Category: Australian News

The Coalition will introduce new federal laws to defend the Australian flag, protect Australia Day, and crack down on people who vandalise the memorials that honour our history and those who served our country.

In the last fortnight, a war memorial in the small western Victorian community of Dobie was badly vandalised. A commemorative plaque honouring local veterans was stolen, the memorial was covered in political graffiti and surrounding plants and trees were destroyed.

It came barely a month after vandals targeted the 100-year-old war memorial at nearby Beaufort, spray-painting slogans including “death to Australia” and “death to the ADF” across a memorial honouring local Australians who served in the First World War.

Earlier this year, vandals destroyed Melbourne’s 155-year-old Pioneer Monument in the Flagstaff Gardens and graffitied the site with vile anti-Australian slogans.

On Australia Day, an Australian flag was set alight at an “Invasion Day” protest in Brisbane, prompting renewed calls for stronger legal protection of the national flag.

Enough is enough. 

Australians are entitled to be proud of their country and we should protect the symbols and memorials that have made us the great nation we are.

Australians should not have to watch our flag being burned, century-old memorials being smashed, or the names of Australians who served our country being covered in political graffiti, only to be told this is just another form of protest.

To this end, the Coalition will introduce an Australian National Symbols and Heritage Protection Bill to give these important national symbols proper protection under Commonwealth law.

Under the Coalition’s plan, we will:

• Protect Australia Day on 26 January in Commonwealth law, with any future change to our national day requiring the approval of the Australian people through a national plebiscite.
• Create a federal criminal offence for serious public desecration of the Australian National Flag where a person is reckless as to whether their actions will incite hatred or violence, or threaten public order or cause a public disturbance.
• Create a federal criminal offence with serious penalties for deliberately damaging, defacing, desecrating or destroying war memorials and other significant memorials commemorating Australia’s history.

The laws would protect not only traditional war memorials but significant monuments, statues, plaques and commemorative structures recognising the people, events, and institutions that form part of Australia’s national story.

Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Angus Taylor MP said Australians should never be made to apologise for loving their country.

“Australians are rightly proud of our country, its history and what generations of Australians have built together”, Mr Taylor said.

“Our flag represents the country we love. Our war memorials honour Australians who put their lives on the line for us. And Australia Day is our national day that unites us all.”

“These things belong to the Australian people and they should not be torn down, smashed, desecrated, or quietly stripped of their significance. The Coalition will protect these symbols and memorials and we won’t be shy in standing up for the national pride that we should all feel for our great country.” 

Shadow Attorney-General, Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash, said Australians should not have to accept the destruction of their national heritage as the price of free expression.

“Freedom of speech is fundamental in Australia, but freedom of speech does not mean freedom to destroy,” Senator Cash said.

“There is a clear difference between making a political argument and taking a can of spray paint to the names of Australians who fought and died for this country.”

Shadow Minister for Defence Personnel and Afghanistan and veteran, Phillip Thompson OAM MP, said attacks on war memorials were particularly offensive to veterans, serving personnel, and their families.

“When someone paints ‘death to the ADF’ across a war memorial, Australians know instinctively that something is badly wrong,” Mr Thompson said.

“Those memorials carry the names of ordinary Australians who left their homes, their families and their communities to serve our country. Many never came home.”

“We will make sure there are real consequences.”

Federal Member for Bowman, Henry Pike MP, said decisions about Australia’s national day should belong to Australians.

“Australia Day does not belong to politicians, bureaucrats, or activists. It belongs to the Australian people,” Mr Pike said.

“If Australia is ever going to change its national day, that decision should be made by Australians themselves.”

“Australia’s history is worth defending. We should teach it, learn from it, and be proud of what this extraordinary country has become, not erase it.”

The Coalition believes Australia is the greatest country in the world and it is worth protecting.

We will stand up for our country, honour those who came before us, and protect the Australian way of life for generations to come.

These measures form part of Our Plan to Fix the Economy and Protect Our Way of Life with Lower Taxes, Cheaper Power, Less Migration and More Homes, while Putting Australians First.

Family First National Director and NSW Legislative Council candidate Lyle Shelton says the sexual assault of young women cannot be addressed by a government program shaped by an ideology that cannot clearly define what a woman is, warning that another review of school-based consent education ignores the deeper cultural crisis confronting young people.

The Sunday Telegraph reported that federal Education Minister Jason Clare will fund a review of consent and respectful relationships education in schools following a spate of alleged sexual assaults involving Sydney students.

Mr Shelton said governments were looking in the wrong place for the solution.

How can a program teach young men to respect women when our political and educational establishment struggles to even define what a woman is?” Mr Shelton said.

Respect for women is not primarily formed by a government program. Ideally, it is learned first in the home, where a boy sees his father love, honour and respect his mother and understands from childhood that women are not objects for his gratification.”

Mr Shelton said the decline of marriage and the normalisation of pornography and prostitution had helped create a culture in which women were increasingly objectified.

For decades our culture has progressively dismantled the institutions and moral guardrails that taught men responsibility towards women,” Mr Shelton said.

Marriage is almost never promoted by governments as a public good. Pornography is ubiquitous and accessible to teenagers. Prostitution has been normalised and, in some jurisdictions, effectively treated as ordinary work. Then we express shock when young men absorb the message that women’s bodies exist for male gratification.”

Mr Shelton said the problem stretched from high-school students to elite sporting culture.

Whether we are talking about disturbing allegations involving school students or controversies involving professional footballers, we should be willing to ask what sort of culture we have created,” he said.

One respectful-relationships lesson cannot compete with hours of pornography teaching boys a completely different lesson about women, sex and intimacy.”

Consent education has been compulsory in Australian primary and secondary schools since 2023, with the federal government committing $77.6 million over five years.

Mr Shelton said reviewing and expanding the existing program would not address the underlying causes.

The program is already compulsory. The taxpayers have already spent tens of millions of dollars. If the message is not getting through, simply reviewing the program and giving children more of the same is not an answer.”

He said the best long-term protection for women required rebuilding a culture in which marriage, family, fatherhood and sexual responsibility were again valued.

We need fathers modelling respect for mothers. We need public policy that recognises marriage and stable families as a social good. And we desperately need to confront a pornography culture that is shaping young men’s understanding of sex before parents and teachers even know what has happened.

Until we rebuild a culture of marriage and family, and until we challenge the pornography and prostitution culture that reduces women to commodities, women will remain vulnerable.”

Mr Shelton warned parents to be wary of another ideological program being introduced through the review process.

We have seen this before with Safe Schools. A program carrying an unobjectionable title became a vehicle for contested ideas about sex and gender,” he said.

Another review of a flawed, woke school program will achieve nothing if governments refuse to confront the cultural forces teaching boys to objectify women.”

Protecting women requires more than another curriculum document. It requires a culture that knows what a woman is, honours marriage, supports mothers and fathers, and teaches boys that becoming a man means responsibility, self-control and respect.”

KEY FACTS:
Federal Education Minister Jason Clare said the federal government will fund a review of the consent and respectful relationships education program in schools after a series of alleged sexual assaults involving Sydney school students. Mr Clare said the past few weeks had been “devastating” and “we need to make sure the message is getting through”. It is understood the review will examine how the program is working and whether it needs further strengthening (The Sunday Telegraph, 30 August 2026).
Consent education was strengthened and mandated in primary and secondary schools across Australia from 2023 after education ministers agreed to an age-appropriate consent curriculum. The federal government committed $77.6 million over five years to support respectful relationships education.
The controversial Safe Schools program received $8 million in federal funding and was rolled out nationally from 2014 as an anti-bullying initiative. Following controversy and a 2016 review, the federal government imposed restrictions on the program. Federal funding subsequently ceased and New South Wales withdrew from the program in 2017.
Family First’s education policy supports parents as the primary educators of their children and opposes gender ideology in schools and early childhood programs.

A landmark six-nation partnership backed by the Albanese Government has delivered the East Micronesia Cable system, bringing reliable, high-capacity telecommunications connectivity to communities across Micronesia for the first time.

The 2,250 km East Micronesia Cable will bring faster, more reliable and more affordable internet to over 100,000 people across Naoero, Tarawa in Kiribati and Kosrae in the Federated States of Micronesia. This will provide the regional connectivity that underpins essential services, economic activity and community relationships.

The cable also greatly reduces the risk of telecommunications outages, helping people and businesses stay connected to the everyday services they rely on.

The Australian Government contributed approximately $AUD65 million to the $AUD135 million project through the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific.

Bringing together the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati and Naoero, with support from Australia, Japan and the United States, the project demonstrates what can be achieved when Pacific countries and partners work together to deliver shared regional priorities.

With the East Micronesia Cable complete, all Pacific Islands Forum members are now connected to undersea telecommunications infrastructure for the first time, a milestone supporting a more connected and digitally resilient Blue Pacific.

Foreign Minister Penny Wong: 

“Improved connectivity enhances the Pacific region’s resilience and capacity to respond to economic and security challenges.

“The East Micronesia Cable will drive growth and opportunity, strengthen essential services and contribute to long-term regional stability, which benefits us all.”

Pacific Island Affairs Minister Pat Conroy: 

“The East Micronesia Cable demonstrates what can be achieved when Pacific nations work together for the benefit of the region.

“Together with the Pacific and partners Japan and the United States, we are delivering lasting infrastructure that builds a safe, peaceful and prosperous region and will benefit Pacific communities for decades to come.

“The East Micronesia Cable will help families stay connected, support businesses to grow, expand access to education and healthcare and create new opportunities in an increasingly digital world.”

The Greens have spent years pushing for these reforms, and it is genuinely good to see the government finally moving to a ‘fair and reasonable test’ to protect privacy and a modernised definition of personal information, and stronger data breach rules. 

There are substantial gaps in the draft bill including the lack of action to prevent individuals using ‘smart’ glasses to collect and broadcast other people’s personal information, especially as recording devices get smaller, smarter, and easier to wear without anyone else knowing. 

Likewise the ‘right to erasure’ reform is critically important, but only applies to a tiny fraction of the companies collecting personal information about you, being limited to “large digital platforms” with more than $500 million revenue or 2.5 million monthly user threshold. If a company is able to create systems to capture your data it is reasonable to impose a requirement to delete that data on request. 

The Government also hasn’t touched the small business and employee records exemptions to privacy laws despite years of recommendations on this. With the absence of prescriptive rules preventing data harvesting and tracking of children, the Greens will be working to ensure these major privacy issues are addressed as the bill works its way through Parliament.

The short time frame and 1,000 word limit on submissions raises questions about how open the Government truly is to feedback on this proposal. 

Greens Senator and Digital Rights Spokesperson David Shoebridge: 

“This Bill is a modest step forward and goes some way to dragging Australia’s Privacy laws into the 21st century.

“Australians have waited too long for a privacy law that reflects how data is actually collected and used in 2026.

“Replacing “about” with “relates to” in the definition of personal information closes a loophole companies have exploited for years to argue that inferred or derived data about someone doesn’t count as their information.

“Treating AI-generated inferences as data collection is a useful step forward. For too long, a company could infer something about someone’s identity, health, or behaviour from a device and claim it never actually collected anything.

“None of this changes the basic fact that the Privacy Act still only applies to businesses and agencies, not to the person standing next to you wearing a secret camera.

“Smart glasses that whisper a stranger’s name, their job, and social media history into someone’s ear, will still sit entirely outside Privacy laws with this Bill unless it is being done during work. 

“We need to extend these laws to cover the use of so-called “smart glasses” regardless of whether or not the wearer is doing it for personal curiosity or as part of a business.

“There is still no requirement for a prominent light, a recognizable sound, or any outward sign that a pair of glasses is recording or searching online about people the wearer is seeing. 

“A right to erasure that is limited only to platforms with $500 million or more in revenue, or 2.5 million monthly users, leaves out every small app and every emerging glasses startup building exactly this kind of surveillance product.

“Today’s limited announcement from Labor makes it even more urgent to press for an import ban for all covert wearable recording technology. 

“The employee records exemption from Privacy protections is untouched again, despite being flagged as a priority for reform since 2023. The Greens believe that workers deserve the same privacy protections as everyone else.

“The Greens will be pushing to strengthen these changes, with an open door to the government to work through positive amendments, and at the same time press ahead for an urgent 12 month import ban on covert recordable devices. 

“Whatever happens, this entire privacy project is urgent, and while it should be subject to proper scrutiny, the law needs to be sorted this year, not this decade.”

The Attorney General has announced in a Budget Estimates hearing that the Minns Labor Government will not appeal the Supreme Court judgement that rejected the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, after advice from the Crown Solicitor and Senior Counsel revealed no prospects of success.  

The definition has been criticised by the Jewish Council of Australia and other peak bodies for conflating anti-Zionism and criticism of the Israeli Government with antisemitism. In State of New South Wales v Farhat [2026] NSWSC 98 5, His Honour Justice Fagan rejected the definition as “so verbose and imprecise that it could not realistically be attributed to the ordinary, reasonably informed member of the Australian public.” 

Greens MP and spokesperson for justice and solicitor Sue Higginson said: “The IHRA definition of antisemitism is an imprecise and wide-ranging definition which has no place in prosecutions and the justice system of New South Wales,  

“Justice Fagan has rightly decried the IHRA definition as incomprehensible to the ordinary and reasonable member of the Australian public. It was bewildering to see the Minns Labor Government signalling they would appeal this decision,  

“The Government’s own legal experts have clearly seen the writing on the wall and told the Attorney General that any appeal of this decision would fail,  

“Across the NSW Government, the public service, and many other private institutions, this definition remains in force despite this clear guidance of the Supreme Court. Jillian Segal is attempting to expand the application of this definition, but I think this judgement should pour cold water over that proposition,  

“I remain concerned at the circumstances which gave rise to this decision, which was an attempt to pursue an extremely troubled young Lebanese-Australian man through the judicial system and to keep him locked up despite a statutory parole order from the Courts. That parole order required the defendant to obtain mental health and drug and alcohol support,  

“A person living with financial troubles, substance abuse issues and intellectual disabilities is being mischaracterised by the State as antisemitic when in fact the Supreme Court has found that curses against Israel do not constitute antisemitism,  

“I understand the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission is overseeing a police investigation into the circumstances surrounding this young man’s prosecution, and I await the outcome of that investigation with great interest,” Ms Higginson said. 

 

Background:  

The case saw an attempt to impose an Extended Supervision Order upon 22-year-old Lebanese Australian Mohommed Farhat, who was recruited by organised criminals to spray-paint “Fuk Israel” on a car, thrown out.  

Mr Farhat suffers from low cognitive ability and substance abuse issues, and the Court held that his offending was motivated by financial gain rather than antisemitism.  

Attorney General Michael Daley’s comments in Budget Estimates, 31 August 2026:  

“No we won’t be appealing that decision…following the Supreme Court’s refusal of an application for an ESO against Mohommed Farhat I sought urgent advice on the prospects of an appeal. Having considered the advice from the Crown Solicitor, Senior and Junior Counsel, I have reached the conclusion that an appeal would have no reasonable prospects and would fail.”  

Judgement of Fagan J in State of New South Wales v Farhat [2026] NSWSC 985: 

“…antisemitism according to its established and well understood meaning is an attitude reviled in Australia. An allegation that a person is antisemitic is a grave imputation on character. Misapplication of the term to statements and attitudes concerning political subjects, such as disapproval of the state of Israel or disagreement with the ideology of Zionism, has the effect of unfairly damaging the person so accused and weakening the abhorrence that the word ‘antisemitic’ should properly evoke.” 

“In an expert opinion report tendered by the Crown, Dr Shanahan states that ‘the definition of exactly what constitutes antisemitism is debated’. There is no debate, to my knowledge, about the established meaning that I have identified above as ordinarily accepted in Australia. Dr Shanahan’s reference to debate is followed by quotation of the formulation adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). That formulation appears to be an attempt to repurpose the term ‘antisemitism’ as the name of an amalgamated concept of ‘hatred toward Jews’ and/or criticism of Israel.” 

“The State’s case on the present application has not been advanced by tendering the IHRA formulation through the report of Dr Shanahan.” 

“The IHRA formulation comprises a core text followed by ‘examples’ that ‘may serve as illustrations’. The core text is as follows: Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” 

“The 11 examples appended to that text include the following: 6 Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. 7 Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour. 8 Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. 9 Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. 10 Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” 

“The IHRA formulation does not reflect the established usage and understanding of the term ‘antisemitic’ in Australia. It does not assist the Court in its present task of determining whether the slogans spray-painted by the defendant were antisemitic according to that common understanding.” 

“The IHRA core text is so verbose and imprecise that it could not realistically be attributed to the ordinary, reasonably informed member of the Australian public. What is the ‘certain perception’? If antisemitism ‘may be expressed as hatred toward Jews’, how else ‘may’ it be expressed so as still to fall within the definition? Would the ‘certain perception’ be present in the expression of some other, less egregious, sentiment towards Jews and, if so, what? The proposition that antisemitism may ‘be directed towards … non-Jewish individuals [etc]’ appears counterintuitive to the central concept of Jew hatred. In what circumstances and within what limits would ‘rhetorical [or] physical manifestations’ of the ‘certain perception of Jews’ be antisemitic if ‘directed toward … non-Jewish individuals [etc]’?” 

“I am not the first to have criticised the inept drafting of the IHRA formulation. In the words of Sir Stephen Spedley, it ‘fails the first test of any definition: it is indefinite’. The JCA submission to the Royal Commission criticises the IHRA wording and cites a number of detailed critiques by others. Discussion of the IHRA wording and adoption of it by some institutions does not change the established meaning of a word that has been in use in the English language for 150 years. The IHRA formulation propounds a concept different from that which ‘antisemitism’ has long been understood to describe and appropriates that word to the novel concept.” 

“Criticism of Zionism, the movement that established Israel and continues to support it, stands in the same position as criticism of Israel itself. Universities Australia, a body representing 39 institutions, has described antisemitism in a long form of wording that includes the following: For most, but not all Jewish Australians, Zionism is a core part of their Jewish identity.” 

“As an ideology of Jewish nationalism, Zionism is open to political discussion and criticism, notably on grounds concerning the rights of the Palestinians. It may well be correct that ‘most, but not all Jewish Australians’ regard Zionism as ‘a core part of their Jewish identity’. That does not mean that anti-Zionists are hostile to that majority of Jews on account of their Jewishness; only that they hold a negative view of a political ideology with which the majority of Jews have chosen to identify. A contestable political question does not lose its political character upon a large proportion of a particular confessional group taking one side of the issue and feeling that it is closely associated with their religious identity. Further, the words ‘most, but not all’ are important. How can disparagement of Zionism be hostile or prejudiced towards Jews as Jews when it is only ‘most, but not all’ Jews who support the ideology, with whatever degree of fervour?” 

“From the commencement of the investigation of the index offences through to the final hearing of the summons before me, police officers and legal representatives of State agencies have repeatedly and uniformly characterised the defendant’s graffiti as antisemitic. That has led to the defendant being treated under the criminal law and in the administration of his very differently from how he would have been dealt with if the graffiti had not been so labelled. The label has been wrongly applied, injustice to the defendant has followed and the misconception has led to the State bringing these proceedings.” 

“Small business is collapsing and home values are falling because the Albanese government can’t kick its spending addiction to fuel its active inflation agenda”, said Shadow Treasurer, Tim Wilson.

Mr Wilson’s comments come in the wake of new data from Cotality showing a collapse in house prices across the country, and AIG analysis that shows business insolvencies have surged 75 per cent since pre-pandemic levels.

“Because Albanese can’t kick his spending addiction they’ve had to increase taxes, and feed their active inflation agenda of stoking inflation, taxing inflation and spending inflation and the consequences are there for everyone to see: rising rents, falling real wages, falling house prices and small business sent to the wall”, Mr Wilson said.

“3,450 businesses went under in the June quarter alone because the Albanese active inflation agenda is creating a cost of small business crisis. Every small business insolvency is a lost livelihood and now the Albanese active inflation agenda is sending home values falling because they’re pushing the RBA to push up interest rates”.

“The Albanese active inflation agenda that is forcing the hand of the RBA is killing home values”, Mr Wilson said. 

“Australian families already struggling to pay their bills are now sitting at the kitchen table watching the value of their biggest asset, their family home, fall through the floor. At the same time, first home buyers are watching their savings get slugged with higher taxes, while they pay more for rent”.

In recent years, we seem perfectly happy to celebrate every difference – every culture, every group, every identity, every grievance. But suggest that Australia might also be celebrated or that we need a common national identity, and suddenly it becomes controversial. It shouldn’t be.

A nation is not a collection of competing tribes permanently negotiating which symbols get to dominate the public square. A nation is a shared home. And a shared home needs symbols that belong to everyone.

That is what a national flag is for. 

September 3 is Australian National Flag Day. I’ll bet almost no one knows that. And perhaps that tells us something.

We increasingly talk as though Australia is simply a collection of separate communities, with nothing binding us together except geography. Too many have become antagonistic to our own national story. We teach children to question almost everything about the country they live in, yet rarely teach them to value it.

That is not developing nationhood. And it is certainly not a recipe for social cohesion.

When the Commonwealth sought a design for the new Australian flag in 1901, it wasn’t handed down from some distant authority. More than 32,000 Australians entered a design competition with 14-year-old Melbourne schoolboy Ivor Evans, one of five joint winners. It’s a reminder that national identity is something built together. 

The Australian flag is not a partisan symbol. It does not belong to one race, one religion or one political movement. The flag does not belong more to a fifth-generation Australian than to a child whose parents became citizens yesterday. Nor does it exclude Aboriginal Australians or Torres Strait Islanders. Our national flag represents all Australians because it belongs to Australia. And therefore, it belongs to every Australian.

The point of citizenship is that we are part of something bigger than ourselves. Every generation must preserve our institutions, freedoms and social cohesion for the next, but that becomes extraordinarily difficult – perhaps impossible – if we raise children to feel little attachment to the country they will one day be asked to preserve.

Nor can we continually divide people according to ancestry and expect common citizenship somehow to emerge.

National identity and social cohesion are built slowly, generation after generation, and cannot be manufactured by government after it has disappeared.

We should fly one Australian national flag, not because every Australian has the same ancestry, religion, or history. We should fly one flag because citizenship requires something more powerful than our differences: it requires a common allegiance to the country we share.

One nation. One flag.

Because we are all Australian.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will travel to Palau from 31 August to 3 September 2026 for the 55th Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Leaders’ Meeting.

This will be the Prime Minister’s first official visit to Palau and his fifth PIF Leaders’ Meeting.

The PIF is the Pacific’s premier political institution, and Australia is a founding member. Pacific Leaders will discuss the most critical issues impacting the region under the theme “Building Economies: Life. Action. Unity”.

Prime Minister Albanese will be joined by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, the Hon Chris Bowen MP, and the Minister for Pacific Island Affairs, the Hon Pat Conroy MP.

Prime Minister Albanese

“Australia is a proud member of the Pacific family, and investing in the security and prosperity of our Pacific neighbours makes our region safer and our economy stronger.
              
Our engagement in the Pacific Islands Forum and our contributions to the infrastructure, regional security and climate action of the region matter more than ever before.

The big challenges facing the Pacific require solutions designed and delivered for the Pacific, by the Pacific. And Australia has a key role to play – as a partner and leader.”

“I thank President Surangel Whipps Jr for hosting the 55th Pacific Islands Forum. The Forum is critically important for securing the future peace and prosperity of the region.”

The Australian Government is investing in the next generation of Pacific sporting talent on their journey to the Brisbane 2032 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Australia will provide $15.6 million over 4 years to support athletes and officials from 13 Pacific countries to access high-performance training and qualification opportunities to compete at major international sporting events.

In partnership with the Australian Olympic Committee, Paralympics Australia, Commonwealth Games Australia and regional organisations, the funding will maximise Pacific athletes and officials’ participation and opportunities for success.

Pacific athletes and officials will be supported for the Tahiti 2027 Pacific Games, the Los Angeles 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games and the Rarotonga 2029 Pacific Mini Games and other international sporting events.

This continues Australia’s work with Australian and regional sporting organisations to increase Pacific participation in major games.

This partnership reflects Australia’s commitment to ensure Pacific athletes have every opportunity to compete, succeed and leave a sustained legacy that contributes to continued Pacific sporting excellence.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese

“The Pacific is home to incredible sporting talent. This new partnership will contribute to producing the next generation of successful athletes.

“As we move forward in planning for Brisbane 2032 Australia looks forward to welcoming the best of the best sporting talent from the Pacific and supporting them to go for gold.”

Minister Pat Conroy

“Sport has a unique power to bring people together, and support healthy lives, gender equity and youth leadership.

“This is an investment in the development of athletes across the Pacific. I look forward to seeing many successful Pacific athletes at the upcoming Paralympics, Commonwealth and Olympic Games.”

Today marks the 75th anniversary of the ANZUS Treaty, a cornerstone of Australia’s defence and security, and a foundation of our enduring cooperation with the United States and New Zealand.

The signing of the ANZUS Treaty in 1951 formalised the Australia-US Alliance, which was forged on the battlefields of two world wars.

For more than seven decades, the Alliance has underpinned peace, stability and prosperity in our region and continues to contribute to the region’s strategic balance. 

Today the United States remains our closest ally and principal strategic partner.

As we look to the future, we work closely with the United States to deliver for the Australian and American people, deepening the bonds of friendship and goodwill that have connected our nations for generations.

The Alliance between Australia and New Zealand remains closer than ever, tightly bound by our shared history. Our security partnership was founded in the days of the first ANZACs, with this spirit continuing to enliven our modern Alliance.

Today, our Alliance continues to evolve, including efforts to operate as an increasingly integrated, combat capable ANZAC force. Our Alliance has a critical role in safeguarding national security and supporting stability in the Indo-Pacific as we work to shape a region where sovereignty is respected.

As we mark this milestone amidst an increasingly complex strategic environment, we reaffirm the enduring value of ANZUS.