标签： Oceania

Australia’s Albanese government has firmly rejected two high-profile changes to the nation’s superannuation system pushed by One Nation: raising the mandatory employer superannuation guarantee from 12% to 15%, and expanding early access to retirement savings to help households cope with the ongoing cost of living crisis. The policy clash comes on the heels of the high-profile 2025 collapse of two major industry superannuation funds, Shield and First Guardian Master Funds, which has left roughly A$1 billion in member savings in limbo.

Addressing the National Press Club in Canberra on Wednesday, Assistant Treasurer Daniel Mulino described the collapse of the two funds as a deeply troubling event that has upended the financial security of thousands of Australian households. Speaking to ABC Radio National Breakfast ahead of the address, Mulino detailed the harm inflicted by the failure: nearly 12,000 individual fund members and their families have lost large portions of their retirement savings, with some losing their entire accumulated balances. He condemned what he called “predatory and inappropriate” industry practices that led to the collapse.

Despite calls from crossbench lawmakers to revisit legislated increases to the superannuation guarantee, Mulino ruled out any plans to lift the mandatory rate from its current 12% to the proposed 15%. He noted that reaching the 12% benchmark required decades of sustained effort from successive Labor governments, which fought intense opposition from conservative parties to secure the current framework. Mulino argued the 12% guarantee, applied consistently across a worker’s entire career, will deliver robust retirement balances for millions of Australians, with results already visible in the national super system.

Beyond individual financial security, Mulino emphasized that the current 12% guarantee delivers major systemic benefits, easing long-term fiscal pressure on Australia’s public pension system. Official data and long-term projections already bear out this impact, he said, while also providing individual workers with an extra layer of financial safety in retirement that cannot be replicated by public benefits alone. “That is a very important and strong part of our system,” Mulino added.

The government’s firm rejection of reform comes as One Nation steps up pressure to loosen access rules for superannuation, framing expanded early withdrawal as a solution to soaring household costs driven by the cost of living crisis. One Nation treasury spokesman Barnaby Joyce argued that superannuation savings are private property, not a collective national asset, and that households facing financial hardship deserve simpler, broader access to their own funds.

“When you need access to your money because you can’t pay your groceries, or you’re going to get booted out of your house, that it’s not as arduous as what it’s been made,” Joyce told News24. Pushing back against criticism that early withdrawals would erode long-term retirement savings by breaking compound interest growth, Joyce noted that losing a home to eviction or foreclosure carries far greater long-term financial costs for vulnerable households. He added that there should be no overly restrictive limits on what Australians can use early super withdrawals for, arguing that covering emergency housing costs like rent is a perfectly legitimate use of a person’s own savings.

Joyce also launched a scathing attack on the Albanese government for its rejection of One Nation’s proposal, repeating prior criticisms of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to question the government’s credibility, and insisting the party has no intention of abolishing the superannuation system entirely. The debate over superannuation policy is set to intensify in coming weeks as the government faces ongoing pressure to address cost of living pressures across the country, with more details expected to emerge as the discussion develops.

A recent Israeli strike on a Syrian air base in the northwestern province of Idlib has sparked a sharp diplomatic rebuke from Turkey and exposed growing rifts between Israel and the United States over the future of post-Assad Syria. The incident, which US officials have publicly attributed to Israel, marks a significant escalation of Israeli military activity in Syria just months after the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s long-ruling government, and has further inflamed long-simmering tensions between Ankara and Jerusalem.

After more than 24 hours of official silence following the strike, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office released a statement defending the action, framing it as a response to an impending security threat. The statement claimed that Israel and Syria had maintained an informal status quo on security arrangements, which Syria was set to violate by allowing Turkish military forces to deploy to the Abu Duhur air base near Aleppo. “Israel repeatedly warned Syria that such a deployment would pose a threat to Israel’s security. Syria chose to ignore these warnings,” the statement read, stopping short of explicitly confirming Israeli responsibility for the attack.

Turkey, which has been a key backer of Syria’s new transitional government led by former jihadist commander Ahmed al-Sharaa, rejected the Israeli claims outright in an official statement released Wednesday and carried by Turkey’s state-run Anadolu News Agency. Ankara slammed the allegations as a cynical attempt to justify an illegal attack that violates Syria’s fundamental sovereignty and territorial integrity. “The frivolous allegations put forward by the Israeli Prime Minister’s office aim to legitimize Israel’s unlawful airstrikes targeting Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” the Turkish government statement said.

The strike also represents an unusual open defiance of the United States, which has moved to support Sharaa’s new administration as it works to consolidate control across Syria after Assad’s ouster in December 2024. Tom Barrack, the US envoy for Syria and ambassador to Ankara who has close personal business ties to US President Donald Trump, confirmed Israel’s role in the attack in a post on X Tuesday. Barrack called the strike an “unnecessary escalation that does not advance regional stability” and urged all parties to prioritize diplomatic dialogue over further military action. “We encourage all parties to prioritise logical discourse over further military incidents,” he wrote.

Since Assad’s government fell to Turkish-backed Islamist opposition forces led by Sharaa, Israel has launched hundreds of strikes across Syrian territory, stepping up a long-running campaign targeting what it says are Iranian-aligned militant assets in the country. Israel has also deployed troops into the UN-patrolled buffer zone on the occupied Golan Heights that has separated Israeli and Syrian forces since the 1974 disengagement agreement, and has carried out regular ground incursions deeper into Syrian territory. This most recent strike penetrated much further north into Syria than Israel’s typical limited security zone operations near the Golan, a move widely interpreted as Israel seeking to exploit the chaos of Syria’s political transition to advance its own strategic interests before the new government can consolidate power.

Syrian state media, citing a military source, reported that Israeli aircraft carried out eight separate strikes targeting the base’s runway, causing significant damage to infrastructure but no reported casualties. A security source speaking to AFP confirmed that the Abu Duhur facility had been non-operational since 2012 and is currently secured by forces aligned with Syria’s new defense ministry. The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a prominent war monitor, reported that the strikes followed a recent visit by a Turkish military delegation to the airfield as part of international efforts to reactivate the facility for security operations.

Relations between Netanyahu and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan have deteriorated sharply in recent years, reaching new lows amid Israel’s devastating military offensive in Gaza that Erdogan has repeatedly and vociferously condemned. While Turkey was the first Muslim-majority nation to formally recognize Israel and remains a NATO ally of the United States, ideological differences and competing regional interests have driven a deep wedge between Ankara and Jerusalem in recent years. Tensions spilled into Israeli domestic politics ahead of October’s national elections, when Netanyahu’s Likud party ran campaign billboards that pictured Erdogan alongside Naim Qassem, the leader of Iran-backed Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, framing the two as foreign actors pushing for Netanyahu’s electoral defeat.

Syria’s transitional government joined Turkey in condemning the attack, releasing a statement that labeled the strike “an unjustified act of aggression” and called on the UN Security Council to take formal action to hold Israel accountable. The foreign ministry stressed that Syria’s new administration has exercised deliberate restraint since taking power, working to consolidate domestic stability and avoid regional escalation that could derail its political transition.

Interestingly, despite rising cross-border tensions, Israeli officials and representatives of Syria’s new government have already held multiple rounds of direct bilateral talks, and the two sides have agreed to establish a formal intelligence-sharing mechanism. But core territorial disputes remain unresolved. Last month, Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani demanded an unconditional full withdrawal of Israeli forces from all Syrian territory occupied since 1974, warning that the continued Israeli presence beyond the 1974 disengagement line poses a direct threat to regional security. Just one week later, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz reaffirmed that Israel has no plans to withdraw its forces from Syrian territory, cementing the status quo of occupation.

During a high-profile visit to Damascus last month, UN Secretary-General António Guterres echoed the global majority position, stating that all violations of Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity are unacceptable and must end, and explicitly reaffirmed that the Golan Heights is internationally recognized Syrian territory. Israel captured the majority of the Golan Heights from Syria during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War and later formally annexed the territory, a move that has never been recognized by the vast majority of the international community.

In a landmark development marking a new chapter of nuclear transparency in Syria, the head of the United Nations’ atomic watchdog confirmed Tuesday that international inspectors have recovered several tons of nuclear material from an undeclared site that Syria’s new administration formally reported to the agency last month.

Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), made the announcement during an official visit to Syria, where he traveled to inspect two locations: the long-controversial Al-Kibar site in Deir Ezzor in eastern Syria, and the second undeclared location where the nuclear stockpile was discovered. The announcement came just one month after Damascus notified the IAEA of the stockpile, which it says was left behind by the ousted government of former leader Bashar al-Assad.

During a joint press conference in Damascus with Syrian Foreign Minister Asaad al-Shaibani, Grossi commended the current administration for what he called a “courageous decision” to voluntarily disclose the previously unreported site. “We are talking about a few tons of nuclear material that could be put to bad use,” Grossi told reporters, adding that the IAEA would immediately bring the material under full international safeguards to eliminate any proliferation risks.

Shaibani confirmed that Syria sent an official notification of the stockpile to the IAEA on July 17, stating that the government chose to declare the materials of its own free will as part of the legacy left by the former regime. He added that initial technical evaluations have concluded the materials do not pose an immediate active risk, and that the stockpile will remain under national Syrian ownership while adhering fully to the IAEA’s safeguard protocols.

Grossi reaffirmed the IAEA’s commitment to overseeing the material, saying “this material will be accounted for, will be put within the international safeguards system.” He noted that IAEA and Syrian technical experts will collaborate on developing protocols for the long-term safe storage of the nuclear materials, framing the disclosure as a turning point in relations between Syria and the global non-proliferation body. “We are starting to turn a page, and turning a page does not mean forgetting the past,” he said.

The discovery of the material draws new attention to the long-standing controversy over Syria’s former nuclear activities, centered on the Al-Kibar site in Deir Ezzor that has been shuttered for 18 years. In 2007, Israel carried out a secretive air strike that destroyed the uncompleted facility, a mission it only publicly acknowledged in 2011. A year after the strike, U.S. officials publicly accused Syria of constructing a secret nuclear reactor at the site, with alleged assistance from North Korea. The IAEA formally concluded in 2011 that the site was “very likely” a functional nuclear reactor under construction.

Pierre Razoux, academic director of the French FMES Institute think tank, told Agence France-Presse the newly discovered material is “most likely… linked to the Syrian nuclear program, which was halted in 2007 after the Israeli raid on the Al-Kibar site.” He added that another potential origin for the stockpile could be nuclear materials that Iraq disposed of at the beginning of the 2000s following the U.S.-led invasion.

Grossi said the find confirms the IAEA’s long-held suspicions about undeclared nuclear activities in Syria, noting that extensive excavation and investigation work is ongoing at the Deir Ezzor site. Last year, the watchdog confirmed that inspectors had detected particles of enriched uranium at the site during a 2024 inspection.

Grossi’s high-profile visit comes one week after U.S. news outlet Axios reported that Washington and the IAEA had reached a deal to remove nuclear material from the clandestine Syrian site, following closed-door understandings with both Syria and Israel. According to the Axios report, Israeli officials had closely monitored a location dubbed “Site 99” where the Assad government was believed to have stored nuclear material leftover from the Al-Kibar project, and Israel had issued public threats to carry out a new bombing campaign on the site if the material was not secured.

A deepening diplomatic rift between France and Iran escalated sharply this week, after French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot announced Tuesday that Paris would expel two Iranian diplomats stationed in France. The move comes as direct retaliation for Iran’s decision to ban two French diplomats from its Tehran embassy, a step Iran took following the brief detention of the envoys last month over allegations of improper interference in Iranian internal affairs.

In a public post on the social platform X, Barrot confirmed that the two Iranian diplomats would be expelled from French territory in the coming days. He framed the decision as a direct response to what he called the “intolerable” treatment of the French diplomats, who were taken into custody and questioned by Iranian security officials for several hours on July 19. Barrot emphasized that the detention and interrogation constituted a blatant violation of long-established international standards of diplomatic immunity.

The French foreign minister further alleged that the two envoys, one of whom served as France’s cultural attaché in Tehran, were subjected to severe intimidation tactics at the hands of Iran’s security services, with one diplomat reporting physical abuse during detention. Barrot argued that the attack on the diplomats was a deliberate response to France’s longstanding support for Iranian civilians, including artists, scientists and academic researchers working within the country.

“It is precisely because France stands shoulder to shoulder with the Iranian people, supporting their artists, scientists and researchers, that two French diplomats were scandalously and deliberately attacked on 19 July,” Barrot said in his statement.

Iranian authorities have repeatedly rejected France’s claims of mistreatment, asserting that the diplomats were only held for a short period of questioning and that their actions clearly constituted interference in Iran’s domestic politics under the cover of engaging with local civil society groups. On Monday, the Iranian foreign ministry formally notified France that the two French diplomats would not be permitted to re-enter the country to resume their posts. A preliminary investigation by Iran’s intelligence ministry concluded the pair were developing a wide-ranging influence campaign aimed at undermining Iranian national sovereignty.

The July 19 meeting that sparked the diplomatic crisis also led to the arrest of two prominent Iranian graphic artists, 46-year-old Aria Kasaei and 36-year-old Elly Naghilou, who have remained in detention since the encounter. Supporters of the artists confirmed to Agence France-Presse on Monday that the designers were arrested at Kasaei’s Tehran home while meeting with the French diplomats to discuss development of visual branding for Villa Zadig, an upcoming French-backed cultural project.

In a formal statement, the artists’ supporters called on Iranian authorities to grant the pair access to independent legal representation and guarantee their safety and protection of fundamental human rights. The statement also noted that French diplomats witnessed part of the arrest process, and called on the French government to conduct a full investigation into the circumstances of the detention and take all necessary action to secure the artists’ safety and eventual release. Barrot did not reference the arrests of the Iranian artists in his Tuesday public statement.

International human rights organizations have documented a growing crackdown on civil society activity across Iran since large-scale anti-government protests shook the country’s clerical leadership in January, a crackdown that has accelerated amid escalating regional tensions following the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war.

In a high-stakes legal clash that spotlights rising tensions between the executive branch and independent media, The Walt Disney Company and its broadcast subsidiary ABC have taken the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to federal court, alleging a coordinated retaliatory campaign targeting the network at the direction of the Trump administration. The legal challenge, filed Tuesday in a Washington D.C. federal district court, was triggered by the FCC’s unusual decision to force an early license renewal for ABC’s eight owned-and-operated television stations — a process that was not scheduled to begin until 2028. The complaint lays bare what ABC calls a deliberate pattern of political retaliation, arguing that the entire effort stems from the Trump administration’s disapproval of the network’s editorial content. The suit states, “Over time, those attacks have escalated into express demands that ABC be stripped of its broadcast licenses because of its speech.” This is not the first conflict between former president Donald Trump and ABC. Trump, a famously litigious Republican figure, has repeatedly publicly attacked the network, particularly targeting its popular late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, and has openly floated the idea of revoking licenses for outlets that he claims are “almost 100% negative” in their coverage of him. Trump has a well-documented history of defamation claims against major media organizations over coverage that he disputes. Just this year, two high-profile cases against major broadcasters concluded: a suit against ABC, centered on statements regarding a civil judgment in a sexual assault case, ended in December 2024 with a $15 million settlement paid by the network, while a separate suit against CBS, brought over editing of an interview with 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris that Trump claimed was misleading, ended in July 2025 with a $16 million settlement from the network. Two more major cases remain active: a $10 billion lawsuit against the BBC over an allegedly misleading edit of a Trump speech, and another against *The Wall Street Journal* for publishing what is reported to be a salacious birthday letter Trump sent to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In its latest legal filing, Disney and ABC frame the early license review as an existential threat to the network’s First Amendment rights. The suit argues that the accelerated timeline “underscores the Commission’s true purpose: coercing and retaliating against a network that refuses to bow to the Administration’s demands.” “Facing this existential threat, Plaintiffs have no choice but to seek redress from the judicial branch for the Administration’s blatant retaliation for their First Amendment speech,” the filing adds. The network is asking the court to issue an immediate restraining order that would block the FCC from moving forward with any punitive action related to the broadcast licenses. The legal action has drawn support from Anna Gomez, the only FCC commissioner appointed by a Democratic president, who framed the suit as a necessary rebuke of what she calls “government intimidation.” “For months, the FCC has waged a campaign of censorship and control against Disney’s ABC stations, using the threat of broadcast license revocations to punish a company for speech this administration doesn’t like,” Gomez said in a public statement. She added, “It is time this administration understands that the Constitution does not bend to political convenience, and that the First Amendment protects the news and commentary Americans see on their screens even when those in power wish it didn’t.” The case marks a major test of the separation of powers in the U.S. and raises pressing questions about the independence of media from political pressure, as outlets increasingly face legal and regulatory pushback from the administration over critical coverage.