for income from tips and overtime pay and increase spending on the military and immigration enforcement. It also would cut about $US930 billion ($A1.4 trillion) of spending on the Medicaid health program and food aid for low-income Americans, and repeal many of Democratic former president Joe Biden's green-energy incentives. The legislation, which has exposed Republican divides over the nation's fast-growing $US36.2 trillion debt, would raise the federal government's self-imposed debt ceiling by $US5 trillion. Congress must raise the cap in the coming months or risk a devastating default. The Senate passed the measure in a 51-50 vote with Vice President JD Vance breaking a tie after three Republicans - Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky - joined all 47 Democrats in voting against the bill. The vote followed an all-night debate in which Republicans grappled with the bill's price tag and its impact on the US healthcare system. The vote in the House, where Republicans hold a 220-212 majority, is likely to be close. A White House official told reporters that Trump would be "deeply involved" in pushing House Republicans to approve the bill. "It's a great bill. There is something for everyone," Trump said at an event in Florida on Tuesday. "And I think it's going to go very nicely in the House." Republicans have struggled to balance conservatives' demands for deeper spending cuts to reduce the impact on the deficit with moderate lawmakers' concerns that the Medicaid cuts could hurt their constituents, including service cutbacks in rural areas. A group of more moderate House Republicans, especially those who represent lower-income areas, have objected to the steeper Medicaid cuts in the Senate's plan. The legislation has also drawn criticism from billionaire Elon Musk, the former Trump ally who has railed against the bill's enormous cost and vowed to back challengers to Republican lawmakers in next year's midterm elections. House Democrats are expected to remain unanimously opposed to the bill. "This is the largest assault on American healthcare in history," House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters. "It's the largest assault on nutrition in American history." US Senate Republicans have passed President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill by the narrowest of margins, advancing a package that would slash taxes, reduce social safety net programs and boost military and immigration enforcement spending while adding $US3.3 trillion ($A5 trillion) to the national debt. The legislation now heads to the House of Representatives for possible final approval, though a handful of Republicans there have already voiced opposition to some of the Senate provisions. Trump wants to sign it into law by the July 4 Independence Day holiday, and House Speaker Mike Johnson said he aimed to meet that deadline. The measure would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, give new tax breaks for income from tips and overtime pay and increase spending on the military and immigration enforcement. It also would cut about $US930 billion ($A1.4 trillion) of spending on the Medicaid health program and food aid for low-income Americans, and repeal many of Democratic former president Joe Biden's green-energy incentives. The legislation, which has exposed Republican divides over the nation's fast-growing $US36.2 trillion debt, would raise the federal government's self-imposed debt ceiling by $US5 trillion. Congress must raise the cap in the coming months or risk a devastating default. The Senate passed the measure in a 51-50 vote with Vice President JD Vance breaking a tie after three Republicans - Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky - joined all 47 Democrats in voting against the bill. The vote followed an all-night debate in which Republicans grappled with the bill's price tag and its impact on the US healthcare system. The vote in the House, where Republicans hold a 220-212 majority, is likely to be close. A White House official told reporters that Trump would be "deeply involved" in pushing House Republicans to approve the bill. "It's a great bill. There is something for everyone," Trump said at an event in Florida on Tuesday. "And I think it's going to go very nicely in the House." Republicans have struggled to balance conservatives' demands for deeper spending cuts to reduce the impact on the deficit with moderate lawmakers' concerns that the Medicaid cuts could hurt their constituents, including service cutbacks in rural areas. A group of more moderate House Republicans, especially those who represent lower-income areas, have objected to the steeper Medicaid cuts in the Senate's plan. The legislation has also drawn criticism from billionaire Elon Musk, the former Trump ally who has railed against the bill's enormous cost and vowed to back challengers to Republican lawmakers in next year's midterm elections. House Democrats are expected to remain unanimously opposed to the bill. "This is the largest assault on American healthcare in history," House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters. "It's the largest assault on nutrition in American history." US Senate Republicans have passed President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut and spending bill by the narrowest of margins, advancing a package that would slash taxes, reduce social safety net programs and boost military and immigration enforcement spending while adding $US3.3 trillion ($A5 trillion) to the national debt. The legislation now heads to the House of Representatives for possible final approval, though a handful of Republicans there have already voiced opposition to some of the Senate provisions. Trump wants to sign it into law by the July 4 Independence Day holiday, and House Speaker Mike Johnson said he aimed to meet that deadline. The measure would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts, give new tax breaks for income from tips and overtime pay and increase spending on the military and immigration enforcement. It also would cut about $US930 billion ($A1.4 trillion) of spending on the Medicaid health program and food aid for low-income Americans, and repeal many of Democratic former president Joe Biden's green-energy incentives. The legislation, which has exposed Republican divides over the nation's fast-growing $US36.2 trillion debt, would raise the federal government's self-imposed debt ceiling by $US5 trillion. Congress must raise the cap in the coming months or risk a devastating default. The Senate passed the measure in a 51-50 vote with Vice President JD Vance breaking a tie after three Republicans - Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine and Rand Paul of Kentucky - joined all 47 Democrats in voting against the bill. The vote followed an all-night debate in which Republicans grappled with the bill's price tag and its impact on the US healthcare system. The vote in the House, where Republicans hold a 220-212 majority, is likely to be close. A White House official told reporters that Trump would be "deeply involved" in pushing House Republicans to approve the bill. "It's a great bill. There is something for everyone," Trump said at an event in Florida on Tuesday. "And I think it's going to go very nicely in the House." Republicans have struggled to balance conservatives' demands for deeper spending cuts to reduce the impact on the deficit with moderate lawmakers' concerns that the Medicaid cuts could hurt their constituents, including service cutbacks in rural areas. A group of more moderate House Republicans, especially those who represent lower-income areas, have objected to the steeper Medicaid cuts in the Senate's plan. The legislation has also drawn criticism from billionaire Elon Musk, the former Trump ally who has railed against the bill's enormous cost and vowed to back challengers to Republican lawmakers in next year's midterm elections. House Democrats are expected to remain unanimously opposed to the bill. "This is the largest assault on American healthcare in history," House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters. "It's the largest assault on nutrition in American history."
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Jim Chalmers to lead tax reform roundtable because Labor ‘can't keep up with their spending'
Nationals Leader David Littleproud says the Coalition will have 'an open mind' at Treasurer Jim Chalmers' economic reform roundtable. 'I think it is time for a mature conversation,' Mr Littleproud told Sky News Australia. 'I think it's the right call for Ted O'Brien to go to this summit. 'You also need to look at the spending, and your spending priorities … that's also where I think there's been a lack of understanding and appreciation by the Albanese government. 'They are spending more than they are bringing in, and they need to modernise a tax system because it can't keep pace with their spending.'
