Australia’s federal government has adopted a cautious, wait-and-see approach following the United States’ extraordinary military operation to seize Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and transfer him to US custody, saying it will reserve judgment until Washington explains the legal and factual basis of the intervention.
Senior Labor ministers on Monday repeatedly stressed Australia’s commitment to international law while declining to say whether the operation — reportedly ordered by President Donald Trump and involving the extraction of Maduro and his wife from Caracas — breached the United Nations charter.
Industry Minister Tim Ayres said the Albanese government was focused on establishing what had actually occurred, rather than rushing to a legal or political conclusion.
“It’s for the United States to make out the argument here and to set out the facts,” Ayres told ABC Radio National. “This is very early in this series of events, and we are, as a government, working carefully to establish the facts and gather evidence about what has occurred.”
The US operation, described by American officials as a targeted action to bring Maduro to face charges of narco-terrorism and drug trafficking, has sent shockwaves through diplomatic circles, raising urgent questions about sovereignty, the use of force, and the future governance of Venezuela.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers reinforced the government’s cautious stance, saying Australia would be closely monitoring developments and expected clarity from Washington on the legal framework underpinning the intervention.
“We are supporters of international law, and it’s for the Americans to make clear the legal basis of the steps taken over the weekend,” Chalmers said at a press conference. He described the situation as “fast-moving” and warned against escalation.
“Our position is to encourage the relevant parties now to engage in dialogue and diplomacy and to ensure that there’s not an escalation,” he said.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Sunday reiterated Australia’s long-standing concerns about Venezuela’s human rights record and democratic backsliding, but stopped short of endorsing the US action. Government officials have also moved to assess consular risks, with Ayres confirming that steps were being taken to ensure the safety of Australians currently in Venezuela.
“At a consular level, we are ensuring that the safety of Australians in Venezuela is being looked after,” he said. “We will continue to watch this closely and carefully in the Australian national interest.”
While the government has been measured, opposition figures have been more forthright. Opposition Leader Sussan Ley welcomed Maduro’s removal, framing it as a step toward democratic transition.
“The Coalition’s position has always been for a transition to democracy in Venezuela,” Ley said. “Dictators and despots should always face justice.”
Nationals leader David Littleproud was similarly blunt in his assessment of Maduro, branding him an “illegitimate, brutal dictator” whose rule had been marked by alleged election theft, violent repression of protests, and the crushing of political opposition. However, Littleproud also sounded a note of caution, warning against a prolonged or open-ended military engagement.
“This should be more than about oil or drugs,” Littleproud told the Seven Network’s Sunrise program. “This should be about returning the country of Venezuela back to its people.”
Drawing a clear parallel with past US-led interventions, Littleproud said the world was watching closely to see Washington’s next move. “I don’t think the Trump administration wants to repeat Iraq,” he said, stressing the importance of respecting Venezuelan sovereignty and ensuring a rapid, orderly transition back to civilian control.
“I think there’s been universal applause for Maduro to be gone,” he added. “But it’s important that we see the country returned to Venezuelan people as soon as possible, in the most orderly way.”
Other Coalition figures echoed concerns about what comes next. Shadow trade minister Kevin Hogan said the removal of Maduro immediately raised questions about governance and stability.
“There are now questions, obviously, that have to be answered,” Hogan told Radio National. “What happens now in the immediate future of Venezuela?”
The strongest criticism of the US action has come from the Greens. Senator David Shoebridge described the intervention as a “gross breach of international law” and accused Washington of pursuing strategic and economic interests under the guise of justice.
“Lawlessness without consequences helps dictators, tyrants and aggressors,” Shoebridge said in a statement on Sunday. “It places the world on a very dangerous footing.”
“This US war is not about self-defence, like so many before it,” he said. “This is a war about resources, oil and dominance.”
For now, Canberra’s official position remains deliberately restrained. Ministers insist they will not speculate on legality or precedent until the United States provides a detailed account of the operation and its justification under international law.
As global reactions continue to unfold, Australia finds itself balancing its alliance with Washington against its stated commitment to a rules-based international order — a tension likely to sharpen as more details emerge about how Maduro was removed, who now governs Venezuela, and whether the US intends a rapid exit or a longer-term role in the country’s future.
