Against a shifting global conflict landscape marked by rising drone usage in Ukraine and the Middle East, Australia’s Albanese government is moving rapidly to equip the Australian Defence Force (ADF) with cutting-edge counter-drone capabilities, locking in two major domestic contracts worth A$31.7 million as part of a 10-year, A$7 billion investment package. The latest funding announcement doubles the government’s existing commitment to counter-drone technology, aligned with the newly unveiled 2026 National Defence Strategy released last week. This strategy, which includes the biggest peacetime increase in Australian defence spending in modern history, boosts overall defence funding to A$887 billion for the 2023–2026 period, with A$425 billion earmarked for core defence capabilities through the Integrated Investment Program (IIP) — a A$150 billion increase since 2020. On Tuesday, the government confirmed A$21.3 million would go to domestic defence firm AIM Defence, while a further A$10.4 million will be awarded to SYPAQ Systems, two Australian companies leveraging local innovation to address evolving battlefield threats. The investment in AIM Defence will advance the development of the company’s Fractl high-powered counter-drone laser system, a revolutionary directed-energy weapon engineered to neutralize both single unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and large drone swarms. Capable of tracking moving targets as small as a 10C coin at distances exceeding 100 kilometers, the system delivers enough concentrated energy to burn through solid steel, making it effective against even hardened drone designs. For SYPAQ Systems, the funding will support the rollout of its Corvo Strike interceptor drone, a purpose-built kinetic weapon designed to autonomously track, target and eliminate the large UAVs increasingly commonly deployed on modern battlefields. In an official statement, the Australian government noted that while the nation’s unique geographic position has traditionally prioritized capabilities for countering large drones, the changing threat landscape requires urgent acceleration of countermeasures for medium-sized UAVs and small drone swarms — threats that Australian personnel may face both in complex overseas operational environments and during domestic security operations protecting critical infrastructure and civilian populations. Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy emphasized that ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East have clearly demonstrated how uncrewed aerial systems have reshaped modern warfare, becoming an increasingly central tool for adversarial forces. “The development of sovereign counter-drone solutions is essential to ensure the Australian Defence Force can detect, assess and respond to these threats,” Conroy said. Major General Hugh Meggitt, head of the Advanced Strategic Capabilities Accelerator (ASCA), explained that the investment is part of Mission Syracuse, a ADF-focused initiative designed to rapidly advance cutting-edge technology for countering UAV threats by leveraging Australian industry’s global leadership in both kinetic weapons and directed energy systems. “Mission Syracuse will exploit Australian industry’s world leading expertise in kinetic and directed energy to find, fix, track, target and engage Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles,” Meggitt said. “It will significantly enhance the ADF’s ability to counter the threat posed by UAVs employed by malicious actors; domestically and abroad.” Last week, Defence Minister Richard Marles announced the Albanese government would increase defence spending by more than A$53 billion over the coming decade, marking the largest expansion of Australian defence investment in peacetime. The new investment in counter-drone technology underlines the government’s priority of preparing the ADF for emerging asymmetric threats that have become increasingly common in 21st century conflict.
分类： politics
-
Democrats eye Virginia gains in war with Trump over US voting map
As the United States gears up for November’s critical midterm elections, all eyes are turning to Virginia, where voters head to the polls Tuesday for a high-stakes referendum that could upend the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives. What began as a redistricting push championed by former President Donald Trump to shore up Republican advantages has evolved into a major liability for the GOP, with Democrats positioned to pick up four additional congressional seats if the measure passes.
The fight over this ballot initiative sits at the heart of a broader national battle over gerrymandering, the longstanding and widely decried practice of manipulating electoral district boundaries to favor the controlling political party. This clash has emerged as one of the defining issues of the 2024 midterm campaign cycle.
If approved, the measure would allow Virginia to redraw its congressional districts years ahead of the next scheduled nationwide redistricting, which is tied to the decennial U.S. census and not set to occur until 2030. Currently, Democrats hold a narrow 6-5 advantage in the state’s 11 House seats; the new map would boost that edge to 10 out of 11 districts, delivering a major boost to Democratic efforts to flip or retain control of the chamber.
Control of the House currently hangs by a thread, making the Virginia referendum outcome potentially decisive for the trajectory of Donald Trump’s remaining term in office. A Democratic majority would empower the party to block Trump’s legislative agenda and launch new investigations into his administration, while a continued Republican majority would leave Trump with a compliant congressional body aligned with his policy priorities.
The current national redistricting fight traces back to Trump’s 2023 call on Republican-led states to redraw district maps mid-decade, a move designed to protect the GOP’s fragile House majority. That call triggered a tit-for-tat response, with both parties racing to secure additional congressional seats ahead of November’s vote.
Texas was the first major state to act, approving a new map that could net Republicans up to five extra seats. California quickly countered with its own ballot measure aimed at delivering five new seats for Democrats. Now, Virginia represents one of the Democratic Party’s last major opportunities to gain ground through redistricting before voters cast their ballots nationwide.
Democratic Party organizations have poured unprecedented sums of money into the Virginia campaign, turning the referendum into one of the costliest redistricting fights in U.S. history. Combined, the two leading opposing campaigns have raised nearly $100 million, a large share of which comes from so-called “dark money” groups: non-profit organizations that can spend heavily on political activity without revealing the identities of their donors to the public.
According to reporting from *The Hill*, the pro-redistricting group Virginians for Fair Elections has raised the majority of that total, pulling in nearly $65 million to support the yes campaign. Former President Barack Obama, still one of the Democratic Party’s most high-profile and influential surrogates, released a video message urging Virginia voters to support the measure.
“By voting yes, you can push back against the Republicans trying to give themselves an unfair advantage in the midterms… And we’re counting on you,” Obama said.
Democrats frame the Virginia map change as a necessary countermeasure to balance out Trump’s nationwide push for partisan redistricting that benefits Republicans. Republicans, by contrast, decry the initiative as a brazen power grab in a politically competitive state where Trump won 46 percent of the popular vote in the 2024 presidential election.
Virginia Republican Congresswoman Jen Kiggans, whose own congressional district would be reshaped by the new map, told ABC News that ramming through the redistricting plan would “come back to bite” Democrats in future elections.
Early voting and absentee ballot data cited by *The Hill* shows more than one million Virginians have already cast their ballots, with Democrats holding a substantial lead in turnout among early voters. However, recent public opinion polling shows yes supporters hold only a narrow single-digit lead, and political analysts warn the outcome remains far from certain.
Larry Sabato, a prominent political scientist at the University of Virginia, told AFP that a lopsided 10-1 advantage for Democrats is far from a guaranteed outcome. “To get 10 out of 11 seats is not easy, even with Virginia leaning more Democratic,” Sabato said. “And of late… it hasn’t been as Democratic as it had been previously.”
A victory in the referendum would deliver a major political boost to House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who has led national Democratic efforts to neutralize pro-Trump gerrymandered maps passed in Republican-led states. A loss, by contrast, would be a significant blow to Virginia Democratic Governor Abigail Spanberger, who has staked much of her political capital on the push for redistricting and has seen her approval ratings slip amid the high-profile fight.
The outcome in Virginia will also set the stage for the final phase of the national redistricting battle. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has called for a special legislative session to redraw that state’s congressional map, a move that could net Republicans up to five additional seats and potentially erase any Democratic gains from a Virginia victory.
-
Iran top diplomat says country may rejoin Islamabad peace talks
As a fragile two-week ceasefire between Iran and the U.S. enters its final 48 hours ahead of a Wednesday evening expiration, Tehran remains undecided on whether to participate in a new round of peace negotiations scheduled this week in Islamabad, with top Iranian officials slamming the Trump administration for untrustworthy behavior and maximalist negotiating demands that derailed the previous talks.
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei clarified Monday during a regular press briefing that no final decision has been reached on Iranian attendance at the proposed new talks. The earlier round of negotiations held in the Pakistani capital ended without any breakthrough to de-escalate the conflict that the Trump administration and its Israeli ally launched in late February.
Baghaei highlighted a stark contradiction between Washington’s public claims of diplomatic readiness and its recent aggressive actions, pointing specifically to a U.S. military operation over the weekend that seized an Iranian-flagged cargo vessel in the Gulf of Oman. Such moves, he argued, offer no indication of the U.S. being serious about pursuing a constructive diplomatic path.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian echoed these criticisms in a social media post published Monday, calling out what he framed as contradictory and unconstructive signals coming from U.S. officials. Pezeshkian emphasized that upholding commitments is the foundational requirement for any meaningful dialogue, noting that Iran holds deep, history-rooted mistrust of the U.S. government stemming from decades of past aggression against the country. “They seek Iran’s surrender,” Pezeshkian wrote of Trump administration officials. “Iranians do not submit to force.”
Pezeshkian’s remarks came as U.S. President Donald Trump issued stark new threats to resume large-scale bombing operations if no peace deal is reached before the ceasefire expires. The ongoing conflict has already killed more than 3,300 Iranians and displaced millions of civilians. When asked what would happen if talks fail, Trump told PBS News: “Lots of bombs start going off.”
This threat followed an even more extreme warning from Trump: that if Iranian leaders reject his administration’s terms for ending the war, the U.S. will destroy every power plant and bridge across Iran. Legal experts have widely condemned these threats as violations of international law, which explicitly protects civilian infrastructure from intentional attack, noting that the threats themselves qualify as war crimes regardless of whether they are carried out.
Beyond the military standoff, the conflict has sparked growing internal friction within the Trump administration over skyrocketing U.S. gasoline prices. On Monday, Trump publicly contradicted his own Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former fracking industry executive, who suggested over the weekend that U.S. gas prices might not drop below $3 per gallon until 2027.
Wright made the projection during a CNN interview Sunday, when asked when consumers could expect significant price relief after the national average jumped above $4 per gallon following the outbreak of the war. Responding to Wright’s comments in a Monday interview with The Hill, Trump called the energy secretary’s projection “totally wrong” and insisted gas prices would plummet immediately as soon as the conflict ends.
However, independent energy and economic analysts, as well as major reporting from The New York Times, contradict Trump’s optimistic claim. The Times reported Monday that the global economic impact of Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz — which has cut off roughly 20 percent of the world’s global oil supply — is only just beginning to hit global markets, and disruptions will persist for months or even years even if a peace deal is reached quickly.
East Asia is currently bearing the brunt of supply shortages caused by the strait’s closure, but the ripple effects are expected to spread across every major global economy if the waterway remains blocked. Even if a peace deal is signed immediately, the Times reports that the global economy will face months of canceled air travel, soaring food prices, paused factory production, delayed supply chains, and empty shelves for a wide range of consumer and critical goods, from plastic products and instant noodles to microchips, vaccines, medical equipment, and cosmetics. The outlet added that even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens fully tomorrow, it could take years for oil and gas production and shipping to rebound to pre-conflict levels.
Bob McNally, founder and president of energy consulting firm Rapidan Energy Group, confirmed this assessment in comments to Newsweek published Monday. “It is likely we will feel the effects of energy disruptions through the end of the year,” McNally explained. “Even if the conflict and disruptions were to end today, the ripple effects would be felt for many months. Just restarting Gulf production and flows would take three to four months. Repairing damage to facilities could take longer.”
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, also warned that U.S. consumers face continued financial strain in the coming months. In a Sunday social media post, Zandi wrote: “It doesn’t look like gasoline prices will return to pre-war levels anytime soon. That’s even if the war ends soon, which looks iffy, to say the least. And this abstracts from what Americans will need to shell out for higher prices on everything from groceries to airfares in the coming weeks and months. The financial pain caused by the war and its fallout on consumer spending and the economy is set to intensify.”
-
Late Queen Elizabeth II’s legacy still looms over British monarchy 100 years after her birth
LONDON — As the United Kingdom prepares to mark what would have been the 100th birthday of Queen Elizabeth II on Tuesday, the late monarch’s enduring hold on British public affection remains clearly visible, even as debate simmers over her complicated legacy.
Near Buckingham Palace, the Cool Britannia gift shop tells a clear story of public preference: four years after her passing, mugs, tea towels, key chains and other souvenirs bearing the face of Britain’s longest-reigning monarch sell out rapidly, while merchandise featuring her son, current King Charles III, moves far more slowly. Store manager Ismail Ibrahim confirms that on any given day, Elizabeth II-themed products outsell those of the reigning king by a wide margin. Even two years after her death in September 2022, when most living Britons never knew any other monarch, a reference to “the queen” still brings Elizabeth to mind far more often than King Charles’ wife, Queen Camilla.
Elizabeth’s 70-year on the throne shaped the modern British monarchy, transforming her from a glamorous young sovereign who lifted national morale in the grim post-WWII era into a beloved matriarch figure who united the country through the COVID-19 pandemic. But time has also brought growing scrutiny of her legacy. While she is widely celebrated as a symbol of unbroken tradition and national continuity through the end of the British Empire, shifting economic tides and large-scale migration that reshaped Britain’s national identity, one cloud lingers: the prolonged delay in addressing the Jeffrey Epstein scandal linked to her second son, the former Prince Andrew, with critics questioning why the issue was allowed to remain unresolved for years.
“Despite her absence, Elizabeth II remains this key presence whenever we think about the monarchy,” Ed Owens, author of *After Elizabeth: Can the Monarchy Save Itself?*, told the Associated Press. “She’s certainly the most significant figure in the history of the institution in the last 100 years and, I think, therefore deserves probably the attention that’s going to be focused on her in connection with what would have been her 100th birthday.”
Official centenary celebrations include a Buckingham Palace reception hosted by King Charles, where he will honor other centenarians who share Elizabeth’s birth date. A commemorative memorial garden will also be dedicated in London’s Regent’s Park, and an exhibition showcasing the queen’s iconic wardrobe is already open to the public.
What many have forgotten is that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor was never born to be queen. Born on April 21, 1926, in a private London Mayfair townhouse rather than a royal palace, she was the eldest daughter of King George V’s second child, Albert. For the first decade of her life, she was expected to live a quiet, comfortable life as a minor royal: focused on horses, dogs, country estate living and a suitable marriage, far from the spotlight of the crown. That all changed when her uncle, King Edward VIII, abdicated the throne to marry Wallis Simpson, an American divorcée. Elizabeth’s father became King George VI, suddenly catapulting the young princess into position as heir to the British throne. She would officially become queen on February 6, 1952, the day her father died, receiving the news at age 25 while on tour in Kenya before rushing back to London to assume her new role.
For seven decades, Elizabeth carried out her royal duties with meticulous consistency. She presided over the annual State Opening of Parliament, robed in ermine and wearing the imperial crown; hosted state banquets for global leaders at Buckingham Palace; and made thousands of public appearances across the United Kingdom, famously wearing vividly colored tailored outfits to ensure she was visible to crowds. She also served as a global ambassador for the United Kingdom, undertaking more than 200 overseas visits to strengthen ties with former colonies including India and Tanzania, post-war former enemies Germany and Japan, and long-standing allies such as the United States.
Late in her reign, she unexpectedly gained new fame as a global internet icon, thanks to a skit alongside James Bond’s Daniel Craig that seemingly saw her parachute into the 2012 London Olympic Opening Ceremony, and a later viral tea party sketch with beloved children’s character Paddington Bear for her Platinum Jubilee celebrations marking 70 years on the throne.
“In a world of relentless change, she moved with the times — applauding the nation’s successes and consoling Britons during difficult times, while remaining above the fray of politics,” Robert Hardman, author of *Elizabeth II: In private. In public. The Inside Story*, told the AP.
That decades-long record of steady public service makes the delayed response to the Andrew Epstein scandal all the more notable. Despite repeated warnings about Andrew’s boorish conduct, questionable business arrangements and connections to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Andrew served for 10 years as the UK’s international trade envoy and retained his full royal title until 2022, when King Charles finally stripped him of his royal patronages and title, leaving him known publicly by his civilian name Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.
“He was problematic and that gave her cause for worry,” Hardman said. “But I do think people let him have an easy ride because they thought if they came down hard on him, they might somehow upset the queen. Now that’s partly attributable to her, but partly attributable to others.”
Even with that controversy, Hardman argues that Elizabeth’s far-reaching achievements as queen far outweigh any missteps. She took the throne as a 25-year-old mother of two, when intercontinental jet travel was nonexistent and human spaceflight had not yet been achieved, and remained a constant, authoritative presence in British public life through seven decades of massive social, technological and political change. “She just reigned through this vast span of the ages and was as authoritative and loved and respected at the end as she was at the beginning,” Hardman said. “And she was working till the very end, ‘til her last day.”
As historians continue to debate her mixed legacy, ordinary visitors to the UK are forming their own nuanced views. Sylvie Deneux and her daughter Clara, traveling from their home in Lille, France, stopped at the Cool Britannia gift shop during their London trip, and praised Elizabeth as an icon of elegance. When asked about the Andrew scandal, Deneux acknowledged that failing to act sooner was a misstep, but offered sympathy for the late queen, noting the decision was as much a mother’s choice as a monarch’s. “Can we blame her?” Deneux asked. “I’m not sure.”
-
US will provide dollar loan to UAE if economy is jolted by war on Iran, US official says
Amid ongoing financial volatility spurred by the US-Israeli war on Iran, a top White House economic advisor has confirmed that Washington stands ready to offer financial support to the United Arab Emirates should the Gulf ally require economic stabilization. National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett made the commitment in comments to CNBC on Monday, noting that the UAE has served as a critical partner in the regional military campaign.”The UAE has been an incredibly valuable ally throughout this effort, and I’m sure the treasury secretary will make every effort to help them out, should that be necessary,” Hassett stated. He also added that former President Donald Trump had characterized diplomatic efforts to end the conflict as moving forward at a promising pace.Hassett’s comments came in direct response to a Wall Street Journal report revealing that UAE Central Bank Governor Khaled Mohamed Balama privately raised the prospect of a US dollar currency-swap line with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Federal Reserve officials during a closed-door meeting the prior week. While Hassett noted that a currency-swap arrangement would likely not be necessary to stabilize the Emirati economy, he reaffirmed Washington’s willingness to extend support if conditions worsen.To contextualize the proposal, currency swaps are bilateral agreements between central banks that allow participating institutions to access foreign currency at more favorable rates during periods of market stress. For global central banks, access to US dollars via swaps is particularly critical, as the greenback remains the world’s primary reserve currency, used widely for international debt repayment and import purchases. The Emirati dirham has long been pegged to the US dollar at a fixed exchange rate, making stable access to greenbacks a core priority for Emirati monetary policy. Per the WSJ’s reporting, the UAE’s inquiry was framed as preliminary and precautionary, not an immediate request for aid.The remarks have already stirred internal backlash within pro-Trump conservative circles, with prominent right-wing commentator Steve Bannon lambasting the potential aid during an episode of his *War Room* podcast Monday. Bannon launched an angry tirade against the proposal, framing it as an unfair burden on working-class American citizens while wealthy Emirati elites and global influencers benefit from the arrangement. “What are you doing you stupid working American? Paying for it,” Bannon said. “You’re not in that club. You’re just a working stiff out there to defend these scum.”Behind the precautionary request lies a subtle signal from Abu Dhabi: if the US fails to buffer the UAE from the economic fallout of the war, the Gulf state could shift oil trading and other key international transactions away from the US dollar to the Chinese yuan or other alternative currencies. For decades, the UAE and other major Gulf oil producers have priced their crude exports exclusively in US dollars, creating the global petrodollar system that generates consistent demand for greenbacks and supports the dollar’s status as the world’s dominant reserve currency. Petrodollar revenues are routinely reinvested into US Treasury bonds, domestic stocks, and other dollar-denominated assets, cementing the currency’s global position.Some geopolitical analysts have warned that the war on Iran could accelerate a global shift away from the petrodollar system, as Gulf states increasingly distance themselves from Washington’s regional policy and Iran already encourages energy trade settled in yuan. Yet experts who spoke with Middle East Eye note that the US dollar will almost certainly remain the dominant currency for Gulf oil exports for the foreseeable future, even amid the instability caused by the ongoing conflict.The US has deployed currency swap lines as emergency economic lifelines multiple times in recent decades, most notably during the 2008 global financial crisis and the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, when the Federal Reserve extended access to the program to central banks across Europe, Latin America, and other regions. Even so, the UAE’s inquiry has caught many independent analysts off guard: the country is one of the wealthiest nations in the Middle East, with massive sovereign reserves anchored by its consistent oil export revenues. The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, the UAE’s largest sovereign wealth fund, holds approximately $1 trillion in global assets, while the country’s central bank holds an estimated $270 billion in foreign currency reserves.Brad Setser, a former US Treasury economist and current fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, called the UAE’s request “slightly strange” given the country’s substantial existing financial buffers. Setser added that the Trump administration is unlikely to approve the swap line request, arguing that it runs counter to the administration’s signature “America First” policy framework. “There isn’t anything obviously ‘America first’ about a financial lifeline to one of the richest oil sheikdoms (if not the richest) just so it doesn’t have to borrow in the market [or] sell assets,” Setser explained. At the same time, he acknowledged that the request highlights a core tension: “[it is] clear that parts of the UAE aren’t happy about being asked to absorb the full financial costs of Trump’s bombing campaign.”As the closest Gulf ally to Israel, the UAE has faced sustained retaliation from Iran, including thousands of ballistic missile and drone attacks targeting Emirati infrastructure. The ongoing conflict has severely damaged Dubai’s core luxury tourism sector, once one of the emirate’s largest economic drivers, and slowed critical oil export volumes to a fraction of pre-war levels.While some neighboring Gulf states have pushed for diplomatic negotiation to de-escalate tensions with Iran, the UAE has taken a firmly hawkish stance, publicly supporting the continuation of US military action. Analysts attribute this position to the UAE’s heavy dependence on the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic chokepoint through which nearly a fifth of global oil supplies pass each day, as well as elite opposition to allowing Iran to expand its regional influence across the Gulf.
-
Japan takes more revenue from Aussie gas than Australian government, inquiry told
A heated debate over Australia’s fossil fuel taxation regime has moved into the Senate inquiry stage, with policy analysts and activists arguing that a new 25 percent tax on gas exports could unlock billions in annual public revenue and fix a long-running inequity in how the country values its natural resources.
The inquiry was convened to examine Australia’s existing gas tax frameworks, amid growing cross-political pressure to either introduce the new export tax or raise the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) on extraordinary windfall profits earned by gas producers. Industry groups have pushed back hard against these proposals, warning that higher taxes would threaten domestic energy security and damage long-standing trade relationships with key Asian customers.
Speaking to the inquiry this week, Richard Denniss, executive director of progressive think tank the Australia Institute, laid out a striking new finding from the organization’s research: the Japanese government collects more annual tax revenue from imported Australian gas than the entire Australian government collects from exporting the same resource. Denniss noted that the Japanese government pulls in roughly $8 billion annually in combined taxes from imported coal and gas, a large share of which comes from Australia, one of Japan’s largest energy suppliers.
Denniss framed the proposed 25 percent export tax as a once-in-a-generation chance to correct this imbalance, arguing that parliament has a rare opportunity to bridge partisan divides on an issue that has resonated across the political spectrum. He stressed that the tax would not drive up energy costs for Japan or other export customers, pointing to Norway’s heavily taxed gas sector as evidence that global market pricing insulates buyers from exporting nation tax changes. “There’s no Norway premium for Norwegian gas, which is heavily taxed. All of the gas is selling at the same world price,” Denniss explained. He added that if Japan were concerned about domestic energy prices, it could simply lower its own import tariffs to offset any impact. Beyond revenue, Denniss argued the tax would boost domestic gas supply by incentivizing exporters to sell more domestically, driving down local gas prices for Australian households and businesses.
The Australia Institute estimates the 25 percent export tax would generate as much as $17 billion in new annual government revenue. Denniss also pushed back on industry claims that the gas sector is a major driver of Australian employment, noting that the industry directly employs only around 18,000 people – far fewer than the 100,000 Australians working at McDonald’s. He added that nurses collectively pay more in annual income tax than the entire gas industry pays in corporate taxes.
Adam Bandt, former leader of the Australian Greens and current chief executive of the Australian Conservation Foundation, who is also appearing before the inquiry, laid out one potential use for the new revenue: permanently free public transport across Australia. Bandt argued that forcing gas corporations to pay their fair share of tax would be wildly popular, saying “They would be erecting statues in every town square for the first prime minister that makes the gas corporations pay their fair share of tax and uses it to fund free public transport, grow the industries of the future or pay for the clean up after cyclones and floods.” He noted that there is broad public support for a full review of Australia’s outdated gas tax rules.
Konrad Benjamin, a former schoolteacher and founder of grassroots advocacy group Punters Politics, told the inquiry that many ordinary Australian voters feel they are being exploited by the current low-tax regime for gas producers. “We, millions of regular Aussies, are now paying attention, and we understand a few things that we might not have understood before,” Benjamin said. “We understand that Australia’s gas is incredibly valuable. We understand that we’re giving most of it away for free to foreign corporations. We understand that those same foreign corporations pay close to bugger-all tax.” He questioned why, as a major resource holder, Australia is failing to capture the economic benefits of its own natural gas, especially as governments constantly claim they cannot afford to increase funding for public services like schools amid global economic volatility.
Opponents of the new tax have raised a number of concerns, warning that the policy could jeopardize Australia’s critical trade relationships with major Asian gas importers, which are key economic partners for Australia. Industry groups also reaffirm their position that higher taxes would undermine investment in domestic energy production and threaten long-term national energy security.
-
Japan approves scrapping a ban on lethal weapons exports in a change of its postwar pacifist policy
In a landmark shift that upends seven decades of postwar pacifist governance, Japan’s Cabinet led by Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi gave formal approval Tuesday to eliminate long-standing restrictions on lethal weapons exports, clearing the last regulatory barriers for the country to expand its international arms trade.
-
New Zealand Prime Minister Luxon survives party leadership vote months before election
WELLINGTON, New Zealand — In a dramatic move to end swirling speculation about his political future, New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced Tuesday he has emerged victorious from a secret confidence vote held by his own National Party caucus. The leadership challenge was triggered by weeks of sliding poll ratings for the center-right party, which fueled widespread rumors that Luxon could be removed from his post months ahead of the country’s scheduled general election.
The confidence ballot was held during an extended meeting of National Party parliamentarians at Wellington’s Parliament House. Originally scheduled as a routine one-hour caucus gathering, the meeting stretched to two and a half hours as lawmakers debated Luxon’s leadership. Speaking to reporters after the closed-door session, Luxon confirmed he had personally called for the confidence vote to put an end to persistent media speculation about internal unrest within the party.
“The past week has been dominated by constant media speculation about my position as leader,” Luxon told reporters. “I called this vote to lay that speculation to rest once and for all.” The prime minister declined to release the exact breakdown of votes, nor would he confirm whether the result was unanimous, before leaving without taking questions from the press.
Luxon, a former airline chief executive who entered Parliament in 2020 and has led the National Party since 2021, has governed New Zealand as head of a right-wing coalition government since the 2023 general election. The country’s next national election is set for November 7 this year, putting the leadership vote roughly six months before voters head to the polls.
Recent polling had made discussion of a leadership challenge unavoidable, even as ousting a sitting prime minister mid-term remains an extremely rare occurrence in New Zealand’s modern political history. The most recent 1News-Verian poll showed a notable slump in support for both Luxon personally and the National Party, projecting that if an election were held immediately, the right-wing bloc led by National would trail the left-wing opposition bloc headed by the Labour Party.
Luxon pinned the spread of rumors about internal party division on media coverage, saying he would not continue to engage with unsubstantiated speculation. “If the media want to keep focusing on speculation and rumor, I am not going to engage,” he said. New Zealand’s recent political history has seen two prime ministers — National’s John Key and Labour’s Jacinda Ardern — voluntarily step down from the role, but no sitting prime minister has been forced out by their own party in modern times.
-
Lori Chavez-DeRemer out as US labour secretary
In a sudden development announced by the White House on Monday, United States Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer is stepping down from her cabinet post to accept a new role in the private sector. Her exit comes after months of growing public criticism and an ongoing internal probe into alleged improper conduct by the 58-year-old cabinet leader, whose department oversees federal workplace regulations and manages the national unemployment insurance system.
The departure of Chavez-DeRemer marks the latest high-profile turnover in the Trump administration, following two other major cabinet shakeups in recent months: the removal of Pam Bondi from the post of Attorney General in early April, and the March firing of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who led the administration’s restrictive immigration policy initiatives.
In the official public statement shared Monday afternoon on the social platform X by White House Communications Director Steven Cheung, the administration highlighted what it framed as Chavez-DeRemer’s successful tenure. The statement praised her for doing a “phenomenal job” in the role, crediting her with protecting American workers, implementing equitable labor standards, and expanding upskilling opportunities to help US workers boost their long-term career prospects.
Cheung also confirmed that Keith Sonderling will immediately step into the position of acting Labor Secretary to lead the department until a permanent successor is named.
Reports of an investigation into Chavez-DeRemer first emerged in January, when the New York Post broke the news that the Labor Department’s independent inspector general had opened a probe into allegations of workplace misconduct against the secretary. As this is a developing breaking news story, additional details surrounding the investigation and the circumstances of the secretary’s departure are still emerging. Updates will be posted as more information becomes available, and readers can access real-time alerts by following BBC Breaking on X or downloading the BBC News mobile application.
-
Israeli, Lebanese officials to meet Thursday for 2nd round of talks — Israeli state media
Weeks of intense cross-border conflict between Israel and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah have given way to a fragile truce, and now officials from both nations are set to meet for a second round of direct negotiations aimed at locking in long-term stability along their shared border.
A senior Israeli official, speaking on condition of anonymity to Xinhua News Agency on Monday, confirmed that the talks will take place Thursday in the U.S. capital Washington. While the official declined to share additional details about the negotiating agenda or expected outcomes, multiple sources have already confirmed leadership for both delegations.
Israeli outlet Reuters, quoting an anonymous Israeli government source, reports that Yechiel Leiter, Israel’s ambassador to the United States who participated in the first round of talks held earlier this month, will lead the Israeli negotiating team this week. On the Lebanese side, the country’s presidency made an official announcement via social media platform X on Monday morning confirming that former Lebanese Ambassador to the U.S. Simon Karam will head the Lebanese delegation.
The presidency emphasized in its statement that Karam is the sole authorized representative for Lebanon in these talks, noting that “No one else will participate on Lebanon’s behalf or take its place in this mission.” The talks are also structured as an independent negotiation track separate from any other ongoing diplomatic efforts between the two sides, the statement added.
This upcoming meeting marks the first formal negotiation between the two parties since the 10-day ceasefire agreement came into force at 2100 GMT on Thursday, ending weeks of deadly exchanges of fire that displaced tens of thousands of civilians on both sides of the border. Ahead of the ceasefire, an Israeli strike on a bridge in southern Lebanon’s Qasmiyeh region left two people dead, with rescuers working to recover their bodies just hours before the truce took hold, according to on-the-ground reports from April 20.
Lebanon has laid out clear core objectives for the negotiations: the permanent end to all hostilities along the border, a full Israeli withdrawal from occupied southern Lebanese territories, and the deployment of the official Lebanese army to the country’s internationally recognized southern border. In its statement, the Lebanese presidency framed the current moment as a stark binary choice for all parties: either continue a prolonged conflict that would carry devastating humanitarian, social, economic, and national sovereignty costs, or work toward a lasting negotiated settlement that can end years of tensions along the border.