Why Australia is shifting its language on Israel-Iran

ABC Listen.

Podcasts, radio, news, music, and more.

Nearly two years ago, Aaron Patterson served a deadly beef Wellington lunch to our family at that now infamous mushroom lunch and soon the jury will hand down a verdict.

Guilty or not guilty.

I'm Stephen Stockwell.

And I'm Rachel Brown.

Each day we're racing straight from court to our Mushroom Case Daily studio to bring you all the evidence from the trial.

We have a new podcast episode every evening the court is sitting.

Hit the follow button on the Mushroom Case Daily podcast so you don't miss a single one.

You can find it on the ABC Listen app.

Today the Australian people have voted for Australian values.

Government is always formed in a sensible centre but our Liberal Party reflects a range of views.

Politics is the brutal game arithmetic but no one's going to vote for you who don't stand for something.

We've always been about the planet but we've got to make sure that people have their daily needs met.

People are starting to see that there is actually a different way of doing politics.

Hello and welcome to the party room.

I'm Patricia Carvellis and I'm joining you from Melbourne here on Burangerie Country.

And I'm Melissa Clark in Ngunnawal Country here in Canberra.

I'm filling in for Fran today.

Good to be back with you, PK.

Fantastic to talk to you, Mel.

And what a week.

What a time.

There's so much to dive into today because it's been,

well, just a very intense week for the world, I think it's fair to say.

The Prime Minister has been on the global stage at the G7 and while his highly anticipated meeting with Donald Trump didn't go ahead for very good reasons, I think it's fair to say, there is

a pretty big conflict going on in the Middle East.

It seems the Prime Minister is leaving the door open for potential talks on the sidelines of an upcoming NATO summit.

But the G7 talks were really overshadowed by the escalating Israel-Iran conflict.

And while Australia is continuing to urge restraint, de-escalation for both parties, trying to put, I think if you listen linguistically, there's definitely a bit more pressure on Iran in terms of the language Australia is trying to apply that they should come back to the negotiating table.

But either way,

it's the language of

take the temperature down, not US get involved in the conflict.

A lot of speculation, though.

We're recording this on a Thursday morning.

The US might get involved.

They're clearly keeping that door wide open, but leaving everyone guessing.

Peter Harcher is political and international editor for the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age.

He'll join us shortly for analysis of what it all means.

But, Mel, you know, let's focus our conversation if we can to back home before we get into the foreign affairs, which is everything, because something huge has happened this week.

The treasurer has delivered what I think is a seismic

statement about the future economic reform direction of this government.

Reform which is progressive and patriotic in the PM's words, but also practical and pragmatic as well.

Reform from the centre in a world of polarising and sometimes unsettling extremes.

And methodical reform, which is considered and collaborative and ambitious.

Now this begins with

to undertake tax reform or at least indicating the willingness to undertake tax reforms.

When they weren't willing in the past, which is why I think it's seismic.

They weren't willing, now they are willing.

And we've seen such a change from

just even during the election campaign before and even the immediate aftermath of the election campaign, it was very much about we'll stick to the mandate that the people have given us.

And now first from Anthony Albanese in his speech to the National Press Club last week and then Jim Chalmers' speech giving the economic view from the National Press Club this week, it's all been about, well, that was the foundations, but we can build on the foundations of the mandate we have from the public.

They are a foundation, not a destination.

We have a mandate to deliver the policies and plans that we took to the election, but we also have a duty to build on them.

And the best way to work.

If this is a kite flying, it's a very big kite flying because it is the federal government testing the waters of appetite and response around tax reform.

Now

Jim Chalmers in his speech is talking about having these three priorities, productivity, which he's already talked about quite a bit already, talking about budget sustainability, which is where the tax debate really comes to the fore, and then resilience in the face of global volatility.

To deliver higher living standards for our people, we recognise three blunt truths.

Our budget is stronger, but it's not yet sustainable enough.

Our economy is growing, but it's not productive enough.

It is resilient, but it's not resilient enough in the face of all of this global economic volatility.

Frankly, for that resilience, you need budget sustainability because it's the ability of the federal government to be able to intervene with fiscal support if needed in a time of crisis.

And to do that, you need a good budget foundation.

And at the moment, we have a situation where our tax revenue is not keeping up with our service delivery.

So to manage that we need reform and PK we seem to have some willingness for that.

The willingness is what really I think is genuinely quite significant and I'll explain.

I think you talk you walked through the sort of stages.

It's like you know the the process of kind of warming everyone up to where you're going to go.

And on this I think the

Prime Minister and the Treasurer have played this really well politically.

That's how I view it.

And I'll tell you why.

What they've done, which I actually think in the current context of how resistant our

political class, our maybe voters who have been kind of trained in this kind of oppositional small strategy world.

What they've done is allowed the public and the independents, people like Allegra Spender, to build a sort of movement and consensus around change.

And then they've walked into it to say, okay,

we're listening.

There needs to be.

And so it's quite, if you think of it almost like...

It's operatic.

You know, they've kind of constructed it in a way where they don't, they're not front running it.

They are coming after there has been a sort of mood for this change.

I think that's clever because there has been a resistance to doing big things and that's not just from them.

It was the message out of the 2019 election loss for Labor and the miracle win from Scott Morrison.

So it's taken some time to get to a point where the nation would move.

And there's one thing I want to mention and then throw it to you, Mel, which is the big line from Jim Chalmers, which I thought was super smart and just shows that I think he's one of the best political operatives and thinkers in the government, was calling for the end of the rule in, rule out questions, which he described as cancerous.

I talked about this with David Spears, but I want to go into it because what it does is open the door for him to be able to do really big things by putting pressure on, guess who?

Newspaper editors, journalists in interviews.

It actually puts us on notice because what he's saying is, I can't do this stuff if you keep boxing me in.

I can't do the things that you keep calling for.

And he's probably right, but it's really smart because he's reframed the debate, Mel.

I just, I just think it was really clever because all of a sudden it's like the whole kind of Canberra establishment is coming with him at this stage and saying, oh, yeah, that was kind of dumb.

The people who've been doing it are saying it's kind of dumb.

Don't you think it's genius?

Maybe I'm a little more cynical, PK, because I agree we could have a far better public debate if we don't have a rule-in-rule-out game.

And tax reform is a really great example of where we can get much better discussion, debate, and eventually outcomes by being willing to discuss all sorts of options and permutations.

But I look at those comments and think, you know what?

It's the parties in parliament who have been key prosecutors of the rule-in-rule-out game.

It's all very well for Jim Chalmers to ask the media and newspaper editors and commentators and those in public policy development to say, you know, lay off the rule-in-rule-out game, it's not helping.

But it's the Labour Party, the coalition, others in parliament have made these, guarantee me this, rule this in, rule that out.

You left this gap open here, what are they going to do next?

That's been a key political attack line from both sides against each other over many, many, many years.

So, while I agree with the premise of what Jim Chalmers is saying, I would say there's a bit of pot, kettle, black going on here.

Ah,

I'm going to sign up to that theory.

Don't you worry, absolutely, because that's a very fair critique.

But in terms of where we go now, whether you could argue it's contradictory or not, which, yep, sure, I'm happy to say that it's contradictory.

Well, before we go to where we go,

can I just ask you more on your thoughts?

Since since you're singing the praises of the operatic development of getting to this well i think it's smart if we can start having some real debates without having scare campaigns which is what he's also doing he's saying if you don't do that then we don't have the scare campaigns they're going to have some real mature discussions and work out what's good for the country which i'm i'm i'm very much in favor of i'm very team australia i want to do what's good for the country not what's good for, you know, tit for tat every day.

I think we'll all sign up for that.

I guess my question is, because

I'm not sure I have the answer for this, and I feel like you have a good view on how the government's arrived at this point.

And you talked about the government letting other people in the system

create a bit of momentum, get some groundwork going on the idea of tax reform, and then they've been able to step into it, which really suggests a...

a designed process of getting there.

Is that how you think it's happened?

Or is there a chance that the very large and unexpectedly large election victory has given them this serendipitous opportunity to perhaps be a little braver than they might have otherwise been?

How much of this is pre-planned design over a two-term strategy?

And of course, Anthony Albanese himself has often talked about thinking about all of the things he wants to achieve in

the basis of two terms.

And how much of it is grabbing an opportunity that presents itself with such a commanding victory and such a strong position in both chambers in parliament.

Column A, column B, it's both.

It really is.

And I actually think, not that you could, you know, prove it, this is not a science, but I think it's almost in equal proportions.

So the building of momentum around it, which sometimes I think the Treasurer has found a little frustrating how much

those and you know, he spoke in these opaque terms, but I'm going to call out what he's really talking about.

When he talked about, you know, the people calling for reform who then campaign against every change, you know, something, some form of words that sort of suggested that.

He's talking about the Finn Review, he's talking about the Australian newspaper.

That's what he's talking about.

So it's true.

They run story after story after story calling for bold, big reforms.

That's what they do.

They talk about the Hawkeating era and how incredible it was, the wages, prices, accord.

And

this was an incredible era of big thinking.

But at the same time, any shift, any change,

they actually are very much participants often in the rule-in-rule out game.

And so there is a contradiction.

So he was frustrated by that, but then the building of this momentum, and you know, you have to call out the people who have been part of that, the Grattan Institute, think tanks who have made the case, individuals who are big thinkers, the Ken Henrys of the world, former Treasury Secretary, Allegra Spender, who is, of course, the independent for Wentworth, who did her own bloody tax paper.

And all of a sudden, the Treasurer is now saying, yes, yes, individual taxpayers, younger people, are carrying the burden of taxation in the country, which is true, which is wrong, which is inequitable, and now opening the door for change.

Back to your other point, is the thumping victory part of it?

Of course it is, because they can take more risks, because if they lose a bit of the shine, they've got a big buffer and they don't necessarily, you know, at the next election, lose, even if they lose some ground.

I do think that's really important because I think the appetite from Jim Chalmers himself for reform has been higher than that of the Labor parliamentary party more generally.

Maybe the Prime Minister.

Than the Prime Minister.

I think we saw that.

There are people in the Labor Party who would love these changes.

But there has been nervousness

in cabinet, amongst the tactics committee, as you mentioned before, from the 2019 election experience, the cautiousness there, I feel, has finally started to be eroded because of the strength of the 2025 election victory.

And that gives Jim Chalmers more space

in which to make the case that I think he's probably wanted to make before this point, but has patiently waited for the right opportunity.

And he's seizing that now.

He is seizing it, and he's right to seize it.

But of course, this is the easy bit, laying down the

rules, small meeting, trying to build a consensus, appetite for reform.

Our economy needs it.

So the case has been built.

Execution is the hard bit.

So good luck over the next month or so.

That's going to be the really hard bit.

Should we bring our guest in?

Let's do it.

Peter Harcher is the political and international editor for the Sydney Morning Herald and the Age.

Peter, it's great to have you on the podcast.

It's been a really intense week in international affairs.

I mean, I've said that before, but I think it's almost sort of the most intense I've seen in some time, and that's saying something given the last couple of years.

I just want to start with Anthony Albanese's trip to the G7.

and all of those diplomatic wins he has had, I think, as Prime Minister as he flexed his middle power muscle on the world stage.

There was also the one that got away, Donald Trump, departing the summit early to attend a situation room briefing on the conflict between Israel and Iran.

And we'll get to, you know, what's going on there with the Trump sort of, will I get involved or will I not get involved?

Dance he's playing on some serious issues.

But Anthony Albanese

used a very interesting framing to explain it all.

He said he was being mature about it.

It sort of mirrored the were the adults in the room language that they used after they were first elected.

We all know Trump is a transactional guy.

It's been many months.

He really needs this meeting, doesn't he, Peter?

Well, if I can start on your observation, Patricia, about the intensity of geopolitics, you're dead right.

And I think this is just the most extraordinary time where we see, you know, it's not every day you see the end of an empire.

And even more extraordinary is that the Americans under Trump are actively giving away elements of their unique power.

It's really a remarkable time in world affairs, and that's why it's so fast-paced and fascinating and potentially dangerous.

But

more specifically on your point about Albanese and the meeting, it would be in a normal, in the normal course of events, the Prime Minister would want to talk to the President of the US.

Under Donald Trump, meetings with foreign leaders have become more like exercises in risk management because of the potential that it can go horribly, horribly wrong and you end up not getting any benefit, but in fact, harm out of a meeting.

Albanese didn't have any burning.

We don't have a burning crisis.

And I think even though it's a little awkward for Albanese and he looks like he's lost a bit of face, he's deliberately used that word that you've highlighted, Patricia, mature, that he's being mature to contrast that with the perception that Trump is impetuous and childlike and Albanese wants to look like the grown-up in the room.

But we're all mature about that.

We understand the circumstances which are there.

But in the absence of a burning crisis, does he really need the meeting?

His analysis is that the tariff deal that Australia's got is about the best available to any country in the world, which is right, except for Russia, which has a complete exemption, and that on the AUKUS review, that it's a fairly standard piece of business, that Trump isn't threatening to walk away from AUKUS.

In fact, he and Keir Starmer from Britain appear to have reinforced it.

So there's no panic in the Australian government.

And Albanese's subtly distancing himself from Trump does him no political harm here at home, where seven out of ten Australians, according to the Lowy poll last week, have a pretty low opinion of Donald Trump and don't think he can be trusted.

Lower than Xi Jinping.

Unbelievable.

That's right.

Really remarkable stuff.

So, Peter, if Anthony Albanese and the government isn't overly stressed by the issues that it does want to press with Donald Trump when they get the opportunity to do that,

How much imperative then is there to actually secure the next meeting?

Because we know Anthony Albanese has now said he's considering going to the NATO meeting that's happening in the Netherlands next week, which wasn't originally part of his plan.

Richard Miles as the Defence Minister was going to be there.

I'm considering, I had discussions with a range of

people over the last

couple of days, obviously including I met with the NATO Secretary General yesterday.

But it seems that if there's the chance of securing one-on-one with Donald Trump on the sidelines of the NATO meeting that Anthony Albanese is willing to do that.

So get back to Australia immediately, jump on the plane and go to Europe.

How hard should he be trying to get that meeting?

Is the risk of, you know, as you rightly pointed out, sometimes meetings with Donald Trump can go very wrong.

But given the issues aren't the most pressing ones and there's a lot of work going on in the background with what Kevin Rudd is doing with Elbridge Colby, with the meeting that Anthony Albanese had himself with the key economic advisors to Donald Trump, is it really necessary to go to those lengths to try and get that face-to-face meeting?

Or does it need to happen because ultimately he's the one that makes the decision so the FaceTime's important enough that you need to go to those lengths to do it?

Well, you don't want to look desperate, do you?

And that would be

starting to look a bit desperate if you were doing that.

And imagine if that's the reason he makes the trip and he does go,

the meeting doesn't eventuate.

That would be looking quite pathetic by then.

I think there is a good reason, though, for him to go to the NATO meeting, which is all the European leaders,

all the ones that count, will be in one place at one time.

And what I think

Australia is in the process, like the rest of the world and all US allies, of learning

is that nobody can rely on the US anymore.

And that's for countries like ours and all the other NATO, all the NATO members in Europe and Canada.

We've all built our entire national security doctrines, structures, and militaries around the US.

Well, it's now an absent, potentially absent ally in any situation.

So if Albanese's

motivation is to take the opportunity to go and talk to the Europeans,

we now know that Albanese has agreed to both an intensified defence relationship with the European Union and a new trade agreement with the European Union.

So this new intensification of Australia-EU relations is important.

It's underway.

And if that's the reason for a trip now to Europe, well, that would be a good thing.

A desperate pursuit of Trump would be a...

a slightly sad thing.

And

if that's the whole point, then it would be better, I think, to set up a formal meeting for a couple of months' time.

I think they need to start changing the optics around this NATO meeting, make a decision that he's just going to go regardless and change the kind of language around it having to be about Trump, don't you think, Peter?

And just fully invest.

I think that's exactly right.

This is a new world, and America is no longer.

the central player in it.

And countries have to adjust accordingly.

And if Albanese says that outright, not that he's dumping america or america's dumped us but that we're embracing europe more uh i think we just want to go we just want to be part of

yeah i think that would be mature that would be mature that would be mature and also smart in so much as if it happens to happen the meeting it happens but if it doesn't it's kind of like whatever we're not here for that primarily anyway i just think it changes the optics around it for him as well and also yeah it's it's just a useful thing to do look i think that the elephant in the room in this conversation is obviously the thing that the president left over or said he left over.

And I think, well, he did.

And that is the escalation in the conflict between Israel and Iran.

And this is now,

well, we're recording this on a Thursday morning.

Clearly, the National Security Committee has met in the United States.

It seems to me, Peter, that the U.S.

is prepared to be involved.

That doesn't mean they they will be involved, but it means that they've opened that door now firmly.

Is that right?

Yeah, Trump, the American system has given Trump a series of options for action.

And we heard, I think, first from the Wall Street Journal that Trump has approved that plan, but not yet agreed to implement it.

Trump says he's giving Iranians time to come to the negotiating table so that they don't lose their country or some

equally colorful language.

But Trump's really conflicted.

As he said himself just a few hours ago, I may do it, I may not do it.

Nobody knows what I'm going to do.

You don't know.

I may do it.

I may not do it.

I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do.

I can tell you this: that Iran's got a lot of trouble and they want to negotiate.

And I said, why didn't you negotiate with me before?

All this death.

You could have done fine.

You would have.

Well, thank you.

Thank you, President.

So he's conflicted.

You know, there are two on two levels here.

Domestic political base is divided,

very angrily divided.

The whole point for much of the MAGA movement, the whole point of Donald Trump

was to keep the US out of wars.

These are the so-called restrainers and J.D.

Vance, the vice president, is the most senior representative of that school.

That the U.S.

And, you know, Vance served in Iraq.

This is a generation of Americans who've only known failed American military adventures, Iraq, Afghanistan.

They've had no experience.

I mean, the last time the U.S.

won a major war was World War II.

So they think it's a complete loss and a disaster for the U.S.

to get involved.

Then you've got the prioritizers.

Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon official who's conducting the AUKUS review, is an example of

that view.

These are real experts who believe the U.S.

has the firepower and the priority

to target one country only, and that's China.

That China is the greatest threat to U.S.

interests and U.S., and that it should prioritize China and ignore the Middle East, which is no longer, in their view, a vital U.S.

concern.

So

he's got that going on, while he's also got primacists, the internationalists, the traditional Republicans who think the U.S.

absolutely has to protect Israel, absolutely has to protect its access to oil in the Middle East, absolutely has to remain primary.

But he's had Netanyahu in his ear.

And in many ways, Netanyahu has played this so spectacularly, hasn't he?

He's kind of drawn Trump in.

He's actually outsmarted Trump, hasn't he?

You're saying that as if it were a particularly high bar to jump there, Trisha.

Sometimes...

To be honest, I think Trump is underestimated in the way that he can sometimes,

you know, whether it's accidental or not, win.

But in this sense, he has been drawn in.

No, you're right.

I shouldn't be so snarky.

It's not very mature of me.

Yes, be a grown-up government, please.

Yes, and I'll do my best just to meet the standard.

But look, you're right.

Well, essentially, Netanyahu has ridden roughshod over Trump because Trump said, no, don't attack.

I'm negotiating with the Iranians.

I think we can get an agreement with the Iranians to cease their nuclear enrichment program.

And Netanyahu said, well, bugger you.

I'm going in.

And Trump reluctantly said, oh, all right then.

And now Netanyahu, after nearly a week into this war,

is trying to persuade Trump to join.

And Trump might yet.

And there's a lot of pressure, political pressure in the U.S.

for him to do so.

But the other guy in Trump's ear, this is the second level on which he's torn.

The first level is domestic politics.

Second level is he's also got Vladimir Putin in his ear.

And Putin is, of course, the major sponsor and ally of Iran.

And he's saying to Trump, no, listen,

this is a terrible war.

You have to be the peacemaker.

Don't join the Israeli attack on my friend and ally, Iran.

And in fact, I want to be the peace mediator.

Let me go in.

And he's now put a peace plan to the Americans, the Israelis and the Iranians.

And Trump has said he's open to Vladimir Putin going into negotiate a Middle East peace,

subcontracting out US foreign policy to a traditional American rival, which is just extraordinary.

So Peter, this could from here go in a million different ways.

And while we're waiting for Donald Trump to decide which way he's going to jump, I think it's worth rounding out our conversation by looking at what's happening back here in Canberra.

And I think we've seen over the last 24, 48 hours, a bit of a shift in how the Australian government is approaching this.

You know, earlier in the week, the emphasis was very much on Australia calling for de-escalation from everyone, urging everyone to come back to dialogue and diplomacy.

I think we heard that line ad nauseum from senior government figures.

But in the last 24 to 48 hours, the language from Penny Wong in particular seems to have really shifted.

It's time, beyond time, for Iran to come back to the negotiating table,

for Iran to agree to discontinue any nuclear program.

What do you make of this shift in language that's happening while we're still trying to figure out where this conflict is headed?

Yes, you're right.

There has been a clear,

if unannounced, change in the balance of the Australian government's position where they were trying to apply equal pressure, rhetorically at least, on the two sides.

mutually for restraint.

That's dropped out of the language and now the Australian position is

tacitly endorsing the Israeli attack on Iran.

The causes belly for this war is that the Iranians are developing and have been

a nuclear weapon capability.

They have nuclear electricity, but they want nuclear weapons.

That the IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency last week, the day before Netanyahu attacked Iran, said that Iran was in breach of its commitments, that there was evidence of secret development of fissile materials, and that that justified Netanyahu's attack.

And the Australian government is effectively now recognising that with the new rhetoric that they're using, that it's the Iranians who have offended here and the Israelis are only protecting themselves by trying to destroy the nuclear weapons program

of a dangerous neighbor.

And that's the change that's occurred in the Australian government.

Peter, it's been so great to have your view on this, given the degree of uncertainty we have at the moment.

This could go many of which ways, but thanks for taking us through how you're seeing the state of the world right now.

Pleasure, Mel.

Thanks so much, Peter.

Always a pleasure, Patricia.

We'll move to questions without notice.

We'll give the call to the Leader of the Opposition.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.

My question is to the Prime Minister.

Order.

The bells are ringing.

That means it's time for question time.

And this week's question comes from Aria in London.

I'm a student, and since the election, I've been trying to really get into Australian politics, because it's sort of similar to British, but with a kind of more dynamic flair.

The thing that I'd like more information on is how the Australian Labour Party has formalised factions of left and right.

Of course, both UK Labour and the Democrats have their left and right wings, but as far as I can tell, the Australian Labour Party is the only one to actually have formalised these into like factional groups.

Could you explain a bit more how they came about and how it actually works in practice?

Cheers.

Really interesting question.

So you want to understand how the factions work because they're a little more organised in Australia.

The factions are very difficult to understand.

And one of the most interesting parts of them is while they used to be very

ideological, I think, in history, I think Mel, you'd agree.

So the right faction

was very, you know, sometimes more associated with the Catholic rights.

So often was more things like more anti-abortion linked to the SDA, the shoppies union, for instance.

So used to take a more, you know, stronger position on things like gay marriage.

And then the left used to be more progressive in the sorts of things it was pushing for.

I reckon some of that has changed.

I sometimes see people who are in the sort of right-wing faction of the Labor Party who I consider to be more socially progressive even than some members of the left.

And the groupings are a bit more about power bases and career elevation.

How do you see it?

I think that's a really accurate representation.

There's still an ideological element to some of the factional groupings, but it's much diluted compared to what it has been in the past.

But I think it'd be good to just point back to a little more

history perhaps to get a sense of why the factions in the Labor Party are so strong and that's because it's a fairly unique situation in Australia.

The factions, the union element of the Labor Party actually has a formalised role in the political party.

So

when the Labor Party gather every three years for their conferences, 50% of the delegates are set aside for union figures, 50% from rank and file from the party.

And that's really unusual, even in Labor-based parties in other countries.

There's not usually a carved out 50%

allocation directly to union delegates.

So the link to unions is strong.

So the factional groupings that are based around those unions and where they align carries through pre-selections, policy determinations and ultimately to the MPs who sit in parliament themselves.

Because as you rightly point out, it's very much around power base, personal progression through the Labor Party.

You just really need to be in the factional system.

But then Ari's question about how they work in practice, like to give you an example, when Parliament sits, the Labor Party MPs all get together on Tuesday morning, so do all the Coalition MPs, and that's where they have their caucus, make decisions on how they're voting on legislation.

But these days, most of the real decision-making of the Labor Party MPs and senators is actually done the day before on the Monday, because that's when the factions have their meeting.

So on Monday, you know, the various New South Wales right groupings gets together, the left in Victoria get together, all the different groupings make their own decisions.

The factions then come together and figure out the numbers.

And often by the time you have the caucus meeting of all of the Labour MPs and senators on the Tuesday, the outcomes have already been figured out because the factions have figured out the numbers the days before.

So they're very entrenched.

They're very entrenched in the pre-selection process to the point where in the parliamentary party itself, there's only two MPs that are not members of factions.

They're both members from the Australian Capital Territory, Andrew Lee and Alicia Payne.

And that certainly put a ceiling on the career trajectory of Andrew Lee to this point because he doesn't have factional support to elevate into cabinet when I think otherwise he would be a very worthy contender for a cabinet position.

So the factions in Australia, look, Aria is very right to point out it's a very interesting dynamic and in some ways quite unique compared to its equivalents in other countries.

Yeah, I think that's absolutely right.

Look, we've got another question, Catherine, from the Electorate of Griffith in Queensland.

Hello, lovely part of the world.

Hi, PK and Fran, and I'm adding Anmel.

Given the recent changes to the US's behaviour towards Australia and Canada this year, has the concept of the Commonwealth become more substantial to both countries?

Love listening.

Thank you, Catherine.

Well, yeah, actually, it kind of has in an unusual kind of way.

You saw it in Canada where all of a sudden, you know, the king was invited and

it's like we're all sort of

into anything that can build alliances outside of the US, really, for trade, for defense.

We're seeing that increasingly and I think the Commonwealth being outside of the US is just part of that.

So I don't think it's any more complicated than that, but it's really that we are outside of that

trade framework as well.

It's just coincidence, I think, that we're part of the Commonwealth.

What do you think, Phil?

Yeah, I think the Commonwealth is an institution.

You know, we still have the annual Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting that goes on.

I'm not sure that, as sort of a formalised institution, is necessarily stronger, but I think those historical links of the Commonwealth are being leaned heavily on

as

national leaders try and figure out how to navigate this global world with Donald Trump being very unreliable as an ally.

So, where previously we might have looked at a grouping of five eyes, for example, of the US involved and the UK and Canada and New Zealand, it's now like, well, how can these countries work together without the US?

And you take out the US in that example, and you are looking at historically Commonwealth countries.

So, I think it's more leaning on a bit of history in times of uncertainty more than anything formalised with the Commonwealth.

But yeah, it's a reshaping of multilateralism, really.

We're seeing a lot more bilateral meetings, a lot more one-on-one leaders, meetings between leaders because the normal groupings that we'd come to rely on suddenly aren't so reliable when, like we see with the G7, sometimes the US president walks out halfway through.

Yeah, catch you later.

We'll keep hanging out is the message.

I mean, we have to keep keep hanging out because if you don't want to hang out with us, you've got to find other ways of getting resolving some of these issues.

And what we're seeing is that when your friend isn't very friendly to you, if I can put it in this way, you kind of go, oh, maybe I need some more friends.

Like maybe I need to expand my circle because my bestie keeps snubbing me.

Like my bestie is not there when I need them.

And safety and numbers.

Safety and numbers, I think, is also a key part of here because if there is pushing back against Donald Trump or taking a different direction, as we see with things like imposing sanctions against Israel, which the US is standing firmly behind on a range of matters, there's also a bit of a feeling of safety and numbers if we can act together.

Yeah, that's definitely right.

Well, we loved your questions, very good ones.

Keep sending them in.

Send them to the email, thepartyroom at abc.net.au.

And remember to follow Politics Now on the ABC Listen app.

That way you'll never miss an episode.

That's it for the party room this week.

Mel, that was really excellent.

Thank you so much for joining me today.

Thanks for having me.

I know Fran will be back very soon, but it's always good to jump into,

admittedly I'm a political nerd, but this is the best party in town.

So thanks for having me on the party room.

It's good to have a supremely cool party.

And Mel, you'll actually be back for Insiders on Background on Saturday.

That's right.

I'm filling in for David Spears.

So we're going to keep the political conversation, the party, going.

But thanks for having me on the party room today.

Who's your guest?

We're still working on that.

Got a few balls in the air.

We'll have it sorted very soon.

You've put me on the spot, PK.

Oh, no.

That was so fun.

See you, Mel.

See ya.